Loading...
04-05-2007 I METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 April 5, 2007 4 5 Following are minutes from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held 6 on Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. at the Dona Ana County Government Complex, 7 Commission Chambers, 845 N. Motel Blvd., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Bartholomew (RoadRUNNER Transit) 10 Frank Guzman (NMDOT) 11 Debbie Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 12 Jean Hinsley (proxy for Henry Magallenez) 13 Orlando V. Fierro (DAC Flood Commission) 14 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 15 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 16 Tim Sanders (BLM) 17 Jon Czerniak (Dona Ana County) 18 19 MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Magallenez (EBID) 20 Robert Armijo (DAC Engineering) 21 Loretta Reyes (CLC Public Works) 22 Richard MacRorie (NMSU) 23 Terry Coker (Las Cruces Public Schools) 24 25 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 26 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 27 Dianne Wax (CLC — Recording Secretary) 28 29 OTHERS PRESENT: Joseph De La Rosa (NMDOT) 30 31 I. CALL TO ORDER 32 33 Meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. 34 35 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 1, 2007 36 37 John Czerniak motioned to approve the minutes. 38 Jean Hinsley seconded the motion. 39 ALL IN FAVOR. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 1 III. ACTION ITEMS 2 3 A. MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2008— 4 FY 2013 5 6 The TIP is a document produced every other year to request federal funding for 7 transportation construction projects. The MPO is also required to rate unfunded 8 projects in the TIP under SAFETEA-LU and MPO policies. However, MPO staff is still 9 fine-tuning the TIP Rating System based on comments from the March TAC meeting. 10 Also, we are anticipating new projects to be requested by the City and County Public 11 Works Departments. 12 13 The TIP contains new projected funding levels for the MPO Planning activities and 14 RoadRUNNER Transit. A few projects from previous fiscal years are still being 15 constructed. They are left on the TIP for information purposes only. Amendments to 16 the 2005 Transportation Plan, recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 17 Advisory Committee, will add new, unfunded projects to the list over the next few 18 months. 19 20 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 21 22 John Knopp motioned to recommend for approval to the MPO Policy Committee. 23 John Czerniak seconded the motion. 24 ALL IN FAVOR. 25 26 B. 07- 08 UPWP 27 28 The purpose of the UPWP is to outline intermodal transportation planning activities, 29 within a financially constrained budget, to be conducted within the Las Cruces MPO 30 Planning Area for the period of July, 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Highlights from the 31 latest UPWP include: development of a new citizen advisory committee; continued work 32 on the South Central RTD; Safe Routes to School; Pedestrian Plan; and an update of 33 the Public Involvement Plan. We have listed the agencies that will be instrumental in 34 assisting us with our planning activities and approximate time periods to complete work 35 products. 36 37 The draft UPWP has been modified from the version that the TAC recommended for 38 approval in March based on comments from the NMDOT Government to Government 39 unit. The changes are as follows: 40 41 Task 1.6 p. 8- Major Investment Studies has been removed as work task. 42 43 Task 1.9 p. 8- Work on the PIP has been modified to emphasis interagency 44 coordination. 45 2 I Task 2.2 p. 9- A work item to review local plans for consistency with MTP has been 2 added. 3 4 Task 3.1, p. 10-The modeling work has been updated to include recent developments. 5 6 Task 3.2 p. 10- The administration and planning of RTD related work has been 7 separated to better track separate funding sources. 8 9 Task 3.4, p. 11- The work tasks has been modified to include reference to updating 10 model statistics in the MPO's new planning area. 11 12 Task 3.4.4, p. 11- The LCMPO SAFETEA-LU gap analysis has been performed and 13 staff will proceed with MTP amendments by July to make the 2005 Transportation Plan 14 SAFETEA-LU compliant. 15 16 Task 4.1 p. 13- This section has been updated to reflect recent developments. 17 18 Task 5.4, p. 15 — Language has been amended to clarify development of the TIP's "How 19 To" document. 20 21 Budget Table, p. 17- The budget table has been amended to include anticipated 22 revenues from the NMDOT RTD grant to assist with planning and administrative costs. 23 24 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 25 26 Joseph De La Rosa, NMDOT, thanked the MPO staff for the work that they did on the 27 UPWP. 28 29 Joseph stated a lengthy response was compiled to the UPWP and some changes were 30 requested in a letter dated March 26th. MPO staff did address those issues by making 31 amendments to the UPWP. He also stated that it stopped a little short of what was 32 trying to be accomplished. He stated that what was needed in the UPWP was a very 33 clear outline by task, an estimate of staff time, a time frame of completion, who will be 34 working on the task, in other words, more detail was needed, including quarterly reports. 35 36 Joseph stated that in Task 3.1, NMDOT would like a time frame that shows how this will 37 be undertaken throughout the year or what the process will be. He stated more detail 38 was needed. 39 40 Joseph read from a letter dated March 26th page 2 of 4, from Muffet Foy Cuddy to Tom 41 Murphy, Task 3.2, page 10, second paragraph, the sentence reads "the work task for 42 each must be separated, i.e. the UPWP needs to indicate what the MPO staff will do by 43 task area, amount of staff time for that task, funds used for task, task to be done by 44 RTD director, estimate of staff time and funds used for these activities. UPWP budget 45 table should clearly identify amounts of funding and funding sources by work task area. 46 Quarterly reports and requests for reimbursement must also identify funding sources 3 1 and amounts for UPWP work tasks." So based on this, what NMDOT wants in Task 3.2 2 is more detail, for example, better explanation of what the MPO's role will be, which 3 members of the staff will be involved. 4 5 Task 3.4.4 — need identification of what the gap analysis indicated, what the results 6 were and where will this go from here, what are the steps to resolve the gaps. Ensure 7 that the gap analysis has been completed, identify issues and steps for addressing the 8 identified issues. 9 Task 5.4 — creation of the "How To" document for the TIP — needs more explanation, 10 clarification of what exactly the "How To" is about. Is it how to get a project into the TIP 11 or is it how to create a TIP for other MPO's. Also needs a completion date and an 12 estimate of staff time to develop the document. What is the schedule of completion. 13 14 Joseph read page 3 of 4, budget table, "the amount of funds for each task area should 15 have a direct correlation with staff time estimated for each work task. Therefore, for 16 each work task be sure to include completion dates and estimates for staff time. Please 17 note the RTD funded activities need to be separated from Federal MPO Plan/PL funded 18 activities. MPO and RTD could participate on the work task, for example, MTP 19 revisions for expanded area but in those cases staff estimate for RTD participation, 20 amounts of RTD funding and an estimate of MPO staff time and MPO funding need to 21 be included. All billing documents must also contain this information so funds can be 22 drawn from the correct account." 23 24 Joseph summarized by saying that NMDOT worked with the MPO and again the MPO 25 did a great job of responding initially to the letter by at least taking the first steps to try 26 and do this, unfortunately, between March 26th and April 5th, there wasn't enough time 27 for the MPO to make the changes, for NMDOT to receive the changes, review the 28 changes and communicate back to MPO what NMDOT would like to see. He 29 apologized to Tom and MPO staff for having to bring these issues up at this meeting 30 instead of being able to sit with MPO staff and resolve issues before this meeting. 31 Joseph stated that in order to be able to try and achieve SAFETEA-LU compliancy by 32 the July 1 deadline, NMDOT would like to see the UPWP approved at next week's MPO 33 Policy Committee meeting. 34 35 Joseph recommended for the TAC's consideration that TAC approve the UPWP with 36 the stipulation that all tasks be revised as appropriate to include detailed completion 37 dates, estimates of staff time and designation of which staff members would work on 38 which items. He believes that if it goes forward as amended to the Policy Committee 39 next week there shouldn't be any issues and it should be approved and MPO staff can 40 proceed accordingly. 41 42 Frank Guzman thanked Las Cruces MPO staff and Mr. de la Rosa for the time and 43 energy they have put into these documents. He asked the Committee to consider Mr. 44 De La Rosa's suggestions. 45 4 I Tom Murphy stated that it would be better for MPO staff to meet with DOT staff and iron 2 out everything, and bring a clean document back to the TAC for consideration in May. 3 MPO staff made a request to table this item until the May agenda. 4 5 Mike Bartholomew asked for a motion. 6 7 Frank Guzman motioned to table the 07-08 UPWP until the May TAC meeting. 8 Orlando Fierro seconded the motion. 9 ALL IN FAVOR. 10 11 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 12 13 A. Fairacres Study Update 14 15 Tom Murphy stated that on April 4th MPO staff hosted a meeting at Fairacres 16 Elementary School. Staff has been undergoing a study corridor in the Fairacres area. 17 An initial public meeting was held last summer and staff developed options based on 18 citizen input. Cost estimates were developed for those options. 19 20 Citizens voted on their preferred options. Top options were: tied for first place was the 21 Frontage Road option and the Levee Road option; the second place was to rebuild 22 within the existing limited right-of-way and tied for fourth place was to construct an 23 interchange and to build per the current MTP which would be to build North Fairacres as 24 a collector and South Fairacres as a minor arterial. 25 26 Tom stated there would be a follow up meeting with the Community on May 2, 2007 at 27 Fairacres Elementary. There would be a more detailed analysis of the top five options. 28 29 Orlando Fierro commented on the river levee situation and IBWC. He stated he did not 30 know how that would affect the study. If any roads are proposed along the river levee 31 then they would have to work with IBWC in upgrading the roads. At this time the IBWC, 32 the County, and other entities involved are looking at what is going to happen with the 33 river levee situation. Orlando stated that he did not know if Option 3 was realistic at this 34 time. 35 36 Tom stated that staff has spoken with Mr. Fierro and Mr. Dugie on the potential of the 37 situation and trying to get some answers from the IBWC as far as how realistic Option 3 38 would be, and try to convey to the public if that is a strong option or not. 39 40 Frank Guzman stated he wanted to make it into the record that an interchange would 41 require an eight point analysis and the Interstate Justification Report. When the study is 42 completed, the answer may still be no from the Federal Highway Administration 43 Perspective. 44 45 Tom stated that he did convey this to the public. 46 5 t 1 B. Development Review 2 3 A list along with a map of approved and denied subdivisions was included in Committee 4 members packets for review. 5 6 John Knopp requested that a couple layers of streets be removed. 7 8 Frank Guzman requested color copies of map be included in packets. 9 10 Mike Bartholomew asked if acreage or density of a site could be included in the table. 11 12 C. Committee/Staff Comments 13 14 Tom announced that the 6th Annual Community Bike Ride will be held Saturday, April 15 14, 2007 at the Mesilla Community Center, co-hosted by the MPO and the Town of 16 Mesilla. Registration starts at 7:30 a.m. MPO staff extended their thanks to the Town 17 of Mesilla for assisting in organizing the event 18 19 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 20 21 VI. Adjournment 22 23 Meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. 24 25 � 1 26 Ch ' erson 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 6