Loading...
01/05/2012 M` r 1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 4 Following are the minutes from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting 5 held on Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 4 00 p m at Dona Ana County Commission 6 Chambers, 845 N Motel Blvd , Las Cruces, New Mexico 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Henry K. Corneles (DAC Engineering) 9 Mike Bartholomew (CLC Transit) 10 Louis Grijalva (CLC Public Works) 11 Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) 12 John Gwynne (DA Flood Commission) 13 Larry Altamirano (LCPS) 14 Luis Marmolejo (DAC) 15 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 16 Gene Paulk (proxy for Harold Love) 17 Greg Walke (NMSU) 18 Debbie Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 19 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 20 21 MEMBERS ABSENT Jesus Morales (EBID) 22 Harold Love (NMDOT) 23 Bill Childress (BLM) 24 25 STAFF PRESENT Andy Hume (MPO staff) 26 Duane Hoskins (MPO staff) 27 Tom Murphy (MPO staff) 28 Andrew Wray (MPO staff) 29 Katherine (Naoma) Staley (MPO staff) 30 31 1 CALL TO ORDER 32 33 Meeting was called to order at 4 08 p m 34 35 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 36 37 Henry Corneles stated that MPO staff wanted to postpone action item 6 1 Safe Routes 38 to School Action Plan until the February meeting 39 40 Greg Walke motioned to approve the amended agenda 41 Mike Bartholomew seconded the motion 42 ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED 43 44 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 45 46 Henry asked for offers of interest or nominations for the position of Chair ` 1 Y A a 1 2 John Gwynne nominated Luis Marmolejo for position of Chair 3 Mike Bartholomew seconded the nomination 4 ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED 5 6 Henry asked for offers of interest or nominations for the position of Vice Chair 7 Henry nominated John Knopp for position of Vice Chair 8 Larry Altamirano seconded the nomination 9 ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED 10 11 Luis Marmolejo chaired the Committee meeting 12 13 Luis announced that Dona Ana County received an award from the HUD Regional 14 Sustainability's Planning Grant, which involved a consortium of different entities 15 16 4 PUBLIC COMMENT — No public comment 17 18 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 19 20 51 November 3, 2011 21 22 Larry Altamirano motioned to approve the minutes 23 Mike Bartholomew seconded the motion 24 ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED 25 26 6. ACTION ITEMS 27 28 61 Safe Routes to School Action Plan — postponed to February 2, 2012. 29 30 7 DISCUSSION ITEMS 31 32 71 Fiscal Years 2013-2014 Unified Planning work Program (UPWP) 33 34 The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is the transportation 35 planning entity for the Urbanized Area of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is required to 36 meet the transportation planning mandates of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 37 Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) In order to accomplish 38 this task, the MPO engages in a process of public review and comment resulting in the 39 annual Unified Planning Work Program which outlines, budgets, and guides planning 40 projects and activities for the upcoming fiscal year The MPO is adopting a two-year 41 UPWP 42 Exhibit "A" is the proposed Unified Planning Work Program for July 1, 2012 through 43 June 30, 2014 Highlights in this year's program include 44 Continued implementation of Strategy Toolboxes developed in the anticipated 45 MTP- "Transport 2040" 2 1 i 1 • Local assistance to Dona Ana County and the City of Las Cruces for work on the 2 EI Camino Real Regional Plan for Sustainable Development 3 • Assist RoadRUNNER Transit on items in the Transit Strategic Plan 4 • Lead on several Transit Strategic Plan items including- Development of 5 Environmental Justice Plan and a Standards and Guidelines Document. 6 7 Tom Murphy gave a presentation 8 9 Marmolejo Mr Murphy, just real quick, the grant that Dona Ana County received and 10 the MOU's are going into place for some of the in-kind services that the 11 MPO had spoke of during the process of the application, I know it has to 12 do with federal monies on top of federal monies, do you have to show that 13 the UPWP? 14 15 Murphy- Mr Chair, yes we do, I direct your attention to the screen on page 20, item 16 5 1 4, we are including that within our work program and this the type of 17 feedback I'll need, we're anticipating about 200 hours this fiscal year on 18 that project and then 500 hours of staff time next fiscal year on that project 19 and this is the point where we can massage that as we get better 20 information from the County on what type of assistance will be required of 21 us 22 23 Marmolejo Okay, I'm not sure if Daniel (inaudible) has gotten a hold of the MPO 24 about the MOU's, at this point and time I know he's drafting things I'll just 25 give him a heads up on today and stuff and because he is drafting up the 26 MOU's and I want to make sure that it is and I appreciate that you have.it 27 down in the UPWP, thank you 28 29 Murphy, Okay, Mr Chair, we will give you a month to chew on this Definitely 30 contact myself if there is anything that your agency would like to see 31 included within this document and we'll bring it back next month for a 32 recommendation 33 34 72 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Application and 35 Evaluation Update 36 37 The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is the transportation 38 planning entity for the Urbanized Area of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is required to 39 meet the transportation planning mandates of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 40 Transportation Equity Act -A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 41 42 In order to accomplish this task, the MPO develops and maintains the Transportation 43 improvement Program (TIP) The TIP is the 4-year list of funded projects scheduled to 44 be designed and built in the MPO area 3 I As outlined in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Transport 2040, the MPO also 2 maintains a prioritized list of unfunded projects The prioritized list is created through the 3 TIP Application and Evaluation process The intention of this list is to identify funding 4 sources in order to move projects from the planning stage into the design and 5 construction stages 6 7 The current TIP Application and Evaluation process has been used for four years and 8 two TIP development cycles During this time, MPO staff and committees have 9 recognized strengths and weaknesses of the process Prior to the next TIP cycle that 10 will begin in fall 2012, MPO staff intends to complete amendments to strengthen the 11 entire process 12 13 Andy Hume gave a presentation 14 15 Marmolejo Pardon my ignorance, Andy I guess what I'm wondering is okay, you're 16 talking about the next TIP cycle? 17 18 Hume Yes 19 20 Marmolejo Okay and you've got projects identified What are those next TIP cycle 21 projects, where do they originate from and how do they end up on the next 22 TIP cycle and then you are also talking about this application (inaudible), 23 the project is going to come forward and you are going to want us to look 24 at this project evaluation and speak of that particular project, I guess my 25 question is if we back up a little bit, where those projects may come from 26 and I guess with that I'm assuming funding sources have been identified 27 or are going to be identified 28 29 Andy Hume reviewed the overall TIP process 30 31 Unknown Mr Chairman, Andy, on that TIP application, you use that list but if there is 32 no funding available do they have to resubmit the next TIP application 33 cycle? 34 35 Hume Yeah, good question, if there is a good project, if there is a project that you 36 identified in a particular fiscal year, what I do is I will ask the specific 37 agency representatives, is this still a project that you want to be 38 considered on the unfunded list. If for example in that two year cycle you 39 have identified local funds, whether it be state, county, whatever local 40 funds or other funding sources to go do it, it's done so we can take it off 41 the list. If you still feel as an entity that it is a viable project, you do not 42 have to resubmit and application We ask that you review the application 43 and give us any updates, you know if your engineering estimate goes up 44 or if the scope project changes or what have you, or maybe over the past 45 couple of years there has been an increase in crashes, that is important 46 information so we'll ask for an update, but no you don't have to resubmit if 4 1 it's still a project that your entity feels is important and you want to see 2 funding 3 4 Marmolejo I've got a question Andy, it's a point system basically is what it is It's a 5 point system based project list in the end that gets sent forward to the 6 Board, if you will What happens when certain projects maybe get a 7 certain amount of points but they don't really fit into the longer aspect of 8 the long range transportation element of it, where do we make sure that 9 they projects that come forward that we have some weight in evaluating 10 how they really pertain in to the long range transportation network in and 11 out of the MPO, how would we find a mechanism to weight that rather 12 than just everybody has a particular project and it ended up with a good 13 amount of points but does it really contribute at this point and time or even 14 for applying purposes anything in the transportation system 15 16 Andy continued his review of the TIP process 17 18 Corneles Mr Chair, did you say that's federal requirement that it has to pass that 19 first litmus test? 20 21 Hume Absolutely, yes 22 23 Corneles I'm just thinking if someone were to come up with a good project idea 24 that's not on there then they would be very handicapped going forward 25 26 Hume Well, the process is if they can demonstrate it's a worthy project then they 27 would need to come to the MPO to request an amendment to the 28 Transportation Plan, I mean we're talking about an extra bit of time 29 because we would need to go through the public process and the advisory 30 committees and so on and the Policy Committee but there is a process by 31 which a worthy project can get added to the Transportation Plan and 32 we've got regulation 33 34 Corneles Alright, thank you 35 36 Marmolejo Does anybody have any other questions? I know that a lot of this is kind 37 of especially what I see it's always kind of hard to picture if you will, the 38 processes of the UPWP's and all that and I don't know if you can conjure 39 up some kind of timeline graph, to me that would be very helpful just to 40 say this is where this is in this process -and this is what is coming up next 41 down the road in the process, something that could be visual and really 42 easy to understand 43 44 Hume I'm going to pull up our public participation plan online and the public 45 participation plan actually has that. 46 5 '4 1 Marmolejo Cool, good 2 3 Andy continued his review 4 5 Herrera Mr Chair, Andy, just a quick question Whenever entities submit one of 6 these forms and they are seeking federal funds does the MPO staff check 7 federal aid eligibility also? 8 9 Hume The short answer is yes, for example, right here this question is it on the 10 thoroughfare roadway classification, what is this classification because 11 anything that isn't classified a collector and above is automatically not 12 eligible for federal aid One of the things though that I think is very 13 important and one of the things that we need to talk about as part of this 14 evaluation are there any other steps that we're not accounting for in this 15 application process that could affect it's eligibility for federal funding Does 16 that answer your question? 17 18 Herrera Yes, thanks 19 20 Marmolejo Andy, on your call out for projects, okay, you obviously send out 21 notification for call out for projects or to those who already know the 22 system, if you will, does MPO staff have a project list of their own that you 23 all are already contemplating or anything? 24 25 Hume No, Mr Chair, nothing that goes into the unfunded projects Basically the 26 list that we're sort of keepers of, if you will, is the list that's in the MTP, 27 which is a completely comprehensive list but we as staff do not 28 necessarily add projects into the unfunded list. 29 30 Marmolejo But do you from the MTP, don't you consider work projects you would 31 prioritize and then weigh those projects as to the ones that you call out? 1 32 guess what I'm trying to look at is some kind of okay you've got the MTP 33 and you call out for projects, how do we make sure that those projects that 34 are coming in we begin to look at the technical committees if you, 35 (inaudible) these projects really are something that is geared towards the 36 MTP if you will, how do we assure some kind of good lenience there? 37 38 Hume Let me see if I understand your question here First of all, part of it is the 39 direct connect between the project that is being proposed through the 40 application and MTP and that sort of again relates back to this mandatory 41 question up at the top, does it comply with the MTP, yes or no, and then 42 we go from there The other aspect though, if I'm understanding the other 43 aspect, you are asking does MPO staff sort of have an internal 44 prioritization maybe projects from the MTP or something like that, am 1 45 understanding that? 46 6 J 1 Marmolejo Yes 2 3 Hume The short answer is no, we don't and here is why, the biggest reason why 4 The MPO is overall is an advisory group We cannot dictate to the City, 5 County, Town of Mesilla, what are the priorities We can certainly make 6 suggestions about it and one of those ways we make suggestions is 7 through the TIP unfunded list, but from the stand point of planning, we 8 really don't have a whole lot of prioritization going on Now that having 9 been said some of our maps like with the bicycle facilities, the trail facilities 10 plan, even to an extent the major thoroughfare plan, we have done some 11 general prioritization, okay, so for example, I'll pick on the bicycles, this is 12 the one I'm most familiar with We have Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 routes, 13 the order in which they are done is not laid out in the plan What Tier 1, 14 Tier 2, Tier 3 mean are Tier 1 these are the routes that are absolutely 15 necessary to create the framework of a complete network. Tier 2 fill in 16 gaps within that framework and Tier 3 fatten it up, okay, but as far as 17 specific projects that this needs to be done first, then that, then this, you 18 know, Sonoma Ranch needs to be built then I'm going to pick on some 19 roadways that we've been talking about in the recent past, Sonoma Ranch 20 needs to be built, then Missouri/Roadrunner, then Dripping Springs needs 21 to be widened, then this, then that, we do not get down to that level of 22 specificity because ultimately that level is the level that the local agencies 23 need to decide upon For example, the City of Las Cruces had decided 24 that that connection of Sonoma Ranch from Lohman to the new high 25 school is very key and so the City has dedicated funds to do that. It's 26 been identified as an arterial on our map for a number of years and 27 arterials sort of by definition are very high priority type of roadways but 28 beyond that sort of general type of prioritization we do not get down to 29 very specifics in identifying one project as better or a higher priority then 30 another 31 32 Marmolejo Yeah, I understand what you are saying there I'm just wondering if, 1 33 don't know, .I mean understand you are saying this is an advisory, the 34 MPO is basically an advisory group if you will, but if you present 35 something as an advice, you present plans and ideas that have been 36 weighted and you think that contribute to the overall network, if you will, 1 37 would think that maybe to be giving that type of approach to things I think 38 and working with other entities and coming up with a generalized 39 consensus, if you will, to bring these particular projects that help in the 40 connectivity, I don't see why it would not be wise, not something that the 41 MPO could be bringing, that the TAC is going to be bringing forward in the 42 end to the Board, just something to contemplate 43 44 Hume That would be something perhaps that would probably be better discussed 45 with perhaps you, Mr Chair, and include Mr Knopp as vice chair and 46 that's a discussion we could have directly with the Policy Board, but 1 7 ti 1 mean that's a decision they will have to make There are other MPO's 2 that have far more authority and there decisions are not suggestions. 3 Their decisions are binding but that's because the local agencies have 4 given the MPO that authority We haven't been given that authority so 1 5 don't want to diverge too much from the discussion of the application but 6 that sort of provides hopefully some background for again some of the 7 new individuals and sort of where we fit in with regional transportation 8 planning and the relationship between us and our local agencies 9 10 Bartholomew- Mr Chair, I have a question Andy, you brought up about the issue with 11 some of the criteria, doesn't quite fit, especially like the safety and security 12 one, there is really nothing in there that applies to that but that is 20 points 13 of the scoring system As I think about it, maybe my suggestions at the 14 next meeting or to talk to you before the next meeting, I was curious do 15 these projects have to be evaluated as a group as a whole because transit 16 projects realistically are going to get very little funding from anything but 17 FTA and streets are very realistically maybe not going to get anything but 18 federal highways or something like that and should they be in the same 19 pool or have the same set of criteria Should transit projects since they 20 are primarily FTA funded projects should they have a different pool that's 21 being ranked or? 22 23 Hume That's a good question and I'm going to deflect that question to the rest of 24 the members of your Committee Should we have separate applications 25 depending on whether you have a transit project versus a non motorized 26 project versus a facility project, like transit had? What are your thoughts? 27 I'm just facilitating the discussion I want to hear from you all as being 28 people who have actually filled out applications, I'm curious 29 30 Marmolejo So what you are saying is basically maybe change the weights on, when 31 you separate the applications you change the points on there, like for 32 instance the example you gave when it comes to safety and stuff, it's a 20 33 point question, it might not be as weighted as to another type of 34 application, is that right? 35 36 Bartholomew- I don't know if it be a matter of much weighting it, maybe that would be 37 one of the ways to do it. I was even suggesting, my project is never going 38 to compete for federal highway funds because I'm not going to get those 39 for that project because assuredly it's going to be mostly federal transit 40 administration funds, so should maybe projects that are going to fairly 41 assuredly be funded by fairly well defined funding or maybe they should 42 be considered as a separate pool because RoadRUNNER isn't the only 43 one who submits projects that are funded by federal transit administration, 44 you know we hear from TRESCO, they get certain federal transit 45 administration funds and I think FYI has applied for some under that 46 before too for various transportation programs that they have, so we 8 1 wouldn't be the sole necessarily one submitting projects but maybe it 2 would rank FTA projects, for example, or federal highway projects would 3 be ranked, is FAA included in these too or? 4 5 Hume No, we don't, they have a separate project. 6 7 Bartholomew- Yeah, that's right. I was just a curious question I had 8 9 Hume I think those are, I've actually wrote down both points, perhaps looking at 10 separate applications based on different modes or different types of 11 projects and then you brought up (inaudible) what was the idea of 12 adjusting the weights that are given to the things within, maybe in between 13 different modes, you know maybe automobile has a different weight on a 14 particular section than a non-motorized project or transit project so I wrote 15 down both of those ideas 16 17 Herrera Mr Chair, I think that's actually a very good idea to keep the transit 18 separate from the roadway projects because there are different criteria 19 that you are evaluating, frankly like you just stated the transit projects 20 aren't going to get FHWA but they will get FTA funds and so I think it's a 21 really good idea to have an entirely separate application ranking process 22 for transit projects 23 24 Hume When we are talking about this, particularly since we're talking about 25 funding issues, I have a question I would like to pose to the Committee as 26 well, rather than identifying perhaps the source of a funding per project, for 27 example, a specific fund if you're using local funds or something like that, 28 would you like to see something more along the lines of a check box so 29 that for FTA for instance, for transit funds we'd have 5309, 5307, 5310, 30 5311 and you can check the box that you're particular project might be 31 eligible for, we could do the same thing with roads, you know some maybe 32 eligible for STP, which is Service Transportation, is a large pot of money 33 made up of a bunch of different smaller pots Some of the projects maybe 34 eligible for some of the funding, other projects may not but that way what 35 we can do is we can create a check mark simply by and it would help with 36 staff when we go looking at different funding sources or working with the 37 DOT or with you as a local agency, maybe this stack of projects is eligible 38 to go after grants but this stack isn't, we can sort it by different funding 39 types that they are eligible for, what do you think about that, any thoughts 40 about that and I'm specifically looking at Jolene for a perspective on that 41 because that is just sort of an idea that I've been kicking around but 1 42 actually haven't talked with you yet about that so sorry for springing that 43 on you 44 45 Cornels Mr Chair, at the beginning of your presentation when you said that the 46 transit project was I guess at a loss because it didn't fit the mold of the 9 1 form and the first thing that came into my head was to have different forms 2 for different projects I mean we can do that either by type of project or 3 type of funding or both I mean maybe we should have a separate 4 application for rural road applications versus freeways and if it's an 5 infrastructure building type of transit that would be a separate application 6 because I mean obviously a building is not going to fit into some of these, 7 it's a square peg trying to fit a round hole, it's not going to work, so maybe 8 separate applications I know that's a lot of work but 9 10 Hume Mr Chair and Henry, what we can do is we can look what would be the 11 greatest common denominator, not the lowest but the greatest and if that 12 happens to be mode and then we can ask more defining questions about 13 urban versus rural and funding types or if that happens to be funding and 14 then we ask different questions about the type of project or the mode 15 What we have several different combinations of types of things I've 16 written down, so far I've heard separate applications based on mode, by 17 mode I mean car, bike, walking, transit; by type — roadway versus a 18 structure or we can separate by funding types, or we can separate it by 19 location, so we have a bunch of different combinations that we can look at. 20 Altamirano Mr Chair, may I make a suggestion that maybe we could have the 21 individual members send any information or ideas that they have to Andy 22 and then he can kind of put them together for us and at some point and 23 time go back and look at the recommendations that the Committee 24 members have made 25 26 Marmolejo That's fine I think it sounds like since there are different types projects 27 out there that we're looking at obviously different types of applications that 28 fit the particular project, if you will, so I guess if I can back track a little bit, 29 Andy, those applications are just for the MPO themselves and then when 30 you go for the federal funding do they have a certain type of criteria or 31 requirements when it's submitted or if we're coming up with different types 32 of applications how does that go from the new applications that we're 33 contemplating here to the federal requirement for the project. 34 35 Hume That's an excellent question 36 37 Marmolejo I guess I'll throw this out there real quick, so the point system 38 methodology, where did that come from It's just is something that has 39 been used in the past by other MPO's or is just something that originated 40 here or how did that. 41 42 Hume It originated, it was something that we discussed as staff and presented to 43 the advisory committees and we sort of haggled over some of the scoring 44 levels and we knew that we wanted 15 points for the oral presentation and 45 we wanted 85 points and we sort of haggled with each other on where to 46 assign those points but it was done here I see your question, if I may 10 1 address your question Even just looking, federal or state or other type of 2 sort of public funding sources aside, I just filled out my first grant and it 3 was a very short grant, thank goodness The questions that I saw on that 4 grant we're very different and actually it was a federal grant, it was a 5 federal, it was PCSP, it was a discretionary grant. The questions on that 6 grant are very different from questions on other grants that I have seen, so 7 to try and mirror a particular format so that the questions that we're asking 8 will plug right into questions that other grants are asking, I see your point 9 and I'd love to do that quite frankly, it would make our lives a heck of a lot 10 easier, the bottom line is that that's just not going to happen but we want 11 to make sure that we are asking the right questions overall for whether 12 they be hard number data, very objective information or whether it be 13 subjective information, for example when we're talking about things like 14 some people might consider, for example, some of the things that are 15 talked about in the section of complete multimodal facility, some of the 16 things might be considered subjective How do we make sure that we're 17 asking the right questions whether they are objective or subjective so that 18 when we get to the grants we can use this information to formulate the 19 powerful argument to get those grants, that's sort of where we're trying to 20 aim, we're trying to aim at that point to do the most common good to 21 provide information to a wide variety of funding sources Does that make 22 sense? 23 24 Marmolejo Andy, can you ask that question again or give your comment. 25 26 Altamirano I'd just like to recommend that in order to, there seems to be a lot of 27 discussion as to whether or not we're asking for the correct information or 28 whatever, I think it would be advisable to go ahead if we have questions or 29 more specific ways of getting the answers that we need because they are 30 in different areas that we send them to Andy and let Andy kind of put them 31 together and then bring them back to the Committee for evaluation or 32 discussion 33 34 Bartholomew- Mr Chair, I had a question too You have a meeting coming up of the 35 State MPO's, is that right, pretty soon too Is that a good venue to find 36 out, I can't believe that we're the only ones that have this issue, like 37 there's transit agencies in the other MPO's too that do they have the same 38 issues that we saw with this facility and how they are ranked and 39 everything, just out of curiosity how does their system work. Do they have 40 a way of accounting for things like that and maybe it would be a question 41 to ask. 42 43 Hume That's a good question The short answer is the agenda is already pretty 44 well set for that. There may be some opportunity for some of that 45 discussion as sort of side bar discussions or over lunch or something like 46 that, but the other thing too is that is what staff is supposed to do so I'll 11 1 take what you say as direction for us and I'll go exploring that. I know that 2 the Albuquerque MPO actually has a very detailed policy manual on the 3 TIP and I mean it's really detailed I don't think we need to get to that level 4 of detail but the other MPO's probably have worked some of these 5 processes or maybe are working through them so if you don't mind, Mr 6 Chair, if it's the consensus of the rest of the Committee, I'll take that as 7 direction to go and glean that information and share that with everybody 8 9 Bartholomew- Thank you 10 11 Marmolejo Any other discussion or questions on Item 7 2? 12 13 Hume I appreciate it and thank you very much and please do, it's not a long 14 document so I really would appreciate it as Larry pointed out just going 15 through and reviewing, thinking about it within the context of the last 16 couple of sessions that we've had in using it and asking questions, 17 providing comments and you may get a couple of reminders from me 18 because as I pointed out we want to have this wrapped so that we can go 19 for our next call for projects in October, probably November at the latest, 20 so if there are nay other comments or questions, thank you very much 21 22 8 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 23 24 Bartholomew- I have a general question for staff Councillor Thomas, City of Las 25 Cruces, had mentioned that, sounded like there was some movement on 26 the RTD Board to actually finally select a director Do you have any 27 update on what's happening with that, the Regional Transit District? 28 29 Murphy Mr Chairman, Mr Bartholomew, there is currently an RFP out there, 30 release for executive director of services to the RTD Board It was 31 published by the Council of Governments I believe the closing date on it 32 is January 20th, with an aim to have an individual in that position by March` 33 1 St 34 35 Bartholomew- She implied that they were meeting pretty soon to make a decision on 36 that and I hadn't heard any 37 38 Murphy I'd have to recheck the calendar but there is a lot happening in January 39 as vetting the application, or the responses and organizing interviews 40 with selected members of the Board 41 42 Herrera Mr Chair, the NMDOT has quite a few major projects that are coming up 43 here within the MPO area in the next year or so and I have been talking 44 with Andy about it and I think what we're going to do is provide an 45 update at our meetings every month just to let you all know what's 12 1 happening with construction because there is major construction coming 2 up 3 4 Marmolejo It's the 1-10 interchange and then the two bridges, I believe 5 6 Herrera Yes and Engler Road 7 8 Hume And Valley Drive is on going 9 10 Herrera And Valley Drive is on going, so there are quite a few things So I'll just 11 run down what I have here Jolene gave a rundown of projects 12 • Engler Road 13 . 1-10/1-25 Interchange 14 • Valley Drive 15 • Motel Boulevard (replacement of the bridges) 16 • North Main 17 • Avenida de Mesilla/1-10 — is currently in design 18 19 MPO staff will be hosting the Statewide MPO Quarterly to be held on January 18, 2012 20 from9am to3pm 21 22 MPO staff is going out for an RFI (request for information) on several management 23 plans that are listed in the MTP to determine cost and time involved in developing some 24 of the management plans that are outlined in TRANSPORT 2040 The RFI closes on 25 January 31, 2012 26 27 9 PUBLIC COMMENT— No public comment. 28 29 10 ADJOURNMENT 30 31 Meeting adjourned at 4 30 p m 32 33 Mike Bartholomew motioned to adjourn 34 Jolene Her a seconded the motion 35 ALL I AVO 36 37 38 3 Chair 41 42 13 Vti , �.