Loading...
02-10-1993 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1993 The following agenda was considered by the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization at a regular meeting held on Wednesday, February 10, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. , in the City Council Chambers, City Hall , 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Luchini , Chairman (Dona Ana County) Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) Ken Miyagishima (Dona Ana County) Nelson Clayshulte (Town of Mesilla) John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces) MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Luchini called the meeting to order. There was a quorum. REVIEW OF MINUTES: Mr. Luchini said, has everyone had a chance to review the Minutes. Mr. Haltom moved for approval of the Minutes. Mr. Southworth seconded. There was no further discussion of the Minutes and they were approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Luchini said, the next order of business is Discussion of Projects for inclusion in the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) . Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, as we mentioned at the meeting in January we requested some input or direction on the type of projects the Policy Committee would like for us to add to the Unified Work Program for fiscal year 1993-94. Included in your packet is a list generated by MPO staff. It lists four items that we see as potential projects that are either ongoing or will be conducted during the next fiscal year. The first one is Picacho Hills Alternative Access Road Study. This is being driven by the developers out there at Picacho Hills. We're currently in the process of reviewing with ETZ staff a sketched plan proposal out there that contains approximately 50 acres. The concern that staff has is the ultimate population that would be out there and the need for secondary access. We expressed to them that we feel the MPO needs to be involved with looking at that area and the potential development that can occur in the future. That is why we recommend that project be added to the UWP. It is something that might even come before the MPO prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year. The second item is the Bike Path Master Plan. That is something we' re currently in the process of working on now. We forsee at least a preliminary draft being submitted sometime in the next fiscal year. We'd like the MPO to be involved with that. The third item is the Engler Road project which most of you are familiar with. It has currently been processed to the ETZ Commission and in their review they have still not made any decision or provided any recommendation dealing with that project. So, we are awaiting their response. The last item is another request by MPO staff. It's dealing with trying to continue the process of improving the AE Rating System and also the AE/TIP document itself. We were currently considering modifications to the way it is formatted trying to make it more consistent with the State's Five Year Plan. That will solve some of the confusion that we have with projects that are multiphased, meaning that the first project is final design, and then the second phase is dealing with only a section of the entire project and it becomes very confusing trying to locate all those projects. That is something -2- that we're requesting to add also to the UWP. Depending on the direction from the Policy Committee tonight, we will be submitting the formal Unified Work Program at the next meeting in March for formal consideration. That will include the entire packet--the monies that we are anticipating receiving for the next fiscal year and whatever projects you desire to have placed on the UWP. With that, I ' ll be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Southworth said, I would like to make a pitch for expanding project number four to include also a rating system for the first two years of the TIP. The reason that I feel that's important is that by the time we get around to rating the Annual Element, the Highway Department is already 90% committed on what goes into their Annual Element. If we' re going to really influence what goes into the Highway Department' s Five Year Plan and Annual Element, I feel that we've got to get in with our ratings at least 3 years ahead of time. I realize that' s a big increase in effort, particularly in the first year. After the first year, you'd only have to refine those ratings as you came down through the years. I really feel that our Rating System as it stands is getting more sophisticated but it' s too late to do the job only on the first year. Mr. Denmark said, we don't have a problem with that and it' s an excellent idea. It would improve on establishing criteria and looking a little farther ahead. Our only concern and it's something we' re currently working on is streamlining the AE and the TIP because what has happened in the past is that everyting that was rated very low on the AE, ended up being on the first year TIP. Our TIP has grown tremendously in the last few years. We've tried to make an effort towards getting it down to realistic numbers where there's enough projects on there for flexibility in case there's changes in policy decisions throughout that particular year, but it' s also a little more realistic where we don't have a hundred million dollars worth of a wish list on the AE. It slows down our time in trying to rate it all . Mr. Luchini said, I believe Mr. Southworth is right. Mr. Southworth said, what this would do is make us start prioritizing earlier -3- and not putting thirty million dollars into the third year out projects. In other words, it would help in the end in streamlining the AE. Mr. Denmark said, I think it would too. Mr. Haltom said, I think it would be eliminating the chaff earlier too. Mr. Denmark said, exactly. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Denmark, I think you mentioned on the Picacho Hills alternate access, this would be separate and apart from the present access into Picacho Hills. Would this be to the east? Mr. Denmark said, one of the developers out there has submitted a request for consideration and has listed several alternatives. There are two possible alternatives heading east and the rest are heading south. It is my understanding that we have completed the land use inventory and some of the data collection at this point in time. We're getting close to doing some modeling and some analysis. Once we've completed that project, we can then forward it to the TAC. Mr. Luchini said, I feel we do need to look at that area. There's only one road going in there and it' s growing too fast. Mr. Ferralez said, would any of the ones submitted tie in eventually with the outer rim road that we have future plans for--and even which might include Engler Road? Mr. Denmark said, at this point in time we haven't really gotten to that point. Like I said, we've only done data collection so we haven't really analysized the best alternative or the impact that it would create in those neighborhoods. That' s an issue that we will keep in mind. -4- Mr. Ferralez said, is there any point in prioritizing these four projects at this time. I realize we don't have any ratings, but we probably will evenually, so wouldn't it be a good step to take at this time? Mr. Luchini said, I don't know whether we can set priorities on it, but we can have staff look at it. I feel it is still too early to prioritize anything. Mr. Haltom said, do we need to formalize our suggestions. Mr. Denmark said, not tonight. We' ll be bringing it back, but for tonight, we're just looking for some direction. Mr. Tomlin said, one of the things on this list, Mr. Chairman, the Bike Path Master Plan, is one of those things that I think there' s a lot of support for in the urban area. Whether the Bike Path happens to be as a transportation element specifically or a recreational element, I mean, we know the controversy over Engler Road and some of the other things, but I don't think with a Bike Path element that you're going to have to worry too much about that. I 've heard that ever since I 've been on the City Council . We've have tried that in the City by putting a stripe on the road and saying, it's a bike path. The only true bike path that I 'm really aware of that's been designed into a street construction project is on University Avenue. Mr. Luchini said, you know the County at one time worked on bike paths out there. Mr. Tomlin said, we have such a logical and, from a recreational standpoint as far I 'm concerned, and that's the outfall channel from west of Interstate 25 to the river. You've got a roadway and you've got a way to do that. I 'd like for us to look at that. Mr. Luchini said, that outfall channel would be an ideal bike path. Mr. Tomlin said, we have people now that hike and bike and so on. To develop -5- that I think would be a real good project that both the City and County could cooperate on, and it would go right on through. Mr. Luchini said, we missed the boat a few years back by not building a bike path because the money was there and the City and County couldn't get together so we lost the money. I think there was several million dollars involved in federal monies. Mr. Miyagishima said, I would like to echo with Councilor Tomlin said about the bike path. One thing I 've noticed, and I 'm sure all of us will agree, is the amount of traffic and especially now a days, they don't even know how to recognize which side of the road they should ride on. They' re riding against traffic and so forth. I don't know if we have any statistics on accidents involving bicyclists, but I would guess that it is significant. So, if we could work on a bike path I think we could bring down those accidents. One of the things that really irritates me is to see 3, 4 or 5 people riding and not riding parallel . Sometimes they take up an entire driving lane. Mr. Tomlin said, I would like to support that when we do the Valley Drive north of Picacho that we look at trying to work with the State Highway Department to see if we can do something like University Avenue. I would like to see us consider incorporating bike paths in that design on Valley Drive. A lot of people who live up there, bike to Mayfield High School , and as you know the traffic on Hoagland to Valley Drive is awful . Any way that you could facilitate alternative traffic transportation methods, that would be a good spot for us to endorse that concept as an MPO. Maybe staff could explore that with the State Highway Department and see if they'd be interested. Mr. Luchini said, yes, they could do that. Are there any other comments. Mr. Denmark said, thank you Mr. Chairman. NEW BUSINESS -6- Mr. Luchini said, if that' s all , we' ll proceed to New Business, Review of proposed projects for inclusion in the FY 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, I ' ll just make a brief statement if I may and then I ' ll turn it over to Mike Parks who is the one responsible for this project. Where we are in the process is a preliminary Annual Element/Transportation Improvement Program. We have met with the Commission, Town Trustees, and City Council for some input on the type of projects and changes that they would like to see preliminarily during the month of January. Once that was completed, we began the process of rating the Annual Element projects that are listed and the projects that were submitted for inclusion and consideration. Staff conducted a preliminary Annual Element as I mentioned and it is listed as a rough draft. It is my understanding that you should have two copies. The copy that you received as an addendum is the TAC's recommendation. The reason for that is we' re responsible for getting the packets out on Wednesday, and they meet on a Thursday, and we apologize for that inconvenience. The concern that the TAC had this particular year was primarily with trying to streamline some of the projects and being a little more effective when eliminating a project of placing it properly within the TIP. In the past, it was always placed on the first year of the TIP. They made a very good effort in reviewing the specific projects and placing them where they felt it was most appropriate. Some of the changes that are also on this Annual Element, you' ll notice for example that the items are listed on down from 1 ,2, 3, etc. and then in parenthesis next to the itemized number is the rating itself. So, if you' re on page 2, for example, item number 1, under New Construction, the number 1 projected rated received 52 points (Mesa Grande Overpass on US 70) . Another change this year that we were responsible to make was to add a funding source and you' ll notice that is located on the extreme right hand side. It will list STP funds, National Highway fund, Co-op funding, anything related to that. That is another difference in this year' s particular projects. We are aware that there are some typographical errors and some other minor errors that we' ll have to clean up. At this point in time, once we receive direction from the Policy Committee, we' ll be submitting the documents back to the Dona Ana -7- County Commission, Mesilla Town Trustees, and the City Council for their final consideration. At that point, we' ll bring this back to you in March for formal consideration. With that Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to turn it over to Mr. Parks so he can run down some of the projects and some of the specifics related to the Annual Element and TIP. Mr. Mike Parks said, I 'd like to direct the Policy Committee's attention to the board behind me. What we've done is, placed every project that is within the MPO on this board. Let me explain some of the different colors. Hopefully, this will give you a feel as to where the money's going and to what extent we're proposing. The black lines indicate Reconstruction Projects. In other words, there' s already existing facilities, we' re going in and doing reconstruction of various types. For instance, Lohman/Amador from Solano to Telshor reconstruction. The details are listed in the packet as to what that project is. Blue is for New Construction. You' ll notice the realignment of Elks Drive at this location was recommended for this year. This is kind of a gray area. How much reconstruction qualifies to be actual New Construction. It' s anybody' s guess. For instance, Dona Ana Road to be widened. Right now it is in such a shape that it will take extensive reconstruction to make it as it should be, so we would classify that as New Construction. Moving on, the green signifies street lighting projects. Here we have street lighting at the major intersections. The red indicates enhancements. NMSU has a project there for a transit shuttle service. New Mexico 28 has a project to include a bike lane, landscaping, and billboard removal . So, that kind of gives you some ideas as to where the money potentially is going. The side maps show both the Annual Element projects and the TIP projects. It's a combination of both. I 'd like to talk a little bit more about the Annual Element and then I ' ll lower the TIP overlay so you can see how many more projects you have as a result of the TIP. One of the main concern the State has expressed to us is the amount of funding being requested. Even though there is an increase in federal dollars for the State, they are still asking us to be a little bit more constrained in our programming. Right now, and this is the crux that I explained at the TAC meeting, we don't know yet how much money to budget for. We just have to -8- give our best bet and submit it. Keep in mind that we can always amend these documents as more information comes available. What we found out was a good portion of these projects are already funded. In other words, funding has already been set aside by the governments to do these projects as well as the State. (Pointing to the map) Some of these projects are 100% State funded and we took those directly off the State Budget Plan to match it with our own. Because of that, we first looked at the total cost of funded projects. The total funded was about eleven million dollars. The unfunded projects came to about seven million dollars. Of those projects, we further broke it down to show what would be the local match for all the potential funding. Here, we broke it down by jurisdiction. All the projects proposed where the City would be participating, the local match would amount to roughly 1.38 million dollars for the Annual Element. In other words, if the State says, okay we' re going to write a check for all your projects, the City would have to come up with roughly 1.38 million dollars to implement all of these projects. Dona Ana County had 159,000 dollars in monies that they would have to come up with. Mesilla had roughly 80,000 dollars, and NMSU had 66,000 dollars that they would have to match. The State' s portion of this, however, is 17,600,000 dollars. That includes a lot of projects that the State has already agreed to fund 100 per cent like Valley Drive or some of the rehab on Picacho. That's why it appears a little lopsided when we look at those numbers. We still need to "trim the fat" just a little bit more in order to make it a little bit more realistic. What you contrast--how much is recommended to be spent for the Annual Element--with what is recommended to be spent on the TIP, I think you' ll see that it is a little bit more lopsided. Mr. Denmark said, one other thing that I think we should mention is MPO staff and the TAC were also concerned with the types of funding and the type of budget that we're considering. We are really concerned in insuring that the projects that we have listed in the Annual Element reflect all different types of sources of funding. Meaning STP or Co-op funding, Highway funding, and things of that nature, so that we have a full range of funding sources available. Mr. Parks said, you can see by my lowering the overlay, it greatly increases -9- the amount of projects that are proposed. Granted, that is over a five year period, so there's a lot more projects. We can see most of the new construction projects where you have the highest cost for design, right-of- way acquisition, and also construction. The TAC has recommended that those projects be pushed back significantly. Some of those projects were on the AE scheduled for this year. You' ll find in your addendum to your packet that they recommended that they be pushed back to the TIP. The funding for all of these projects, and this is separate from the AE, it is just the TIP, for the City its match would be 2.6 million dollars; Dona Ana County has a match of approximately 260,000 dollars and Mesilla, 64,000 dollars, for a total of 3 million dollars as our local match if we get everything we've asked for. The State's estimated percentage of this equates to about 84 million dollars. I think that's unlikely. What we have is the opportunity to add a lot of credibility to these documents by trimming it up somewhat. That' s the reason why we've gone through the local government reviews and to the TAC. They've made some further recommendations. I hope that tonight this Committee can make even more recommendations that we can then go back again to the governments for a second reading to get their approval . Once the local governments give their approval toward the end of this month and the beginning of next month, we hope to bring it back to this Committee for final adoption and transmittal to the State. Mr. Haltom said, you need for us to cut some? Mr. Parks said, that would be our recommendation. Mr. Luchini said, why is this Highway 70 included on this? Mr. Parks said, it's scheduled right here and it was recommended by the TAC to at least pursue design monies within the Annual Element. If you' ll notice in your addendum at the time that we sent it out, the US 70 project had not been rated. We have since rated that project and it ranks pretty close if not the top project with Lohman Avenue. Mr. Tomlin said, you're talking about making the AE more (inaudible) . -10- Mr. Parks said, that' s a priority. The TIP has a little more leeway. But as Mr. Southworth mentioned tonight, if we begin to look at the TIP and make it more realistic it will go a long way to help the State make their decisions in their budget. Mr. Tomlin said, and being more realistic, do you mean in where they fall on the list. I mean, I think that one of the things that we've been striving to do that's very important is we've been striving to look at the long term and to plan for the transportation needs of the City, not just for a 5 year plan but beyond that. A lot of these projects have worked their way through the list over the years. Because it has been, at least from my perception of the MPO to look further down the road so that we can be ready to address the issue. We have not done that in the past and we' re paying the price, literally, for that lack of foresight and planning. I don't have any problem looking at some of these things and saying to the State, "when push comes to shove, this is what we need to do" . I personally think that the things that we have on that map for the AE, and I have no problem with the things that TAC has recommended that we move back on the TIP because I think we can always stop and look at that. Mr. Parks said, I think what the State is looking for is, would the local government commit. If it's programmed and somehow the money becomes available, is the local commitment there to actually follow through with the matching funds. That' s not for me to say, but for the Policy Committee. Mr. Tomlin said, I think that's the way the City Council approached it when we looked at it the last time. We talked about, is it realistic to have money available for the match if we get match funding or co-op funding. Can we match this? Do we have the budget there and can we do it, fine. If we can't come up with the money, it makes no difference how generous the State happens to be. Mr. Ferralez said, first of all I'd like to commend Dr. Ford for taking the time to be here with us tonight. Since you' re here Dr. Ford, I 'd like to ask -11- you a couple of questions, if I may. Question number one is, when does the Highway Commission more or less start talking budget? Dr. Ford said, just about now. We' re starting to look at 1993-94 budget seriously now. We've gone to the Legislature and made the requests. So, we're fine tuning it and we're putting together the 1994-95 budget, and then we have our 5 year program. We appreciate very much the kind of input that you're doing here. I think Albuquerque might have a little bit of a leg up on you because they've already been to us with some ideas much the same as you're doing here. I think they're a little more sophisticated and more experienced at it, and you' re going to have to be doing that also. And unless you ask, you' re not going to get it. Mr. Ferralez said, that brings me to my second question. Has the Commission, in preparing itself, for what we hopefully expect this new administration in Washington supposed to start handing out quite a bit of money for bridges and highway and so forth. Has the Commission talked about preparing for that? Dr. Ford said, we' re prepared for it. The only problem that we've run into so far is that, you've seen the figures which you were talking about earlier, and the original part of the ISTEA Bill gave us about 184 million dollars in federal funds per state. That has been sized down where it looks like we're going to get about 148 million. Some has been held back and other funds have not been allocated. So, we don't know what the new administration is going to do about these funds. We don't know if they are going to release those funds or not. We're prepared for the full amount but we also realize that we may not get it. You have to be realistic in the same way. Mr. Tomlin said, you mentioned that Albuquerque made a presentation. Do we need to get on the agenda? Dr. Ford said, I shouldn't have said a presentation. They' re further along in preparing their Annual Element and their TIP. I 've already seen, more or less, their final . -12- Mr. Tomlin said, is the best approach to take it and say we want the top five projects out of the Annual Element or to list it as it is here, prioritize it with our first project, our second, and say this is what we want however much you can fund? Dr. Ford said, I would kind of like to see it both ways. I 'd like to see you come in and say, we really want these and we' re prepared to put up the matching funds. And then say, yes, those are the ones we really want, but if we could, these are the others that we would like to have. Mr. Tomlin said, so if we have a top five and then add a second five, that would work? Dr. Ford said, yes. I know from my point of view, then I know what I need to argue for because that' s what you really want and try to get it for you. I can take from those and say, they desperately need these five. The more I have of these kinds of lists and indications of what your needs and interests are, the better I can argue for them. Mr. Tomlin said, should we authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the Highway Department outlining our top five projects from the Annual Element and indicated our greatest need. Dr. Ford said, that wouldn't hurt. Mr. Tomlin said, that way they have a document that says okay, this is what Las Cruces is saying, and the MPO has looked at it. They've got the top five and then a second five. I don't care how you present that staff, and then if Mr. Luchini has the time and he finds that he needs to make a trip on this, he can. Mr. Ferralez said, this would also give Dr. Ford extra support that he might need to emphasize the projects we need. Dr. Ford said, one thing I would plead with you though, is if you do have -13- projects that you know that you can and will fund, go ahead and list them, but if your funding is only "ify" , then don't push for that project because I don't want to end up with egg on my face. In other words, if I can get you the Highway Department' s funding and then you can't match it, well that will make me look bad. And don't misunderstand me, I don't mean you have to have the money in your hand but at least have a realistic way of getting it. Mr. Haltom said, I have a question. Would it be to our disadvantage to list something that we want most (Mesa Grande Overpass) , but if we think that there' s not much chance of getting that, will that hurt us. Dr. Ford said, no. Mr. Haltom said, I mean, they may decide that there' s something else that costs less and they don't want to get involved in this. . . I wouldn't want us to hurt ourselves. Dr. Ford said, we sort of get cued in. We would know what your interests are. You might not get it now, but. . . Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I believe Council received a memo to the effect (I think it was a letter from the Mayor) emphasizing different projects. Mr. Tomlin said, that was the trip he made to Santa Fe. Mr. Ferralez said, something like that is what I think Dr. Ford is referring to. Certainly as long as we can fund the project, we should help him push that project. It doesn't matter if it's Onate or Lohman, because those are our top two projects. Mr. Denmark said, if I may ask a question that might clarify it. I think part of the problem that we see from staff' s perspective is that there is different categories. Some of the funding are competing against each other, so it' s unclear on really what the priority is. For example, on the first -14- page is Mesa Grande for New Construction, but number one for Reconstruction is Lohman/Amador, Solano to Telshor. They're both priorities and I think that's where a secondary rating that could be submitted along with it would help clarify some of the priorities within the different governments. Mr. Tomlin said, there are three classifications? Mr. Denmark said, we have New Construction, Traffic Signals, Bridge Repair, Railroad Crossing, Guardrail Safety Projects, Reconstruction, and Roadrunner Transit Projects. Mr. Tomlin said, a simple mechanism would be to take, because there are so many of those, the top one out of each category. Dr. Ford said, but they aren't all competing against each other. Mr. Tomlin said, I know. Dr. Ford said, that would be Construction and Reconstruction competing. Mr. Tomlin said, but as far as those two item go, you'd look at the top two or three and then you could go from the ones that are not competing. Mr. Denmark said, that' s something that we can do when we're submitting it to the Town of Mesilla, City Council and the Commission. Mr. Parks said, Dr. Ford, how much does the funding source play into this. Would it be better for us to submit a list for each funding category because there are several funds from which the Highway Department allocates. Projects often overlap, so would it help to say what fund we're competing for with that project or is it better to just submit it and let the Highway Department worry about the funding. Dr. Ford said, I think just to submit it and we' ll take it from there. -15- Mr. Haltom said, I have another question. Do you have a certain amount of money set aside for overlay. The way we do it here is we have a certain amount of money we spend each year and we decide what projects to spend it on. I know that here on the second page, they have crossed out overlay of Lohman from Solano to I-25. If you've driven over that street, I don't know how in the world that' s going to last until the following year. Mr. Parks said, Councilor Haltom, I think the reason that they crossed that out was because it's scheduled for overlay the first year and then to be reconstructed the following year to alleviate some traffic problems. So they recommended moving the overlay back and moving the design forward. We're going to go for final design first and then reconstruction the year after that. Mr. Haltom said, I don't know whether that' s going to last two more years. Dr. Ford said, Councilor Haltom, to answer your question, it's one of those yes/no answers. Our first problem that we face is, can we get the matching money or the federal monies. As soon as we get that, then we break it down somewhat into reconstruction and chipping sealing type of thing. That's not really fixed as to say we're going to put 10% for overlay. Quite frankly, for the last year or two, we've been strapped to match the federal monies. That' s really a big priority. Mr. Miyagishima said, do we have anything on the agenda as far as the County for a traffic signal on Watson and South Main. Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, yes, we do. There' s actually reconstruction for that entire intersection to realign Tortugas Road and Watson Lane and install a traffic signal . It is on the State's Five Year Program. Mr. Luchini said, are there any other questions? I think we do need to set priorities and make sure we have the matching funds. I think it' s very important. -16- Mr. Tomlin said, I think if we look at the things that are funded, then if that's the priority and the local government is ready to fund and already planning for it their budget during the next fiscal year, the City's already done some of that. I think for the staff to get what we would do and then bring it to the Council for final approval should be easy. I think we just need to have the rest of you that have projects here. . . I 'd love to see the Dona Ana/Three Crosses to Engler project done right there, but can the County fund their portion. If the County can't fund their portion of that, then we don't need to submit that to the Highway Department. Mr. Luchini said, (inaudible) left out, because if we don't have the money, I mean, somebody else can use that money. Mr. Tomlin said, yeah, but we wouldn't want the staff in the position of presuming that just because it is unfunded here that if it became something that the County or Mesilla, would say, okay, someway we' ll come up with the money and have your groups say okay, we' re going to fund it, and then not to have that as part of the presentation to the Highway Department. Mr. Haltom said, one more point, Mr. Chairman, there are several items on here that are to be done this spring (1992-93 fiscal year) , and why are they on the 1993-94 fiscal year. For example, Porter Drive, that's supposed to be done by April 1993. Mr. Parks said, I think it will be started by April . If there's information that I 'm not aware of right now, there' s no reason why it can't be taken off. Mr. Haltom said, well it says it will be funded out of the current fiscal year' s money. As a matter of fact is was funded by the State Legislature. It' s number six. It could have been done last year, the only reason it wasn't done was because we wanted to do some flood control work before the street was built. Since that would not be coming out of money we're asking for, and since we already have that money, why would we put it on this list? -17_ Mr. Denmark said, Councilor Haltom, I don't know. We questioned that, but off hand I 'm not sure why its on there. Dr. Ford said, I think Stewart Street and Spruce underpasses also fall in that same category. Mr. Haltom said, those have already been funded? Mr. Southworth said, number 28 is another one. That' s already three and one- half million dollars right there that' s been funded. Mr. Tomlin said, I wonder whether there should be projects that would be indicated that they are being done. If we make that list that Dr. Ford is talking about to go to the Highway Department, that they might have those things and say here is the list, and the only reason I can see them including them is the fact that they haven't been done yet. They are still projects that are on our list which have been funded but haven't been completed yet. As soon as they are started, then we' ll take it off. That' s the way I think we've done it in the past. Mr. Haltom said, I understand that if we're pursuing State or Federal funds, they're listed here, but we're not pursuing these--we've got it. Mr. Luchini said, yes, those have been already funded, and I don't think they should be submitted anymore. Mr. Tomlin said, if that's the case, according to that statement then we should take them off. Mr. Luchini said, there's some from the County that have been taken off because they've already been funded. If they've been funded, I think they should be taken off also. I think the staff needs to work on that. Mr. Tomlin said, there still needs to be a list, Mr. Chairman, because I am continually getting people who ask me the status of this or that project. -18- Unless I get this list, and we recently got a list that the Mayor brought back which showed here' s what the Highway Department' s doing, I don't have something to refer to. The last project I had questions about over and over again was Valley Drive. I kept telling them, it' s on the list, it' s on the list. Mr. Luchini said, we had the same situation with Jornada Road. We're finally going to get it done this spring, but that darn thing was a terrible road and people kept calling and calling about it. But like I said, we're finally going to get it paved this year. Those projects that are funded like that, I know it's hard to explain to the people that it takes time, but we are doing it. They feel that there's nothing to show for it. Mr. Tomlin said, we have the status report, Mr. Chairman, which staff uses to keep us informed on where projects are and if there' s a change in the status, they' ll let us know. Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, couldn't we ask them to take this and divide it into two categories. Put those funds which are to be completed in 1993-94 which are already funded with 1992-93 funds as the first category; and then those that are to be funded in 1993-94 as the second category. That way, I think we'd both clarify the document and still have these projects that are not completed yet in our document to show people that they are funded. Mr. Ferralez said, I think that' s a good idea. Mr. Southworth said, it would also diminish the amount of money very significantly that we' re asking for. Mr. Haltom said, that would take care of our need to cut. Mr. Southworth said, probably. -19- Mr. Ferralez said, it also keeps the Committee informed as to what' s going on. Mr. Haltom said, do you have to do it exactly like this or do they give you leeway in presentation. Mr. Tomlin said, so the priority then, as I understand it, would be to go and present a list of those projects the local government is willing to fund for the next year. That' s what we need to have staff prepare for us and have Mr. Chairman sign it and forward it to the State Highway Department. Mr. Parks said, there are several projects on this list that we were unable to rate and they are the ones listed in red on the map. These are enhancement projects. Right now the Rating System, and I believe we've discussed this before, how to rate a bike path versus an overpass. How do you rate a billboard versus a new lane on Lohman. In choosing which projects to recommend, I 'd just like to bring that to your attention. It's all your choice as to whether or not those projects get forwarded to the Highway Department or not. Mr. Denmark said, you placed those at the end of the list. For instance, on page 2 and 12, are bus pull-off lanes on University Avenue. The funding that is being considered is STP enhancement funds. That's an implementation in accordance to the University Avenue Corridor Plan, and that' s why that's placed there. Due to the fact that we can't rate it, we put it there. I believe it was something that the City Council wanted to consider when they were looking at their related projects. Mr. Southworth said, I believe that we ought to put them in there in a separate category because some of that money, that 10% of those STP funds has to be set aside for those types of projects. It' s the same with Safety projects where another 10% has to be set aside. If we don't have anything in there, we' re not even going to be eligible for that 10%. Mr. Luchini said, I think you' re right. -20- Mr. Parks said, there' s two projects that Transit has recommended. They can now apply for STP funds and they have done so. I believe it is on page 9, items 8 and 9. We were also unable to rate those projects because again, it's not within our rating system. With this Committee' s recommendation to the State, that also might be considered. Mr. Tomlin said, do both of those item require 20% from us. Mr. Parks said, STP funds require 15% match. There' s also a project that we just found out about located on page 10 under the RideShare Program. (inaudible) study, and if the Committee desires we have representatives from Transit and RideShare if you want to discuss this. Basically, that is a project that is pursuing 100% funding at the State level using a fund called Road Betterment. Dan Stover of the Highway Department is working on that and has recommended to look at a (inaudible) study for some of that County area in order to accomplish not using a full transit system but using smaller vans. So, some of those projects that we' re pursuing will be funded at 100%, I think it might be a good idea to include them in the list. Mr. Luchini said, does the Transit project compete with the same monies as the rest of the projects or are they separate. Mr. Parks said, only those two items are asking for STP funds. Under the new ISTEA legislation, you can now ask for highway funds. So, they are asking for two projects. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Parks, what does it mean by funded by Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department. Mr. Parks said, that is a different department on the State level . They're specifically in charge of RideShare Programs. A lot of their monies come from oil , gas and minerals. We have a representative (inaudible) . Ms. Mary Ford said, for a number of years now from the mid 1970' s we've been directed _21_ by the federal Department of Energy to put a certain amount of money into rideshare activities in large cities (inaudible) . We've been funding rideshare (inaudible) . We also funded Albuquerque and Santa Fe, but the past year our funds were cut and we had to choose one of the three cities to continue funding. We chose Las Cruces because we felt that the air quality in this area was good but, future problems in this area could be significant and something that we should be concerned about. The program was very effective (inaudible) . Mr. Luchini said, thank you. We appreciate that. Mr. Haltom said, how do you document that success of the rideshare program. Do we have any means of determining what impact it has? Ms. Ford said, yes, we have annual reports (inaudible) . We keep track of the number of calls that Rideshare receives and (inaudible) . We think she's (Susan Haas) done a tremendous job. Mr. Tomlin said, how many people are participating in the rideshare. Ms. Haas said, we don't have a definite answer. We have in our data base on the computer system probably around 2,000 names at any given time. What we know is that what we have in our data base is a very small percentage of what our marketing survey tells us is going on. We do go to work sites like White Sands, El Paso and we actually do a count; how many vehicles are going in; how many are single occupant vehicles versus multiple occupants. We do a lot of surveys in informal parking lots to ask people what they're doing, why they' re doing it, and what they'd like different. Which is part of where our proposal for the van pool comes from--it' s was just an overwhelming response that this would the number one preferred and it' s the most cost effective and energy efficient way to get people to work for the dollar invested. Mr. Tomlin said, what kind of impact do you have when the North Main shopping center where Albertson' s happens to be and K-Mart happens to be, and all of a sudden they tell those people, get your vehicle off my lot instead of meeting here to carpool? -22- Ms. said, thanks for asking. That's part of the van pool proposal . In conjunction with this project is to create secured park and ride locations which many communities throughout the United States and even Mexico are now incorporating into their planning subdivision developments that these lots be created so that we do have the facilities without imposing on other property owners. Currently we do not have opposition from those people but that will come because at North Main, they've been asked to move further and further up onto unsurfaced area for their park and ride. We' re also running into possible liabilities from vehicles being vandalized and stolen from these informal lots. The property owners are becoming concerned about becoming habitually liable in some respects for these vehicles being there when their not part of their customers. Mr. Tomlin said, if we do that, we need to look at multiple uses of facilities, because when those people are not there, you'd have the lots empty. I can think of a lot of different things that we could do such as having radio-controlled car weekend on a park and ride lot for the kids to use. Ms. said, actually, that's part of our proposal is multiple use of both vehicles and the land use. Or actually leasing land that' s already currently designated but not being used during the hours that we would want to use it. Mr. Tomlin said, thank you. Mr. Luchini said, any other questions? Mr. Southworth said, I just have one question. Could you use school parking lots on weekends. Excuse me, I have this backwards--we wouldn't need them on weekends either. Dr. Ford said, I 'd kind of like to throw this out for you to think about. As the MPO and in your transportation planning, would you think about any of the airport and eventually rail transportation problems that have come up. The reason why I mention airports is that we, as a department, have funds -23- available for all of the airports and we' re taking on part of the railroad responsibilities. We need input and I think we could use it. I think eventually you're going to have to make this part of your transportation considerations. You might as well , if you can, start doing it now and getting the planners to think about it. There is lots of money on a 20 to 1 match for airport maintenance, remodeling, and most anything you might want. Mr. Tomlin said, if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't be having a lot of activity at the Las Cruces Airport. I wasn't aware that you guys were involved with that. Dr. Ford said, yes, that's part of our planning process now. In fact in our Five Yar Plan and our Annual Plan, there's a section on airports now. Just starting this year, we' re taking five hundred thousand dollars out of road funds to use it as a match for airport projects because we can get 95 to 5, 19 to 1 match on that. We feel that' s very worthwhile. Mr. Tomlin said, so that'd be five per cent from the State and five per cent from the local government. Dr. Ford said, this year we' re trying to make sure that we have our five per cent for the match. Mr. Parks said, I just wanted to assure the Committee that we have been in contact with the State on that and we' re starting to get into this area. It's an area we haven't been involved with before. I believe there's been some discussion about revitalizing the railroad corridor through Las Cruces and revamp some of the old depot areas. We are pursuing that. Dr. Ford said, I guess what I 'm saying is that I 'd like to see it next year as part of your program. That' s just my own personal opinion. Mr. Tomlin said, I would be willing to bet you that Las Cruces, if we wanted to include something on ours, that we'd have a project or two that' s been in our planning that we could add to that pretty quickly if we wanted to give the direction to staff. We have that master plan. -24- Mr. Luchini said, I think it' s important that we look into these areas. In the County we have the RPO now and it' s in conjunction--close to the same thing as here although it is for rural areas. Dr. Ford said, the Las Cruces airport would be the MPO' s responsibility. Santa Teresa might be the County' s. Mr. Ferralez said, Dr. Ford, did I understand you to say something about railroads--that you would also be involved in the possibility of railroads. A number of years back, we talked somewhat about a railroad line coming from Afton and running up on the mesa to the airport and tying in about Rincon. which would be very serviceable for the border trade agreement if it develops. That would tie in with the mesa road that we' re pushing for. Dr. Ford said, we have railroad section and an aviation section. They're analysized through our highway section. They're no where near the same size, but they function within our department in an analagist fashion. They prepare a Five Year Program and an Annual Program. They just started this year, and maybe that's why you haven't seen it. Mr. Ferralez said, the idea that was expressed at that time was that eventually, if the airport and the industrial park really took off, then perhaps Santa Fe would consider abandoning the regular line that we have through Las Cruces, but now with the talk about Amtrak, maybe they won't. Mr. Luchini said, yes, I think there' s three: the railroad, the airport and surface transportation. Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Chairman, I 'd like for us to go ahead and have staff get with our airport manager. We have been looking at, and the Council has discussed the extension of one of the runways and working with BLM to do that, and it would be the construction of the extension of that runway. That sounds like a project that we could submit to the State Highway Department this fiscal year. We have done some preliminary work and could put together -25- some preliminary cost estimates and so on. I 'd like to have us do that and make that part of our packet to be forwarded to the Highway Department. Mr. Ferralez said, Ken has done quite a bit of research on that. Mr. Tomlin said, the Council approved looking at that, and Mike Medley has been working on that. Mr. Luchini said, we can direct the staff to start working on that project. Dr. Ford said, one further comment is that the State of Colorado is quite interested in that Amtrak concept and Wyoming is coming on board. We've had some discussion with our counterparts in those states. Montana is also looking at it. There' s a good chance that in the next 10-15 years we' ll see some serious study from Mexico City to Edmonton track is what we're looking at. Mr. Luchini said, anything else on this Annual Element? Mr. Haltom said, what do we do now is the basic question. If we eliminate the funded requests that we already have funded, we may have reduced this enough as it is. Mr. Denmark said, I think by the time we come back to you, as far as the Policy Committee in March after the governmental entities have had a chance to look at their own projects and prioritized how they would like to see theirs, and the change in format, will greatly change the size and the way it looks now. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I think that the suggestion dividing it into two different lists, and staff can do that easily, and since there's no requirement that it go in this fashion, then those two list of funded and unfunded would do the job. Mr. Southworth said, I know it will knock off at least four or five million dollars. -26_ Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I have a question about page three, number thirteen. If this is an entirely City of Las Cruces project, and I don't know why we have STP on there, but 107,111 is a million dollar project and if it's going to be on this Annual Element we need to determine who we're going to ask money for it. Because I don't know if we, within the City, are prepared to spend a million dollars. Mr. Parks said, what was suggested by staff was to put this on to pursue matching funds in order to defer some of the cost to the City. It is eligible, and because it is eligible, and the expense it is going to incur to the City, that they said why not try to pursue State funds on this one. The STP funds state that it must be a collector or above. This road is classified as a collector. Mr. Haltom said, is there a normal percentage that they pay. Mr. Parks said, 85/15 if it' s (inaudible) . Mr. Haltom said, then we' ll pay the 15. It' s a question of how much money we're expected to put up. Mr. Tomlin said, yeah, and I don't know which is going to come first as far as do we need to upgrade the road before we' re going to be able to see the development because there's not that much development in that area at this point in time except for that one section between Valley Drive and Seventeenth Street. We're talking about part of that with the assessment district. This is the segment that goes past that and I know from the railroad tracks too, that we've got some development area there but Motel Boulevard past Seventeenth Street is just mostly vacant. Mr. Haltom said, here' s some more that' s going to be done this year. On this Dunn Drive, that' s twenty-six on page four, I didn't know we had the money yet. Is that the intersection? We' re also asking for money on Dunn Drive all the way to Cortez. I guess what we have is the part for the intersection with US70. -27- Mr. Parks said, plus the Flood Control money. I think what we've asked for too is if we can get it, go ahead and take a little bit farther as much as the money will allow. Mr. Haltom said, so, only part of it is funded. Mr. Parks said, that's correct. Mr. Tomlin said, so go as far as the money will go. Mr. Parks said, Dr. Ford, once and if we drop certain projects from the list that we submit to the State Highway Department, will that affect those project's outcome if they were not started. I know that there have been occasions where projects in the State Five Year Plan have been dropped and if we don't show that support by submitting a request to pursue funding, is that going to affect whether or not its going to stay on there. Dr. Ford said, if we have to make a choice because of lack of funding, we would certainly be more likely to drop one that you haven't listed or indicated its priority. Mr. Luchini said, on these projects, I think they have to be started at a certain time in order to get the funding. I know that at one time, North Main where Spitz comes into it, we left it out there and the State had funded quite a bit of money to the City to do the project there and they used the money somewhere else, and the State said you've got to start that project or else you have to refund the money. In order to not lose that money, they got busy on it. Mr. Tomlin said, we need to communicate that they shouldn't come off the list and give some explanation. These are still there and we consider them funded and if the Highway Department is going to have to change that, then keep in mind those projects. It' s awfully hard to say, we've got the money and it's scheduled to be constructed and then as Mr. Haltom was saying, if there' s no guarantee of that, you sure wouldn't want one of those funded projects pushed _28_ off and not done because they think, that' s not a priority. Even if it's an additional page that goes along with the AE and these are still part of the Annual Element; these are funded projects and if they remain as part of the Highway Department' s funding and the local matchs continue and we expect them to be done; and if there' s a change in State funding or local funding then we need to review them. Does staff have the direction that they need? Mr. Parks said, if the Committee is comfortable with those that have been recommended by the TAC to be relocated, then we can go ahead and take that document to the individual governments and get their priorities for what they will and will not fund. Also the next time around you will see this document with the bonus points allocated. When we go back to the local governments at the end of this month, we' re going to ask them to then apply their bonus points to the projects to indicate their highest priorities. We will indicate which projects have been manipulated (given the bonus points) in that way. That way you' ll get a better indication from the local governments as to what their priorities are. Mr. Luchini said, do we need to take any action tonight. Mr. Denmark said, not tonight. We' ll bring it back next month for formal consideration. Mr. Luchini said, any other questions? If not, we' ll go on to the TIP. Mr. Parks said, there were some changes on the TIP made by the TAC. On page one of the Annual Element they' re requesting that the design monies be posted for the Mesa Grande overpass, but then nowhere in the TIP is it mentioned actual construction. So I would like to recommend that we also add for 1994- 95 to begin construction for the Mesa Grande overpass. What originally happened was that project was scheduled as design, right-of-way acquisition and construction. TAC broke it up into separate projects and it never got placed on the TIP. So while it is not shown, we are recommending that it be added. It will be virtually the same as what' s on the Annual Element but instead of design, it will be construction. -29- Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I would think that would be rated pretty high. Mr. Parks said, yes, sir. Mr. Haltom said, I 've got a question about five, Las Alamedas and US 70 to Lohman. I 'm concerned that this is proposed before the Lohman extension is proposed. I think you're all aware that the traffic on Foothills is tremendous. There's two new subdivisions being built now and no word about the extension of Lohman passed I-25. We've had preliminary design. I know that we all on the Council would like to duck what it implies and that is a bond issue of some sort, but I think we have to face up to it. If you go out there and watch the traffic going into High Range up Foothills in addition to the traffic going to the City landfill , and realize that we're talking about at least 100 houses, not including Pickel ' s subdivision. Mr. Tomlin said, you're talking about extending the Lohman extension from Telshor eastward. Mr. Haltom said, yes, that we approved about two years ago. Mr. Tomlin said, I 'm not afraid to submit it to the voters, Mr. Haltom. I just hate to get turned down. Mr. Haltom said, I do too, and it isn't any fun to run for re-election with bond issues on the ballot either. Mr. Tomlin said, I don't think we have any choice. Mr. Haltom said, the question that I was asking was if it makes sense to run Las Alamedas from US70 to Lohman prior to the extension of Lohman. I think that would be madness. We've got this proposal ahead of the discussion of a Lohman extension, which is on the list later. I would object to Las Alamedas being considered all the way from US70 prior to an extension of Lohman. I can understand if I was a developer and I could calk the City of Las Cruces _30- and the New Mexico Highway Department into building a road through my property, I 'd be tickled to death. Mr. Tomlin said, one of the things that you' re going to have to look at is by building that road we'd be encouraging leapfrog development and I don't think we really want to do that. I agree with Councilor Haltom. If they want to develop that street and start at Highway 70 and work their way north or south, that's fine. They could do that. Can we just move that. Mr. Denmark said, you can move it, or strike it, whatever you want. Mr. Tomlin said, I would like to replace number five with Council Haltom's suggestion. We've already got a problem there and City Council talked about Walnut and Lohman, all the way to the east and that coincides with what the Council has discussed as probably one of the highest priority traffic needs in the City of Las Cruces. Mr. Ferralez said, I think you' re right Councilor Haltom. I think we should put the Lohman extension first and then Las Alamedas, but I don't think we should eliminate it completely. Mr. Haltom said, we've got Las Alamedas to Foothills to Dripping Springs Road. Mr. Tomlin said, that' s liable to be needed before the other. It would be needed especially if you' re talking about relieving some of the traffic off of Telshor to get to Baylor Canyon. Mr. Denmark said, we could shift the US 70 to Las Alamedas to the very back. Mr. Haltom said, I think you should. Mr. Parks said, just a point of information, what precipitated that project was that on the initial zoning of that entire area, one of the conditions on _31_ that initial zoning was that both the developer and the City would determine what the prorated share for road development would be. As of today, that prorated share is very lucid. We haven't figured that out yet. Mr. Tomlin said, I have a problem with that. The problem is that you're going to assume that you' re going to build that street here in one feld sweep. Though the Council might consider a prorated share of oversizing of transportation needs and contributing through that process, we sure aren't going to do it from Foothills to US 70 to open it up to leapfrog development. Mr. Haltom said, I would say put number six on page six (Foothills to Dripping Springs Road) one year ahead of the other. Mr. Denmark said, okay, so you' re saying the Foothills to Dripping Springs for 1996-97 and 1997-98 for US 70 to Foothills. Mr. Haltom said, on Spruce and Stewart, would that reconstruction be done in 1996-97 and the design in 1995-96? I thought the design was scheduled for 1993-94? Mr. Parks said, that' s what in the AE right now. Mr. Haltom said, the construction pushed back to 1996 seems too far back. Mr. Tomlin said, we can modify that after we get the design out of the Annual Element. Mr. Denmark said, right. I think it was a reflection of where its always been. Mr. Haltom said, I think the University is going to be the lead agency and that's pretty close to coming to an agreement. Dr. Ford said, that' s all done. -32- Mr. Southworth said, is there any reason for not moving it to 1995-96. Mr. Denmark said, no, we might as well take care of it. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Luchini said, any other questions? If not, we' ll go to Other Business, MPO and TAC Packet Mailing list review. Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, just real quickly, this is an issue that we've noticed recently that has all of a sudden become a problem. Since the inception of the MPO, from that time period on we've been continuously asked to provide packets or agendas for various people in the community. We're really to a point now where we' re spending gobs and gobs of time just copying and distributing agendas and packets and it's eating up a considerable amount of time in our ability to do any form of analysis or modeling. We're in the process of looking at ways to streamline that. As an example, we're looking at the cost associated with creating cards versus agendas. We find it might be a little cheaper to send a little postcard identifying the agenda and what's going to be on that agenda for people that don't really receive a packet. We can present that information probably next month and provide some type of a recommendation. The other issue to consider is what you would like to receive. We have currently processed TAC packets, but it' s typically the same information that you get in your own Policy Committee packet. That's something that you might want to consider if we should elminate that process and just give you an agenda or do you still want to receive the packet. We'd like that input. Mr. Haltom said, I think in terms of our getting notice of the TAC meeting, sometimes it' s a little confusing if you're in a hurry because you think, gosh, I have a meeting. It' s kind of an early warning but I 'd just as soon cease that. To whom are you sending these packets. Is it appropriate for you to spend the money to send all those packets. Are these people on. . .? Mr. Denmark said, some of them are at the State level ; we've got developers -33- asking us for agendas; we've just had various members in the community asking for agendas--Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors. What we're considering is maybe posting the agenda in the newspaper. It might be cheaper that way, and saying, it's your responsibility to look in the paper and if there' s an item on there that you' re concerned with or want more information on, then you can come in and get that information. My concern is we' re not spending enough time on analysis and modeling for projects that we' re working on for you. If we don't spend a lot of time on that, we're killed because we go through two full weeks of just packet preparation. Mr. Luchini said, I don't think we should send out whole packets. Mr. Tomlin said, if you took some of the information and even if you went to a smaller font and maybe broadened the description of what we're going to talk about being on an agenda sheet, because I can't recall an agenda that we've had that's gone over a page. If you folded and used bulk mail with a little notice that if they need more information they can stop by the Planning Department and get a full packet it would save a lot. Mr. Luchini said, I think we've spoiled the people through the years by doing this. It's a costly thing to do and time consuming when there' s other jobs you could be doing. I think you're right about maybe putting this in the newspaper, then if they want more information they can come by the office and get it. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Denmark, then you' re proposing sending postcards? Mr. Denmark said, we' re currently looking into it to see where we can cuts cost. It' s obviously not a great amount of money but it' s more the labor hours that are being lost. We' re not utilizing those hours in an efficient way. I 'd rather have Mr. Parks and his staff doing more modeling and development than working on packets. Mr. Ferralez said, maybe one way that we could go is exactly as you say. I realize the developers may have interests in what the MPO is planning, but if -34- you send a card to them with the agenda on it and let them know that a packet for reviewing is available in the library, then it' s up to them to follow up on it. That's what we do with the City Council agenda. There's an agenda at the library which they can go through the whole thing. They can also buy one if they want for $25.00. Mr. Tomlin said, if you develop a good agenda sheet, then they don't have to worry about postcards. You'd just fold it and send it. Who's going to print the postcards? Mr. Denmark said, postcards aren't that difficult due to the type of data base software that we have. It would be a reduction of ten cents. You would get the twenty-nine cent packet. It' s regular mail . Mr. Tomlin said, don't we have bulk mail? We should, with all the notices that we send. Mr. Denmark said, it's not that great of a number that we send out. We can look into that. Mr. Tomlin said, I would send to the people on the mailing list a notice saying unless you send back this postcard indicating that you want to receive an "agenda" , we will remove your name from our list. Mr. Denmark said, that' s what we were planning on doing. We just wanted you to be aware of the problem and get your concurrence on trying to streamline the process. Mr. Haltom said, how many packets do you send out? Mr. Parks said, we send 34 packets and about 45 agendas. Mr. Denmark said, we' re really losing about two weeks just due to meetings. -35- Mr. Luchini said, we've got other things for you all to do. Mr. Tomlin said, I don't mind making the information available, but they can go down and follow up on the other information they might want. And again, I 'd like to see an agenda of what's going on and I think that would be a good compromise. Mr. Luchini said, go ahead and look into it. Is there any other business? There was no other business and the meeting adjourned. MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: Minnie Sanchez, Secretary Las Cruces Planning Department APPROVED BY: Ray B. Luchini , Chairman Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization _36_ LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MESILLA DORA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES AGENDA ThE: following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Orcanization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, Fei,ruary 10, 1993, at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Ch&.mbers, 200 North Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico. ThE City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable acc:ommodation (s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a pullic meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the meEting by calling 525-0122 . I . CALL TO ORDER II. REVIEW OF MINUTES .:II . OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of projects for inclusion in the 1993 -94 Unified Work Program (UWP) . IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of proposed projects for inclusion in the FY 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) and � tt Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . V. OTHER A. MPO and TAC Packet Mailing List Review. "I . ADJOURNMENT PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: February 10 , 1993 A(:rENDA ITEM: R]H,,VIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: Rcview and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on January 13 , 1993 . SLPPORT INFORMATION: 1 Policy Committee Meeting Minutes for January 13 , 1993 . D:i:SCUSSION/OPTIONS: Nc;ne LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: February 10, 1993 A6',JENDA ITEM: Discussion of proposed projects for inclusion in the 1993-94 Unified Wc)rk Program (UWP) . A,':.TION REQUESTED: C :insideration of proposed projects for 1993-94 UWP. SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Policy Committee Members should bring their copy of the FY 1992-93 UWP they received at January 13, 1993 Policy Committee Meeting. 2 . List of projects developed by MPO Staff for inclusion in the UWP. DnSCUSSION/OPTIONS: D:..scussion of and direction to be taken by Staff in development of 1'193-94 Unified Work Program. TENTATIVE LISTING UNIFIED WORK PROGRAM 1993-94 LAS CRUCES MPO 1 . Picacho Hills Alternative Access Road Study 2 . Bike Path Master Plan - Las Cruces Urbanized Area 3 . Engler Road (carryover project) 4 . Development of AE/TIP and AE Rating System. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMdiITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: February 10 , 1993 A'1ENDA ITEM: R,:!view of proposed projects for inclusion in the FY 1993-94 Annual EL.ement and Transportation Improvement Program. A(:TION REQUESTED: D!_scussion. SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 , Proposed Annual Element/Transportation Improvement Program. D'r:'SCUSSION/OPTIONS: Tie projects listed in the AE/TIP have been presented to the local g )vernments in January and will be presented to the TAC in February. Exch of the projects listed on the Annual Element have been rated by S: aff . D:_scussion of proposed projects and recommendations by Policy Committee M:-embers of other possible projects. Staff will take direction from P:alicy Committee for final ratings and review of projects by TAC and 1 )cal governments. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: February 10 , 1993 A("VENDA ITEM: M:'0 and TAC Packet Mailing List Review. A''TION REQUESTED: Cinsideration of Mailing List Updates . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 , None - Staff will make presentation of information at Policy Committee Meeting. D ;SCUSSION/OPTIONS: M ?0 Staff is evaluating the cost of mailing packets and agendas for both tie Policy Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. Staff is l :)oking into the possibility of changing the manner in which the public i:, notified of all meetings and the use of postcards as a form of n.)tification in conjunction with mailing detailed agendas . t r LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION' s 1 r i ! Annual Element f fiscal Year 1993 - 1994 The Annual Element (AE) along with the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a six (6) year transportation planning document. It is mandated by the federal government and designed to provide a 113-C" approach to local planning. It should "coordinate" planning efforts of local governments. It should be a "continuing" process whereby projects are reviewed periodically. Lastly, it should be "comprehensive" in that all modes of local transportation are considered. It is the intent of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (LCMPO) to provide local government with a forum exemplifying the 113-C" process. Through the annual review of the AE/TIP, the public and local policy makers can propose new projects or locate the status of existing ones. During the review it is the intent that an objective priority ranking among all projects in the AE will take place through the MPO's "Rating System" . This is done in an effort to address the true transportation needs of our area. Only those transportation projects pursuing state or federal funding are listed in the AE. Projects are also further defined under several sections. Within each section, projects are ranked according to their priority. For example, the first project listed in each section would have the highest priority. Additional information is given for each project such as its original priority ranking (AE only) in 11 () 11, location, type of work, total cost (which may be spread out over several years) , the proportional share of funding, the agency responsible for the project (i.e. Lead Agency) , whether funds are currently available on the local level (i.e. Locally Funded?) , and the requested source of state or federal funds. Any ambiguities are noted with "**To be Determined" . It is hoped that through the review process these notations may be replaced with the appropriate information. New projects that were recommeded for inclusion this year are shown in bold. The abbreviations for proposed funding source are as follows: I= INTERSTATE NH= NATIONAL HIGHWAYS STP= SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HM= HOUSE MEMORIAL COOP= COOP PROJECTS STATE & FEDERAL= NMSHTD'S DISCRETION STP-ENH= STP-ENHANCEMENT BR= BRIDGE REPLACEMENT SB= SCHOOL BUS ROUTE MAP= MUNICIPAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM It is important to remember that the AE/TIP are dynamic and subject to change. As a result of the annual review process, projects placed in the TIP eventually would appear on the AE. As the years go by, priorities change projects are sometimes rescheduled and placed back in the TIP or eliminated for various reasons. Often times funds are limited; therefore, only the highest priority projects can be scheduled in the AE. This is not to imply that every project in the AE will in fact be completed. Because of the ever changing environment in which government operates, the state has recommended that the LCMPO schedule a maximum of about 20* more projects than can be completed to cover any contingencies that might occur until next year's review. If there are any additional questions please contact MPO Offices at 526-0620 or write the MPO Officer at P.O. Drawer CLC; Las Cruces, NM 88004 . N U a x H x a h h a M W N F b aci W a a s a a W a NQ W o s � �E+ a '4 _ U Wa A � � y v�1 C7 a a ¢ a a a a ¢ a u a as U U q U U U U A U U O H H '✓ , A A A � v�iU aiU A A A A a � � am a as co 00 v z u m m m 0 x a� F r ro 8 ase se re ° ¢ + �, � 00 + + + 00 H U a ' o 00 0 9 d d +F 00 0 Ei z U + o0 00 o z Z + .r. 00 °a >0 O ; M U � $ W 'rl � � "' a � •� g ��>,� � o o g o + •a c .o .a � w � $ A a a" aU a z aUO °aAU A A z as o •• W go- 04 ci Ki VNvI v v v M v M M M N v 'l M a F F F o U P° m a O tFA pxxo vxFxi 0 0 Q' pU, - vi z m z z U S of U h s O _ z F a a a a a a a a a a ca � Z � E14 � A U U U z A z U A A A U z 0 H H H ¢ rn U A A A m U ti A U vxi U N U A Z z z A z A U O Fa zU 9Q � 0 8E o o aW h � 4 8 aF sF 8 00 8 8 to s 8 oo a, a � co .-, i s s �o a e v a r N oo a o F h c� �..� a M a o o voi o 0 25 r h h g U z r z b a0 h N h Ol 4N cli en s o a a . as o O M -60 A a O c A o A a 3 a s 3a a o a s a as a � o A > 03 q g C C C C en v O t� co .r N M4 h 16 l� 00 O. .--� .r .� .-i .r .r U h T of p h O O xo 0 � 0 0 0 U o O F O O F Z O H O x O H m v, U U m U U z U b � A w h .. pp F rn aA a u a a a a a A a ao U � w a °., o Z zm Icl m a ¢ z U A z z U U z z U A U z O H H H H .5 .5 , Pori „� va � u U Q E z U Z z A Z U z z U z A z U z tR SQ 8E tR SQ * O tat * F * * 8 ZE tR FR tR � bR o � r� Q g o0 0 o g oo + g 10 v + oo g 00 00 W 'CC M Q g h r g o h o g r- g z Q Q+ T O T �, EI c T U a o ° a a �T a a oo 0 p U e 0 > y + °qQ' E'• vy e4 " N rl a k :8 .5 8 a Q v F Q m O > a O a a 3 3 a 3 O a A N A 3 a 17 F ° a' 0 3 Z 5 d ° 0 3 [ cFi a a a a 0a > 5q > 0 O A o ° 0 3 C,) or o U o y a z x ] A w z w N vi v � '� rn rn rn rn F 6 vi eh a� O N M h 16 t— QO O; O N M 7 .-- N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M Lf) F H U `� y a S a c a a a x z u u u u a w _ F A A A U U z z 0 H H H +� ✓� �. A A A �A�.. A � A A o H � z t� b� w o g g g e a a a e a H a � en FFFiii � g V M O O H C� oo c14v o 0 U � � � o U F " w w a a"i a"i ;OOO v b a"i u F O O 0.1 a d a O O 0 z a ti o 0 pQ F w N a o b a s a a N z b o w •a o N � ° � _ •Q a v u v v v u u v M M M M M 7 7 & p� � \ ( / \ / \ / \ \ \ 2 \ ) ■ § ? / k z z / z k H � . H "ItH o � § E-1 J ° o A H ) \\ \\ \ 46 / } / j \ / ) ■ . � \ $ E ) 2 2 a \ ) z z ) ) e $ 3 2 » » 00 00 § ) ) k k_ z * \ u � pq \ K K £ \8 E 3 \ � m m w . \ \ \ \ C14 / k � / / / 5 ■ ) q ) ) ) k H . H H 'It � u 7 / § § h 2 � 2 . o \ © � U � @ � � | ~ 2 ~ ƒf A /\ � 03 r U3 \\ ) , 3 . } ) / 7 e �J 4 \ § ° ® Cb § k k_ k ■ k k k . ao w �I w 0 as A A w a w a ca a a a ca m oa oa oa �a O F 0 � .w] Q U U U U U z A • z 0 H H H It H H w a d , : g $ H o C4 ° Y 0 a o � .a o � 4 o z � v y .-y N M 4 h `O 00 °� rn a � a � �° a, s x. �O p N •yam °' 8 S pp b f10 pq U z o o $ a w d y a s z a a E O H H ►Ny l m W (� r'� � xa Fa Fa Fa Fa Fa Fa Fa F 3a w U w U w U w U w U w U w U w w U ae se Q 0 Ce ae Qdi 0w0 N 0000 N 0000 N 0w0 N 0w0 N 0000 N 0000 N 0000 000 N Ct °a I o H (� C4 O E-4 N FI U 0000 N N M Ol N .-� N w N �- b V rn W , � I� U � U A a rn rn a m rn rn rn rn co vii w a u a 'a o II F a g a°ains ad aU N M a a 0 U U V] •m [V�J (A 9 2 Z W N W a a o g o z ° z w z O H E+ n � C7 O z jai � A 7y �d o o a o o Ei FQQQQ� M M FQQQ� F � F Ur^ U N N OU � 4 M OU N M N vi V/ U a U U U U F no RU RO w ° w ° W w a z z a A rn a•� $ � c q d w" d r dS < y U kj F d w ad n � a � •�' `� � x w F 0 W O a O q F ? U 003 O 0. of a ha H n; a a a a a a a a a a a p0 0 OO O xx vOi U O O O O U vFi Z z ti ai vFi vFi Apq R RO U U U U U U U U U U U U ad U U U U U U U U U U U U U O It H H N o F �a U UUUU UU d x oo g o 0 0 o N o'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n g g h h h h h h h a V1 a b v lO lO a oo O, to to a i r N [� N t- N r- N r H ^� F � O p p p p p 5Q� U $ N N S T O O O VO�1 �O N M V�1 %n N a w^l � AlO Q" '" A H clt U U a ;8: o C� a G U p44 ?� 04 rz b b o z o U V. a Q A m Q N O A za, It o o z .� °' � � a •q � `� Q" a' v7 a .a w a u � 'g .a Pi N Q z ] pa ]j �]j as wj aaj, j C a C G G C a � v v �• ov � b � � 6 O N M 7 /f 16 16 oo Q, OIdAO (d (d 00040uw0 v41 �i m0U -ri U N-r1 �i U-H .11 -I Id N �i.1 44 -ri U 0 0 0 > Id 4J o )i 4J O 4J .0 a a) >4 a 0 > > a) > J-) o 4.)Id r-I Ill Id 44 m0 �i o a)ro a) m Ili Id U q -W J. 4J )i a) � rP �i • m �2a) si0ro �i O �403 �i 44X0 N ro �40 +IN0U °a�" ma � cxd00 00wU-� N.U � t'rdda40. 40(1) m � mm -rig ro m �i0-riv4JV :3 (L) 43 rom U $ m A m 0 0 m �4 0 � 1J U ri � u'.r—I E) cid r r-i (L)r-I � aLL� � � � �� m � � 03 mvri $-10m I7 1 -4 a)r-I 4J U 0 0 a)4J 0 O 40 J-) W 4J 4J M m 4 _U 0 > td 0 _' a)r-i.r.I•r1 '�4 cd 44 H ° ri 44 i� A m 10 Ivl ri 44 O 4� O y� ro td Ea 1� 0 0 0 4 0 m � O -10N >•iacdON40V4M 0W � •i 0U r. m 1 rI „ a �+ �' ocdro +' t° au 014 . m .� U � rt u� U 0 a) �+ mIN '+4 am a) aEn ami am ri 3 vrlw 1 ma) = ° rd0w 0.� �� � Ucd ZA �i >,0 1114 Go Id`� Id OUmb1 OAoma) N OH IdAEQ4 � V.00000 p 1 4J M 4j 00 m A Q 4J fwd 0 tp0 0 0 � V a: E4 E O UV 'T H a-ria �+ .,� N m+ H m O U) $4 U O-n(d p, rI L� 3 V 0V Ox � m rororo �U� =' z ai a, U o U �°I >1 a) N m � Vri a) ° rov (d 10 a t~ >1�iA > aro H " ro q > O +LU Q �' r ro cd N 0 V W 1i '701 C3 a) a 1 ri O U m 0 0 0 0 E- 4 J1. > a) $i d) U p = H r-I O a) a-� 0 w W W U S-1-0i 0 E (d m to py 1J rn � U� N N V 11 Id rI U A ° m w ro.� O ro � ' :Or. p0 I1U H � U N OiUy O Na� �'1 W44 04 0 U) w n � U ° U � U a) �i �1 _ Z31 a)A q 3I u H A a) 044 1`I �1 fd Q A 'd - �+ > -ri ry a FC 0.>;,".H U Sd _�... O a.+ a) a N 44 Ca V 1.)—•ri a) 0 E-4 E-1 m 41 5 m O Ia owoo r, o a) ,� a)=�ror-I * a�) o cnrn roo� wa>iw O >� b'u 3 U Id r1 'a)) s~. td 44 �" ° a)A a) ° 3 N 1Z, V` 5 $4 it d) p f-I U� N N �� UA S4 m O �+ Id +A-I r' Ha) UA O > Oald o0 400 „ 0,~ a UUOU > . > 0 a) ro >i �O r-I_,-1 00 a ria 4a ,� O O N q °r♦ ro rnkMa) si a) a.0r-I 31iri aamOXk H � '� o fn H 1~ �, X O 4a � �, U N 04 v V Id a Hl O ri 4a r I-ri cd ° O ro a Id E F U N m v 1 V� ° p `a +' V 4a O 0 � +' a) td ri u) z H ro � m 1� w 41 k m � Id m� 0 �+ m r. o a) a>) � ca w ro: o Id ro Id a �: prdU � w X-ri m UA",� ° O �AQ zUU � 0041 aaa))� >,aa) H I� mala t0—1 3 11 m ro dl r"-. r-I k (6 H f7 0 r4 H �.' U 0) �, 1.1 0 O FC q m !~ rHi O 0 Id•U a) x a as H r'�I �r1 1��i � 4w-I k A ri M U 0 X V r-1 m S s~ a a a Ei '�G �i ro U [," O EiV0m 04 :j 1a) � Id0I(d.,I zaawU �y01td 1V r-IO d 0 :3 cd w mV0k0itrJ DOAH mAp,1a4 04 a „A � $+ �' � Ia �+ ri;, ��+ �ro HUH �, >ro a G U C� � � ZErf M ¢'H aa)) aai 'p,o z uoaq V UUUv � to 3 cid = rHl m N 04 U3 i".° � N o.. xx811 04 II � H a �0 4J U U � � p � nw � a_' �4 >,� gqi zUW 00roA4 4J � UO +�i �i �i O 0 N m 3 A k � 0 rOi ro U U U aV P O 'd P ° >, $4 � � a) I°d U � 3 `v1 Ind m�° m 0.�'� N a -r�i U a) 4 N g ro 4-)w aJ tri$i U � °0 a a,, � k o aUi'b•d'��b m Ei m roar l' > r. 1 H = a, Coro 90 a)r: kUro0 . . S M V °0 U ri m N �4a 4j k U w L A Id a) 0''i V �, 'gym `" = U ON d) 44 op+maj30 m a) U >� a) >' H a 10 V s i ° rli a) In Nri M N rO 4-) -ri $4 d r1 Id d) N m O W CO 0 O N � U � wUHa) � � rnar- ro 4.) a) k40a)44 (1) E-1 M V.oUa)V Ida) O NN g03IdId roaU 4 $4NV E4 kkEA AOlm r I ro cd ro ri.11 d) k O) 0 v 3 0 A H � a O a-� V V. 0 d) Id rI >I G O m 111 m � V 0 Cl) w O ¢+ V •ri a)-A U � OlMm m 444 >1 4-J 0 m 0 , N O P4 U) 111IO � . a) VV-ri rHi-rH u r. 0 � r-I-I,M 4 V V a)-H u10 (d m m �w-, O ZU Ir-Imn 8 a) U 4�i 044 r. V. rm4E110O >.- 1W nNgrd mUri H ]CWU] rAUm- 4-nmUO 0000N a) 0-rl44 r-I44 N0pa) OU 1104 11 ON & oN >40 H aaa(d H a) aaa 0V V aM14 o ari H U)� H aCd� aV 0 04 Cd N as a a � 8g ti uU U ai of w U vii U) U U z z Z a A � h U U H cw7 a a < a U a a H a ¢ a U U a U U U U z z H Ln H U z U C c> Leo0C>0 C> (DaE p� ♦w ��1 � ase sem 82ae 8� s2 SSE spe spe spespe Oa b b a g i V i U 7 b a r- N .-+ ar b b O O O O H � � O $ h 8 h O (y� y(tl� O O O C4 O O b ti O 18� o0 7 P V1 �O N M N h R a 1'� a � s A v. u VVp ^� 'O m 'v� •C .fir � � � O � a 8a a a u b v u � a b b 0 0 0 b s s a > o 3 a a as a a a a a O x a o a oa 8 41) N z o o ® u N s a $ o g o N R1 N v oG a Q a � Ur V •° Q a A b � FF'�� M .. ri m v vi 16 r oo a -. •• w o o $ rA U uU U A w 'o O a 00 N MM W c O H V) as z i � A � a 0 C) 108 ? U a m 10 v 10 v 10 a O H cd °a S � 10 10 10 1 °a o � H � � a U s '3 b o G W a � lC lC Y O b b al b T (y� 00 N w + N "i 7 d+ w �I 0 U O A � H H as H O Cry z H t � w Fa a Eu- E-1 H O U a U a 0 3 w O w a z 0 F a U O a a z w 0 a a a w a z x w na O OU of vii vii vii OU W A A F F F F A w F N k,� H v 0 Z U U w U U H U 00 (D0 0C> x 0Q a � 0CD 0 N 0000 N 0.0 N 0c0 N W h h N cd H 0 0O0Eo-, 00 00 N ss U " M M U U a w vOi E. vii vii vii w vOi ai a Im U g a 3 U w0 w a of z s o N > v w U DC °1 Z N .ti U vUi -• N M ol w 0 a w O O A O U O F F F F F F F F F F F F F F N F cl) &0 GO co li0) v7 v7 y h h al &0 U) � a � ca � a O HA W U U U U U U U U Ha a a v A z a z u u z A H zi CO cn co co W oZ HaA z z z FP o o o o LE O E-4 pa� O •� [Us] O .fir v�1 ..r 000 N b M N N N N P W --0 a+3 a 0 10L gg gg o c a b U 3 o � •� o � o C u •a •o^ O 21 U W W Ua " � U W � � q a a •� a a � b a z3 a a as z za � a a ca 3 � z z a 3 U o 0 M ,y o z u z U ® v S S o o C9 ® g S b b o �4 1 A S 8 a q S o b a a p o Z N a N z a C4 a bb a O 00 N ci v vi O Q� .r .ti r w QUI F O ti O U m 0 � 7y H A y H F ? f.N H 0a o En a � a .a 'a 'O O � F z 0 F O "�1 z � � z w a w 00 a poi, O U A Aa ir7 zz H U L H IX 0 O PI� Z H �o `7.� y x H F a o H o •� '�.� H °a U U � a U W e3� w eo O a w � �o O U s U A � g W w w w '" @ A4 � w k � u \ \ \ ] ) � « ) . ) - § 2 rA S = § � E ■ : H � H \ � ®s � 0awlf - � . � � 2 k � •� / / d ƒ ) � k = m \ ) / d di K � Q § � # � # � # .g «� . 2 , : \ § . § � u ;\ u\ ) § ) \ \ § / m ■ � i § \ 0 O H a a a a O O U U a O O O a 7 ai vi v°qi vii `" O a0 °I caa vFi of uFi vFi ai z z z z y O U � U z FA A FA A FA FA A FA A A FA A H q W aC aC aG aC aG aC a uOl (n �n m u d d u Ei .a d A A A A z A z z z H Pi d0 0cm � �p � A A A '� A q A A A A q •� � F A A A Hj 4i '� � w z za a s p 84 Se L2 o Spe p� S2 °° p� FpR SpE lays Q� Q w O O O N -C1 P V1 O O O O O 90 7 O O O a H r N [� N b � oo w 0 o ct H00c �l O � UUz FaaC O •� U M N 7 `z.oro oho O O O g g N S O b EA o g N 44 a s s W s s o g d a 8 v s o s 0 3 g z ? $ g g gh gN g g U U S U o U U w > aY a� N N O N g U U U U N > [� as z a O x a .; U .: c> z z z z z z o o^ 3° N a q Q m c U U V z N 9z z 8 a a v Z d ° a H o s a a v x U um x tl4 C F F ao Q C o 0 o b i A g v, g o x U 0 e a Q U A A W pC 06 T ^r .Ni .M. .fir .moi .r-i w 0 c4I U O U zz H �� A H °' �,O 0 •� U 0 Pd 0 �--4 U a U 3 oGO ya. F F z 0 U •� O p N z w N o � a z N H wl0 0 U O A � H H a � r U a U N a 0 3 w O w a z 0 E ¢ U O a z w 0 a a r . w . \ � w k 2 / I § / $ E E 2 2 E w @ an . H § b § q ) I \ / 0j _k U3. q $ k � a c A . � O 2 � . ■ � . � . § d cn § ) § \ § \ : 2 § k { § 2 \ k R � . d � � } 2 � « § § � m a w am 22 c k o a w H .14 al � o 0 a JD 0 O 0 g U F m m z O Ca H N baa � o � � H H a o o Foo �1:3 U W �+ 44 5 U 0 0 a 3 aca a A a O a U O a e4 � o z ] w � °a a. Ln H U j as � 8 O U m ~ W N �O a H a o IX o �--, 1 11 a U U a U w � a ya. E F O F U d O C�9 z � o C oa. O w "Cla 0 c 0 U z � o 0 H H � a H q.) b R H � F a o v H w H U a U W a 0 a w O w a z 0 F a U s z w 0 a a � a , 0 2 ; I § ] k u S 2 u ] e � H \ � 3� � H � a (.4 £ � a 2 ct § \ ) 2 � . ■ � . � . . �� § ) d % ) d dE E 2 d \ d E-1 � Ct � 2 � . K 2 \ 2 \ ) Q 00 � / 3 � } k � � § E m u j � O � a wfo� o a w 0 U A H � � � as C E-1 cz H o ° H 8 O O' U a U 44 U � P4 U a 3 � 0 U w ya. F z C 0 0 U H a � s o ua 0 a z a w � w rn UI ril O O U z � o A � H H as H r E" a U � C3� a v a 0 3 w O w a z 0 F a a a z w 0 a a 0 N W �I O U z � o A � H H a � N E;S ^' w ` as a 04 H O •� � o H a U U Ix U Im a 0 3 w 0 w a O F a U O a w a z w 0 a a r N wl a 0 0 0 w o u o w H as as as a 163. H Vw U o, + 'i x 00 N 0. h h 0 N 4J 6 m F h 0 N C3 ' u 1-1 � o o � M � ° � 88 N r� v � a o` a � U F 0 a � � a w � w U a o of o v o H a� zV w d F z ;ms 0 a w a O O w a U 0 O 0 O