Loading...
01-13-1993 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MESILLA DONA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES AGENDA he following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning rganization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 13, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 orth Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico . 'he City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable .ccommodation(s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a ,ublic meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the ueeting by calling 525-0122 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III . OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion and consideration of the MPO' s Annual Element Rating System, Version 2 .0 . IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plan update by RoadRunner Transit Officials . B. Discussion of projects for inclusion in the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) . V. OTHER VI . ADJOURNMENT PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MESILLA DONA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES AGENDA he following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning rganization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 3, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 ,'orth Church St . , Las Cruces , New Mexico . 'he City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable .ccommodation(s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a ublic meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the ueeting by calling 525-0122 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III . OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion and consideration of the MPO' s Annual Element Rating System, Version 2 . 0 . IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of projects for inclusion in the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) . V. OTHER VI . ADJOURNMENT L 5 PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: January 13 1993 AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: Rcview and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on December 9 , 1992 . SUPPORT INFORMATION: December 9 , 1992 Policy Committee Meeting Minutes . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: N:)ne LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: January 13 . 1993 A3ENDA ITEM: D:.scussion and consideration of the MPO' s Annual Element Rating System, Varsion 2 . 0 . ANION REQUESTED: C:)nsideration and Approval of Rating System, Version 2 . 0, for upcoming p;--oj ect review process . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Annual Element Rating System, Version 2 . 0 . D:LSCUSSION/OPTIONS: Discussion of Rating System. i 1 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING 2 JANUARY 13, 1993 3 The following agenda was considered by the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization at a regular meeting held on 4 Wednesday, January 13, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 5 ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Luchini, Chairman (Dona Ana County) 6 Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) 7 Ken Miyagishima (Dona Ana County) Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 8 Nelson Clayshulte (Town of Mesilla) Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces 9 John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) 10 STAFF PRESENT: Brian Denmark, MPO Officer Michael Parks, City of Las Cruces Planning 11 David Carpenter, City of Las Cruces Planning Tim Russ, Roadrunner Transit 12 CALL TO ORDER: 13 Mr. Luchini called the meeting to order. There was a quorum. Mr. Luchini 14 said, we have an amendment to the agenda. We have a presentation on the Americans With Disabilities Act. That's an addition under New Business. 15 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, the Transit Department is requesting to 16 present an update to the Americans with Disabilities Act Plan that was submitted last summer for your review and approval . What they would like to 17 do is make a brief presentation and request consideration to that update. By doing that, it would require a motion to amend the agenda to reflect that 18 item under New Business. 19 Mr. Tomlin said, so moved. Mr. Southworth seconded. 20 Mr. Luchini said, it has been moved and seconded that we amend the agenda to include this item. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The 21 motion passes unanimously. 22 REVIEW OF MINUTES 23 Mr. Luchini said, we'll move to Review of Minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of our last meeting? Mr. Tomlin moved for 24 acceptance of the minutes as submitted. Mr. Southworth seconded. Mr. Luchini said, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The 25 motion passes unanimously. 26 OLD BUSINESS 27 Mr. Luchini said, moving to Old Business: Discussion of the MPO Annual 28 Element Rating System. Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, as directed by the Policy Committee the MPO 29 (staff resubmitted the AE Rating System. For the benefit of our new Policy Committee Member, the AE Rating System is a technical process in which we 301 rate all projects that are proposed for the next fiscal year. Things that I are considered in this rating process are the amount of traffic that's on 31 the roadway; road conditions; type of grading and/or drainage that impacts 32 -1- i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 that particular roadway; safety conditions, meaning estimated accidents that fight occur on that particular roadway, bridge or intersection; a warrant 3 system depending upon what type of project we're talking about, meaning are e dealing with a traffic signal, railroad crossing, things like that. We 4 have been in the last two or three years in the process of slowly moving into a cost/benefit analysis type of rating system. Every year we have been 5 reviewing and modifying and adding to this particular system. We feel , at the Policy Committee level , that every year it gets a little better. It 6 gets a little more detailed and a little more technical . This particular ear, we spent a lot of time in the Technical Advisory Committee and the 7 Policy Committee making many revisions and/or additions to this particular draft. At this point in time, the Policy Conmittee redirected the Rating 8 System back to the Technical Advisory Committee for a few modifications. Those modifications dealt with adding a few definitions that further define 9 the variables within the Rating System; providing estimated accident reduction information from a safety standpoint; another process that was 10 added was a percentage breakdown to the amount of points that you might achieve for a particular project. The old rating system used to have a 11 process where you might score points on a certain variable or you might not score any at all. The Policy Committee felt that there should be a 12 breakdown depending on the type of conditions that you're talking about. Those variables have been added. As an example, starting with the 13 percentage breakdown on page 2 of the Rating System, under Travel Time, item number 5, Vehicle Miles Travelled, there's now a breakdown on the amount of 14 points you can achieve for this particular assignment under New Road Construction. In the past, it might have been zero points or some set of 15 points. Also, for example, if you're over 5% as far as vehicle miles travelled, in reduction you would score 9 points. Obviously the lower the 16 percentage in the reduction of miles travelled, the less points are scored. The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the Policy Committee's 17 recommendations and provided a recommendation to endorse those conditions. Those conditions have been added to the Annual Element that you have before 18 you tonight. Another factor that was added to the AE was greater explanation to the process in lieu of having problems in the future when we 19 have new members on board and they're not sure or clear on how the process works. We have provided some information at the beginning of the Rating 20 System that explains what we're trying to achieve through this process. With that, Mr. Chairman, I,would turn it over to the Policy Committee for 21 any questions. Mr. Mike Parks was the project staff person involved handling this, so if there are any questions, I'll direct them to Mr. Parks. 22 Mr. Luchini said, does anyone have any questions on the Rating System? I 23 think we've discussed this so many times that we're all familiar with the System. 24 Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Chairman, the only question I have, and it might be in 25 here, is we talked about the option of the Policy Committee, after the TAC has gone through and objectively rated the projects, to add points. Where 26 is that? 27 Mr. Parks said, that's in the second paragraph in the introductory page. We didn't go through all of the details of how exactly that will happen but it 28 is mentioned there. I would stress that we're evolving this process as we go, and that's where it's mentioned that each governing body will have ten 29 (points to assign to any number of projects. 30 Mr. Denmark said, I think that's what was agreed upon--10 points that can be distributed wherever you choose. The reason we put it in front is that it 31 really isn't part of the Rating System. It's more a part of the Policy Committee. 32 + -2- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 Mr. Tomlin said, Councilors Ferralez, Haltom and 1, were talking about this at the City Council meeting last night, and we just wanted to be sure that g it was in there. 4 (inaudible from audience) 5 Mr. Denmark said, yes, what we're planning on doing is those projects that the City Council or Dona Ana County Commission or Mesilla decided to have on 6 the AE for rating, the MPO staff will rate those through this system. As we did last year, we will show the rating that occurred on this system, how it 7 was rated last year if it was on the AE last year, and we can also reflect the old rating system score. I think some of you were interested in that 8 last year, where one project scored very low one year and the next year due to the new rating system because you added more detail , it came up higher. 9 What was decided upon at that time was it appeared more realistic because you had a "gut feeling" on that project. There's really a concern because 10 of the safety issued involved but it wasn't reflected through the rating system. That's why a lot of those variables have been added to. It did 11 improve on the rating. We have been in contact with all the governmental bodies, so we are in the process now and beginning to rate all those 12 projects that were directed to us. 13 Mr. Luchini said, I think it was stressed quite a bit on the safety issue. 14 Mr. Ferralez said, what I brought up Monday night...the point I brought up Monday night, of course, was probably not exactly a safety factor, but in 15 the bottleneck situation that I referred to, and I think that Council felt that there was quite a bit of concern on that. It wasn't based on the 16 number of accidents, but the bottlenecking situation caused because of the number of vehicles during certain hours, where emergency vehicles might not 17 be able to reach their point of service in case of a catastrophe or major situation that would need emergency equipment. Is that categorized in some 18 area here or would it be under safety. 19 Mr. Denmark said, a lot of that would be covered in safety due to the fact that there's increased traffic through the area that was of concern to City 20 Council. There are several intersections that are affected. The estimated accident rate reflected will obviously be a lot higher than it was 5 or 6 21 years ago due to the amount of traffic that now traverses that area. That particular project, we haven't done it yet, but we would assume that it 22 would score fairly high because of that. 23 Mr. Ferralez said, the condition that exists there at this time, and I'm sure that we all know that to reach east to west across Interstate 25, all 24 we have is Lohman, Missouri and that's it, in case of a major situation. We're bottlenecked now. 25 Mr. Luchini said, are there any other questions. 26 Mr. Haltom said, I have a question, but first I'd like to apologize for 27 being late. I had two meetings in two days, and I got back late from El Paso for this one. 28 Mr. Ferralez said, don't feel bad, I was also late. 29 Mr. Luchini said, I also just got in from Santa Fe. 30 I Mr. Haltom said, may I please ask where we are in terms of looking at this 31 document. Are we going through this page by page? 32 -3 ;I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 Mr. Luchini said, no, not really. We talked about the TAC discussing this item and then bringing it back to us. Councilor Ferralez mentioned the 3 Lohman area as to how it is going to be rated. 4 Mr. Haltom said, there were two things I wanted to speak to in terms of style in this Rating System. If you haven't gone past this point, I'd like 5 to mention this. On the first page, "run" and then called us individuals, "which". I'm not a very good who, but I'm not a "which". I think most of g MY comments are with the way they are stated and not necessarily with substance. On page one, there's the statement regarding cost benefits. 7 Mr. Luchini said, Mr. Denmark was just explaining to our new member how this 8 came about. 9 Mr. Haltom said, I see, so you haven't really gotten into it, then. If I may, Mr. Chairman, on page one concerning cost benefits. The statement is 10 difficult to understand, "is the project within the percentile of the project being ranked with the highest benefit to cost on top." You're doing 11 the same thing on page 6, number 9. I think that's the sort of statement you need on page one. It's supposed to be instructions on how that's to be 12 done, and I think one cannot get that from the first page statement. So if 13 �ou'll use the same statement you used on page 6, then I think that will ake sense to people. The statement is hard to decipher and for people who re doing the rating, it should be easy to decipher. 14 Mr. Southworth said, I think we ought to change it slightly though, because 15 the highest cost to benefit ratio is the worst of the project, and the lowest cost to benefit ratio would be the best. The other one is the 16 highest benefit to cost. That's correct. 17 Mr. Haltom said, I think they're thinking in terms of the cost benefit ratio as being a factor used to cover that method, but still it could be 18 confusing. 19 Mr. Luchini said, we can change that. Any other changes? 20 Mr. Haltom said, on page 4, item 18, I think it should be "The PHF is defined" instead of "The PHF being defined", otherwise you have a sentence 21 fragment and it might make some people nervous. 22 Mr. Luchini said, whatever we need to change so that it's comfortable for everyone, we'll change. 23 Mr. Haltom said, I also have a change on page 5, 3rd paragraph, the sentence 24 ends "is not on the list. If". It should read, "If the street in question does not have a rating or is not on the list, a field survey will be 25 completed...". Also on that page under drainage, what does that symbol specify. 26 Mr. Denmark said, it is less than (0 2%. 27 Mr. Haltom said, I think it would be better to spell it out rather than use 28 the symbol since some people might not be familiar with the meaning. On page 11, the structural capacity (N5). It states, "As prescribed by using 29 NMSHTD's bridge rating system. NMSHTD's "C P" Rating for bridges under the Istate's current rating system divided by 100." I'm confused by the 30 total 301listed first and then the division by 100. 31 32 -4- I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 • I 1 r. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Councilor Haltom, New Mexico State's Rating 2 System goes to a total of 3000 points. We divide by a factor of 100 so that 3 e can use it in our system. 4 r. Haltom said, so the 30 total is the total number under this rating that a bridge can get. 5 r. Parks said, that is correct. 6 r. Haltom said, that was not clear to me because I don't have any knowledge 7 of what that total amount is. 8 r. Parks said, actually their rating goes up to 3,000. 9 r. Haltom said, in rating it means that for 1,000, you'd give 10 points. 10 Mr. Parks said, the higher their rating the less structurally sound. 11 Mr. Haltom said, so you'll come out with an absolute figure that will be 30 for the highest. 12 Mr. Parks said, that would indicate the weakest bridge. 13 Mr. Denmark said, they can achieve up to 30. 14 Mr. Haltom said, if the rating was 1,000, then it would be 10; for 2,000, it 15 ould be 20. 16 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, under bridges, and I realize we have been talking about structure capacity, is there any place in the evaluation that 17 places any valuation on bridges that freeze in the winter time. That are really a hazard when you go over them at normal speed and hit it, and it is 18 iced. Is that evaluated in any way? 19 Mr. Parks said, right now that is not evaluated. Any bridge that is elevated will have an air mass below it, is subject to freezing. Right now, 20 to my knowledge, in the State System nor in our own system, that's not taken into consideration. There's signs that say, "Slippery When Wet", but that's 21 about it. 22 Mr. Haltom said, are you going to make any valuation for the present condition of the culvert or of the area around the culverts? It seems to me 23 that you have a means of evaluating bridges and their conditions, and you could take the culvert and the area that it serves, and some of them get 24 into worse conditions than others. Some of the culverts fill up so quickly 've got to do something to prevent their filling every time there's that you 25 rain, so I was wondering if we don't need something there to evaluate the condition of the culverts at the time you're determing what to do about 26 them. 27 Mr. Parks said, right now, staff does not have the expertise to evaluate structural capacity of the culverts. The reason that the structural 28 capacity of bridges is included is because we can borrow that from the work (that's already completed, and we can do research into methodology on 29 structural capacity. My concern would be that any evaluations that we did ,now would be very subjective. We'd go out and look at it and say, "the 30 ►culverts bad" or "it'sfilling up with sediment", but I'm not aware right now of any methodology, personally, that I could use to evaluate the 31 structural capacity of culverts. I could speak with the City's Hydrologist to see if there's some methodology for that, and get back with you on that. 32 -5- I ;I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 II 1 2 Mr. Haltom said, I think it would be a good idea to find some way of evaluating the condition of the culverts. I've seen them when they've been 3 so badly washed dneve seen themm, that dsoufullothatetherwater hasldtosgonovepr under a heavy load. 4 the road in order to pass. So, I think it would desirable to have some eans of determining the present condition so that you can factor that in, 5 if you need to replace them. 6 IthesePaprojects, Ilhavemight yetalso to have athat culvertthe projectrtothat rate.I've So,been thisrating rks said, isa 7 very little used category. 8 Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have a culvert project for you. This one collapsed, so this discussion kind of brought home the 9 point. 10 Mr. Parks said, I believe, also, that the State has a requirement that any span that's greater than (I want to say) 12 feet is considered a bridge, but 11 I'll have to check on that. That wouldmean that anything less than 12 feet of a span would qualify as a culvert. Again, I'll dig up some information 12 on this and report back to you on this. I'm a little bit leery about it getting into the process for this year, though, because of our timeline. 13 Mr. Parks, you mentioned another thing, our use of "box" Mr. Tomlin said, 14 Icuverts. There's probably a greater structural factor there because of the distance. If it weren't, it'd collapse and then the danger involved there is much grthink if we're going to look at that 15 eater. So, I --I don't know whether you call them bridges or not, or "box" culverts because they're on the sight. Somehow those things need to be 16 formed and poured there considered. 17 Mr. Parks said, there's also corrugated steel . That's new ground for me an 18 I'll just have to find some information. 19 Mr. Tomlin said, I think it's something that we can look at and maybe add next year. 20 Mr. Luchini said, any other comments? 21 Mr. Tomlin said, do we, have a resolution to pass on this thing, or is that 22 it? 23 Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is. Don't you need approval of this plan with the minor modifications we made tonight. 24 Mr. Parks said, we need your consensus but there is no resolution. 25 Mr. Tomlin said, I think for the record we should probably move to accept 26 the Rating System with the modifications suggested this evening. Mr. Haltom seconded. Mr. Luchini said, it has been moved and seconded. Is there any 27 other discussion. If riot, all those in favor signify by saying, aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. 28 NEW BUSINESS 29 Mr. Luchini said, okay, let's move to New Business: presentation of the 30Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plan update by Roadrunner Transit Officials. 31 32 -6- i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 r. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Tim Russ, who is representing the Transit Department. He will make a presentation on 3 a proposed update to the Americans with Disabilities Act Plan. 4 Mr. Russ said, good evening. My name is Tim Russ and I am the Acting Transit Director for Roadrunner Transit. In January, 1992, the original 5 compliance plan for the Americans with Disabilities Act was prepared by the City of Las Cruces and Roadrunner Transit and submitted to the federal 6 government for their approval . Many of you, I'm sure, will recall this plan as it passed through last year. We finally received the final acceptance 7 and approval of this plan in September, 1992. One month later we were given a letter and told that we must do an annual update to it--about 4 months 8 after it was accepted. So, with one year under our belt we did have some experience and allowed us to change some of the original projections 9 considerably. The basic plan outlined that we would cover the 3/4 mile corridor around the fixed route operation. There was a choice of a mile and 10 a half or three-quarters of a mile. What we decided upon, and what we agreed upon, was a three-quarter mile corridor. Whenever I present to you 11 the update plan that we have offered, the update plan or the projections without any change occurring with the present fixed route operation and I 12 think it is important that we keep in mind, any deviation, expansion, extension, so forth, of the fixed route operation is going to directly 13 impact the operation and cost of the Paratransit Service. So, the update is based on the information that we have as of today, without any 14 modifications. In the original plan, the main differences between the original plan and the update have to do with the projections of the cost and 15 the number of vehicles required to bring us into full compliance by the year 1995. In the original plan, we said that we would be in full compliance by 16 1995. The update tells the milestones and steps that we have taken in this past year towards reaching that compliance, such as adding an answering 17 machine, preparing new policy and procedures manuals, the adjusting of the Paratransit Service where it did comply with the three-quarter mile corridor 18 along with the hours of service which matched the fixed route operation. The significant changes in the update plan fall in the category of the 19 monies projected and the number of vehicles. In the original plan the projected cost through 1995 was $1,770,000.00. In the update plan, we have 20 revised those figures and dropped them approximately $800,000.00. We are now projecting a cost through 1995 of approximately, $893,000.00. Also in 21 the original plan, we projected that we would require 11 vans by 1995 to handle all of those eligible, and again, in the update, the number of vans 22 has been reduced to a total of 6. We feel very comfortable, after having a year's experience and experiencing most of the grovith under the new act, 23 those individuals that were eligible and that we have certified, we feel very comfortable with the projections that v+e've made. So, the significance 24 of the update is actually the reduction of approximately $800,000.00 and the number of vehicles through 1995 going from 11 to 6 vehicles. And, again, 25 that's based on the current information we have. We have no knowledge of any expansion or extension, however please keep in mind that any time that 26 we change the fixed route operation, under the plan and under what we've agreed to, we do have to provide the Paratransit Service within a three- 27 quarter mile corridor. An example being, we've received many requests for the Elks area and Highway 70. Off and on, there's been a lot of talk about 28 whether we're going to have bus service once they open Onate High School . !Again, if, for whatever reason, it was decided and we extended the fixed 29 route service out here, this three-quarter mile corridor would be around !that completely and encompassing all of this residential area which would 301make a significant change in the requirements for the Paratransit Operation. I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have on 31 this plan. Hopefully, each of you had an opportunity to review it. 32 -7- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 1 1 2 Mr. Cadena said, one question. To what extent, if any, is there any 3 contemplation involving surrounding areas beyond the three-quarter corridor. For example, Mesilla or Dona Ana. 4 Mr. Ferralez said, these are communities that could use the service. 5 (inaudible) eligible for service. 6 Mr. Russ said, Councilor Ferralez, presently we are not aware of any proposed changes. Two things, I believe, come into play here. If we do not 7 change the fixed route structure as it is today, we are not required to expand the Paratransit Service beyond that three-quarter mile. However, as 8 you are probably aware, there's presently a South Valley feasibility study that is being conducted. I received an update the other day and they 9 haven't made too much progress with it. Many are waiting to see what they feel the need is, especially south of the City, and what requirements there 10 might be. While I believe some of those involved with the feasibility study may have visions of a large bus like our fixed route operation in the City, 11 operating down through the Valley, even if it is established that there's a justifable need, I really don't believe that we would be looking, or whoever 12 would operate it, at that type of operation. I think that transportation would be provided with a smaller type van service. Again, if it was done on 13 a demand-response basis where you would pick up with a phone call , as it is now with our Paratransit, we only pick up the individuals that are 14 qualified. But, depending' on the needs that are discovered through that survey, it is possible that down the road there might be some expanded 15 service. However, it's my understanding also, there would be private individuals that if they felt they could provide that service, that it could 16 be contracted to those individuals. So, perhaps, we may not even be involved. So, right now I don't have any other information than what I've 17 been able to base this on. 18 Mr. Tomlin said, on page 7 of the handout, where it addresses unresolved issues, and you refer to an Exhibit 1 in dealing with the determination of 19 eligiblity for Paratransit. One of things, and I don't know if you're aware of it, is calls that I've gotten concerning the Transit System. Many of 20 them have to do with the fact that eligibility has been denied under the guidelines. I was curious to see, and I don't find Exhibit 1 as part of the 21 packet, what the presumptive eligibility it provided and how you work that. 22 Mr. Russ said, Councilor Tomlin, the Exhibit was on most of these, and on page 7, the unresolved issues are when the FTA did finally approve the 23 Plan, they had the 3 unresolved issues. So, that's what this particular page pertains to; it's addressing those issues they raised. On the Exhibit, 24 what they were asking is, in the original plan, we made reference to individuals visiting who are not citizens of Las Cruces, and if they came 25 out of another city, they wanted to make sure that we understood that if they had qualified for service, like in Albuquerque, and they came here to 26 spend two or three weeks, that we would extend the Paratransit Service to them as long as they presented us with their certification. So, this was 27 just verifying that we understand that and we do, indeed, recognize certification from another city. 28 Mr. Tomlin said, can the FTA change the requirements for eligibility? 29 IMr. Russ said, yes, they had in January, and I brought along this evening, 30lalthough I didn't bring enough for everyone, but one of the things that we were required to do as we come in to compliance was prepare a procedures and 31 policy manual which explains eligibility. It was printed in both English 32 -8- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 and Spanish and we're waiting on the pamphlets to come back as we will have them available in braile as well as videotapes. While I'm not the expert 3 on eligibility, they were outlined and there were some changes effective in January of 1992. We're going by those very strictly. We had some people 4 who were riding prior to the enactment of the 88 Plan and then under the new criteria, some did not qualify for it. So, we had to go through and 5 recertify all of the individuals that are using it. 6 Mr. Tomlin said, can you do me a favor and see that the members of the City Council receive copies of the Policies and Procedures, individually. 7 Mr. Russ said, we just received these last week. They're that new. I will 8 provide all of you with copies, also. 9 Mr. Luchini said, is there in the future any expansion planned into the rural areas of the county? 10 Mr. Russ said, Mr. Chairman, I'm relatively new on the scene with the 11 Transit System, and I know there has been some suggestions about that. 12 Mr. Luchini said, there's going to be some money for transportation out of the feds, and that's why I asked. 13 Mr. Tomlin said, if we were to extend, if I understood what you were saying, 14 even if the fixed route system was to go outside of the City limits and serving the rural areas, the three-quarter mile obligation for Paratransit 15 would go along with it. 16 Mr. Russ said, that is correct. 17 Mr. Tomlin said, that makes it even harder, I think, for us. We used to go to the Town of Mesilla and do some other loop providing that outside the 18 City limits. 19 Mr. Luchini said, the reason I ask is because under this RPO, I think they're going to be looking at that area, and I hate to see duplications. 20 If the City can run the whole darn thing, it would be better than someone else running it for the County and so forth. 21 Mr. Tomlin said, will the people who are studying the rural plan look at the 22 implications of that because I think that's one thing we need to be aware of. If they do it outside of the Roadrunner System, I think what you're 23 saying Mr. Luchini is, if we're going to do it then maybe it should be done under the auspices of Roadrunner Transit and just be an extension of that 24 service. Are they taking that into consideration? 25 Mr. Russ said, Mr. Chairman, Councilor Tomlin, one of the key individuals involved in the study that's presently going on is Mr. Kevin Boberg who 26 helped prepare the original compliance plan for Roadrunner and he is very much aware of the ramifications if we are talking about Roadrunner providing 27 the service. So, to what extent, I really don't know, but I will be talking with him. 28 Mr. Haltom said, who will be picking up the tab. I know the federal 29 government portion would go wherever we tell it to go, but in terms of the other half of cost, who would pay that. 301 Mr. Russ said, they haven't gotten that far yet. They're trying to see if 31 they need any service at this time. 32 -9- II LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 1 2 Mr. Haltom said, the reason I raised that question is I don't think you can expect the City to pay it. 3 Mr. Luchini said, I don't think so, either. 4 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass on some information 5 with regard to this subject. Four years ago when I was Chairman of the Council , I was approached with some information apparently that was gathered 6 by a nonprofit organization in determining if there was a need in the southern part of the County and all of these smaller communities along 7 Highway 28; and the consensus, apparently, at that time was that there definitely was a need. There were enough people that would use the 8 service. Maybe not on the time schedule that we have within the City, but aybe every two or three hours. The people that have business to take care g in the City and sometimes they don't have transportation because of their age or their lack of transportation, could use the that service timandit f course the 10 cost and who would pay for it, came up. search for information as to whether there was really a need for it, and the 11 consensus at that time was that there was a need all the way down to La Mesa and even up to Sunland Park. That's as far as it got at that time. I don't 12 think it will get any further until we get federal help and determine how local funds will be made available. 13 Mr. Luchini said, I agree with you. It's going to come up. 14 Mr. Ferralez said, one of the points presented at that time with regard to 15 cost and how to pay for it, was that so many people would be coming in to the City to spend money, and of course pay Gross Receipts Tax which would be 16 coming in to the City. 17 Mr. Luchini said, are there any other questions? 18 Mr. Tomlin said, move for passage of Resolution 93-001. Mr. Ferralez seconded. 19 wit Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, is htha e time andhatproposalratsa 20 an objection to being presented w meeting rather than having an opportunity to review it prior to the 21 meeting. We do not normally do this. We only do this in emergency cases. 22 Mr. Luchini said, I agree with you. And there is a timeframe that you need this. 23 Mr. Russ said, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the timeframe. As I said, we 24 received notice of the update in October, however it wasn't until the mid part of December that those of us that remained in the Transit Department 25 were aware of this. We discovered this and found that we had to get on the ball and get it in. The deadline to get it in to the federal government is 26 January 26th. This will be an annual update. Even after we come into ill be a little recap of what we're doing compliance, the other updates w . 27 The reason for the small amount of time is that after we were made aware that this was necessary, vie had to hold a public hearing along with the 28 Transit Advisory Board Fleeting, and gyre met with the Technical Advisory (Committee, and we are hoping to present this to the City Council at their 29 January 19 meeting. So, that was the reason that we were trying to speed it jup. 3O Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, you are new in this job and I want you to 31 understand that we typically require that this material be presented to us 32 -10- I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 far enough in advance to read it. We have saved a lot of mistakes simply by being able to review things and catch things that have been missed. I can 3 go along with this now, but I hope this is not the normal way of doing business. 4 Mr. Parks said, perhaps I can shed some light on this. The packets you 5 received had already been delivered to you when copies became available. 6 Mr. Luchini said, I don't see anything that would hurt anything with this resolution. 7 Mr. Haltom said, I'm not going to object any further to it and I will vote 8 on it, but I'm voting in the dark because I haven't had a chance to read this material . I guess by now most of you know that I read the material 9 that comes to me. So, I don't like to vote on something not knowing what I'm voting on. 10 Mr. Luchini said, I'm like you, and I like to have the material beforehand, 11 but I don't see any problem with this. We have a motion on the floor. 12 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, this is good for only one year anyway. Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. 13 Mr. Luchini said, all those in favor say, aye. Any opposed? The motion 14 carries unanimously. 15 Mr. Russ said, thank you very much. 16 Mr. Luchini said, we'll go on to Discussion of projects for inclusion in the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP). 17 Mr, Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, as with the Annual Element, it's time again 18 for the Unified Work Program. We are at the beginning of the Unified Work Program process. We are only at this point in time soliciting your thoughts 19 and ideas for projects that might be warranted for next year. We would request that the Policy Committee think about it and then maybe at the 20 February Policy Committee meeting we can maybe finalize a list of projects that you'd like to see on the UWP. Some examples of things that MPO staff 21 has received or is aware of, one is a request by developers in the Picacho Hills area. We have not done any studies or analysis in that particular 22 area. A developer there is requesting something from the MPO. That request is primarily an amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan. That is something 23 that might be warranted on the UWP for possible consideration of our time and effort. Another project that we've already begun that was initially 24 brought about through the City is a bike path master plan. Due to the new Transportation Act that we're under, there is more consideration in 25 Intermodal Transportation and the need for planning due to that fact. We proposed the addition of an additional MPO staff member to City Council 26 during last year's budget process. One of the reasons for that was to conduct the development of a bike path master plan. We feel it is also an 27 MPO function, meaning it might involve the Town of Mesilla and also the County based on some of the input we've already received. Carryover 28 projects include the Engler Road issue, and the North Valley Transportation issue. We're still waiting for the ETZ to provide their comments on land 29 use policy in the North Valley. To date, we have not received anything and they are still in the process of review. Another issue would be the 301 revisions to the AE as mentioned in the meeting earlier such as the need to look at structural capacity for culverts, or any other items of concern for 31 the rating process. That's another one that would probably remain on the 32 -11- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I� 1 2 UWp, With that Mr. Chairman, I would turn it over to the policy Committee for any questions. We will be bringing this back next month for your g direction. 4 Mr. Tomlin said, as I understand it, this is the current one. 5 Mr. Denmark said, yes, this lookings at ison one pageln6yo(Lipstedetas The Itemsection that we're really 6 Transportation Planning Projects). The majority of the UWP remains the same. There's administrative duties that we're responsible to do every 7 ear. This particular section (200) deals primarily with those projects that the Policy Committee feels are important and is directing MPO staff to g ork on. 9 Mr. Luchini said, I know the County is working on projects to come before the MPO probably at the next meeting. I think the City also has some 10 projects. 11 Mr. Denmark said, there is one that's already on there now that we're waiting for. That's the North Valley Transportation Analysis that went even Engler Road. It was even looking at sections of land from 12 beyond Taylor even due to the coalition of farmers that have submitted up primarily 13 Zone change requests in that area to the ETZ Commission and the concern of transportation. That is on here now and that might be another carryover 14 project. 15 Mr. Luchini said, any other comments? 16 Mr. Haltom said, in addition to asking the individual governing bodies for their input regarding projects, you're asking us as a group, or us, as 17 individuals to do so? 18 Mr. Denmark said, we're asking the Policy Committee for direction on planning-related projects you'd like to see us work on next fiscal year. 19 Mr. Haltom said, not specific routes? 20 Mr. Denmark said, type of projects that we've worked on that we were 21 directed by you to work on was the Roadrunner extension issue, tied with Las Alturas and how it affected the area by "A" Mountain. That was a big 22 project. The Engler Road issue that was part of the Reliever Route Study was an issue that we knew we had to address because of a specific alignment 23 was not determined. So that was a specific planning-related project that we were directed to do. That's what we're looking for, and not construction- 24 related projects, but planning-related projects. 25 Mr. Haltom said, are you currently, or have you looked at an extension of Engler east of I-25? What would that look like... 26 Mr. Denmark said, that's part of the Engler Road project and the one we're 27 continuing on. We're waiting for the ETZ to decide on what they're going to do as far as their land use policy. The problem we're having there is that 28 they keep addressing the transportation issue and that's really not what (they're supposed to do. We keep trying to tell ETZ staff and suggest that 29 Ithey just concentrate on land use and so I think we got our point across to the Commission. They directed ETZ staff to conduct a lot of research and 30 6nalysis to come back to them. So that's what we're waiting for now. The route, the alternative routes are from Valley and they go all the way up to 31 PeachTree Hills Road. Everything east of I-25 has really not been an issue; it's Valley. 32 -12- i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 i 1 2 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to mention that the ETZ Commission gave their staff until March to come back with the information 3 and then they will hold another public hearing to discuss land uses, so we're looking at a March deadline. 4 Mr. Cadena said, Mr. Chairman, now that we're speaking about the Roadrunner 5 that was brought up tonight, I felt that when they serviced Mesilla, that there were several citizens that benefitted especially now with these new 6 requirements. I know that there are some disabled citizens in Mesilla, so with the County conducting feasibility studies, maybe it would be the time 7 for Mesilla to take a look at possibly getting back to that service. What happened was when we were asked to increase our share, the Council at that 8 time voted to decrease the service. . 9 Mr. Luchini said, I think there's going to be some monies available for the rural areas. I'll have more information next month when I get that... 10 Mr. Tomlin said, are you talking about Paratransit rather than fixed route 11 service. 12 Mr. Cadena said, I'm talking about fixed route. 13 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I think that whatever you get in terms of federal grants, you're going to get either an 80/20 or a 50/50 federal funds 14 so they'll be a local share, whatever it is. 15 Mr. Cadena said, Mesilla was asked to pay, and they weren't willing at that time, but... 16 Mr. Southworth said, I don't remember the amount, but I do recall that they 17 did approach Mesilla. I wasn't on the Board of Trustees at that time, but I think it was something like $12,000.00 a year to get the service, and they 18 said it wasn't worth it. 19 Mr. Tomlin said, my concern is the fact that now with the ADA requirements that if you do it, then there's an additional cost and whether there's any 20 federal funds for us to be able to comply with that is a real question. It makes it a heavier situation. That's the reason I brought up the thing when 21 Mr. Russ mentioned the rural transportation plan. 22 Mr. Ferralez said, I think we should understand is that there is a need for it. How it's going to be paid for, is something we'll have to face 23 eventually, but the need is there. I think that's what we need to keep in mind. 24 Mr. Cadena said, funding is always something that comes into play with any 25 project. 26 Mr. Ferralez said, I do have a question for Mr. Denmark. On page 15, on 600 Special Projects, I noticed you have previous results: US 70 Reliever Route 27 Study. As I recall , we recommended that the 300 foot right-of-way acquisition be put forth to BLM and any other entities involved. Is this 28 (correct? 29 IMr. Denmark said, some of it has been acquired. We're currently conducting that particular project and we're looking at everything in the East Mesa 301 that is impacted by the Major Thoroughfare Plan, determing where we have easements, where we need to pick up easements, what property we're talking 31 about, and things like that. What we're really waiting for as far as the 32 -13- II LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANIZARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 frontage road project is the ability to do final design. We have preliminary design completed, but it's the monies it will take to complete 3 final design. 4 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I would like staff to prepare a report on what has been acquired up to now and what is contemplated, to what extent 5 BLM is going to contribute, and keep us posted on that. 6 Mr. Luchini said, the County has acquired quite a bit of right-of-way through the BLM in those areas up there. 7 Mr. Ferralez said, I understand that, but I think we need a preliminary 8 report on what has been acquired or contemplated, would be useful. 9 Mr. Denmark said, we're in the process. We can provide that to the Policy Committee. 10 Mr. Luchini said, is there any other comments? If not, let's proceed to 11 other business. 12 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I received a copy of the resignation of Mr. Joe Lujan. Does that mean you will only have two members as 13 representatives. 14 Mr. Luchini said, that is correct. Mr. Lujan never attended any meetings, so I don't even know why he sent the letter of resignation. 15 Mr. Haltom said, we'll try not to take advantage of you. 16 Mr. Luchini said, I wasn't able to get anyone else to attend. In fact, I 17 heard a rumor that they want to drop out of the MPO. I feel that it is important and we're accomplishing a great deal, but some of my other 18 colleagues don't agree. 19 Mr. Tomlin said, do they have staff looking at that--about the effect on the County and the MPO if the County was to withdraw? 20 Mr. Luchini said, I don't know. 21 Mr. Denmark said, I don't know, and I haven't been contacted by staff. I 22 would think that there would be a dramatic impact because the State funding mechanism now under the ISTEA, specifically goes through the MPO. They're 23 going to look at the top projects you have on your AE. 24 Mr. Luchini said, that's what I've tried to tell them. We have some people who know it all. 25 Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, could I make a recommendation. I 26 recognize that your staff people are very busy and that you have a lot of things going, but it sounds to be like one useful thing to do would be to: 27 1) list those projects that have been funded through this process in the past several years; 2) to list those projects that are on the AE/TIP at the 28 present time that would have to be dropped if they withdrew from this 29 (organization. I would think that might at least focus on the problem. If Mr. Tomlin said, I would suggest that rather than have our staff do it, that 301 it come from the State Highway Department. That seems to me to be construed 31 as self-serving, trying to protect their jobs in the organization. I think 32 -14- ll LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JANUARY 13, 1993 I 1 2 that it is vital that the County continue to participate for planning Qwrposes and the inp�,it in trying to do those things, I think that what Mr. 3 Denmark mentioned is an important factor, If you're going to be eligible for the funds then you have to do that, and I think the best way to get that 4 across is from the people who have the money and are going to distribute it, then what process are they going to use and if that process is to go through 5 the local MPOs, which I understand is the process. So if you want any of that money and want to be considered for that, you've got to be part of the 6 MPO process. 7 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I would have no objection to that on the condition that we keep an eye on it. If the Highway Department doesn't act 8 on it and just sits on it, then we should take action. 9 Mr. Tomlin said, I'd like suggest that Mr. Luchini do that as a County Commissioner. 10 Mr. Luchini said, we're aware of it. Our manager is aware of it. We had 11 quite a discussion about it on our flight back from Santa Fe. I don't see anything happening. 12 Mr. Haltom said, but he doesn't have a vote, does he? 13 Mr. Luchini said, no, he doesn't have a vote, but he can make 14 recommendations and that goes a long way. I think we have a pretty good man here tonight who'll help me out a little bit on what's going on (Mr. 15 Miyagishima). I'm very confident that we're going to work together very well . 16 Mr. Haltom said, I move we adjourn. Mr. Tomlin seconded. The motion 17 carried unanimously. 18 MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: 19 20 Minerva Sanchez, Secretary 21 22 � APPROVED BY: 23 24 25 Ray B. Luchini, Chairman Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 i -15- I