Loading...
08-12-151 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE The following are minutes for the meeting of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Committee which was held August 12, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: 1. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Leticia Benavidez (DAC) Trent Doolittle (NMDOT) Trustee Linda Flores (Town of Mesilla) Councillor Olga Pedroza (CLC) Commissioner Wayne Hancock (DAC) Mayor Nora Barraza (Town of Mesilla) Councillor Gill Sorg (CLC) Councillor Nathan Small (CLC) Trustee Sam Bernal (Town of Mesilla) Commissioner Billy Garrett (DAC) Tom Murphy (MPO staff) Andrew Wray (MPO staff) Michael McAdams (MPO staff) Becky Baum, RC Creations, LLC, Recording Secretary Flores: All right so I'm going to call this meeting to order. It's about 1:15. 2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY Flores: And first we'll have a conflict of interest inquiry. Does any Committee Member have any known or perceived conflict of interest with any item on the agenda, and if so that Committee Member may recuse themselves from voting on a specific matter or if they feel that they can be impartial we will put their participation up to a vote by the rest of the Committee. Pedroza: No conflict. Flores: Didn't I do a roll call first or call quorum, determination of a quorum. Shouldn't that be first? Wray: We can certainly do that. Flores: Sorry. 1 2 Wray: Councilor Small. 3 4 Small: Here as of now. Thank you. 5 6 Wray: Commissioner Benavidez. 7 8 Benavidez: Here. 9 10 Wray: Mayor Barraza. 11 12 Barraza: Here. 13 14 Wray: Councilor Pedroza. 15 16 Pedroza: Here. 17 18 Wray: Mr. Doolittle. 19 20 Doolittle: Here. 21 22 Wray: Councilor Sorg. 23 24 Sorg: Yes. Here. 25 26 Wray: Commissioner Hancock. 27 28 Hancock: Here. 29 30 Wray: Chair Flores. 31 32 Flores: Here. 33 34 Flores: Okay so we have a quorum and back to my question of anybody have a 35 conflict of interest? Okay. Seeing none. 36 37 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 38 39 Flores: We'll move to public comment. Is there anybody in the public? Seeing 40 none. 41 42 4. CONSENT AGENDA 43 44 Flores: We'll move to the consent agenda. 45 46 Barraza: Madam Chair. I make a motion we approve the consent agenda. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Flores: Do I have a second? Sorg: Second. Flores: Okay. Second from Gill Sorg. All in favor? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Flores: Do we have any "nays?" Nope. Okay. 5. * APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.1 *June 10, 2015 — minutes approved on consent agenda vote. 6. ACTION ITEMS 6.1 Resolution 15-09: A Resolution Amending the 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program Flores: Okay. Well then we'll move along to action items, 6.1, Resolution 15-09: A Resolution Amending the 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program. Wray: Thank you Madam Chair. The item is on page 43 of the packet. There are a series of TIP amendments that have been requested by NMDOT. I want to clarify that this is for the 2016-2021 TIP. That is the TIP that goes into effect on October 1 st of this year. We're currently operating under the 2014 TIP so just a little bit of clarification to make sure there's no confusion on that. The first item that been requested for an amendment is LCO0110 which is the Dona Ana County project, El Camino Real at Dona Ana School Road and there has been an addition of $42,746 for right-of-way and $3,526, or excuse me $3,500 in Fiscal Year 2016 for right-of-way. The next project is LCO0240 that is shoulder widening at, on San Augustin Pass. That is, got $300 and, or $350,000 for preliminary engineering and then construction is scheduled for 2017. LC00250, that's the University Avenue and Triviz interchange that received a lot of discussion during the run-up to the MTP. That one is currently in the 2016 TIP but this amendment is adding $1.2 million in Fiscal Year 2016 for preliminary engineering. Project LCO0270 is a, a capacity and safety study along US-70 from the Spitz/Solano intersection to the 1-25 interchange. That is a brand new project proposed to go into the TIP. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The next project is on page 44, 1100820 is a Phases 1 C to 1 D study of the potential West Mesa Road. It's a alternatives analysis and environmental documentation study and this is a new project. LCO0230 is signal upgrades at various railroad crossings and this has been moved from Fiscal Year 2018 to Fiscal Year 2020 and those are all the amendments that have been requested. Barraza: Madam Chair. Flores: Mayor Barraza. Barraza: A couple of questions is ... Flores: Okay. Barraza: On the project number 250 at the end, on University Avenue and Triviz on the interchange, did I hear you say you were adding $1.2 million for engineering, preliminary engineering services? Wray: Yes. That's correct. Barraza: Is that normal, I mean that much for engineering services? Wray: For a project of this size that's, that's a reasonable figure. Mr. Doolittle looks like he wants to weigh in. Flores: Okay. Doolittle: Madam Chair, Mayor. That, that's correct. Just because of the size of that project it's actually scattered over two fiscal years because of the, I was trying to pull up the cost but its total cost is about, I believe it's about $20 million total split between two fiscal years for the construction so that $1.2 million is, is probably appropriate for a design that big. It's not just I- 25, it's also the University side on the west and then Triviz as far down as Geothermal so it's actually a very large, the entire west side of that interchange. Flores: Okay. Barraza: Thank you for that. That's, wow. And my other question is on the last project, 230 on the signal upgrades and it's been moved from 2020, from 2018. 1 guess my concern is safety issues. Are, are there currently safety issues going on there that I, my concern is that if we do have safety issues, by pushing it back two years are we opening up liability situations or signals that really need to be worked on? M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 ld 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 5 �7 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Flores: Mr. Doolittle you want to comment on that? Doolittle: Madam Chair, Mayor. Those are, it, it lists the DOT as the agency only because we're providing the funding. Looking at the description all of those crossings are within the City of Las Cruces so I don't have any information on those. Barraza: Okay. That would be my only concern Madam Chair, is if there are safety issues going on right now that if we push it back two more years are we just lingering on handling that problem? So those are all my comments. Thank you. Doolittle: Madam Chair, Mayor. My experience on some of those that we have done, even within the County and the City, basically they're upgrading so it may be you know deficient gates or crossings that are rough. They may be replacing the, the tracks and the crossing themselves. Again I don't have the specifics but that's been my experience on the previous ones that we've done with similar funding, is it's not necessarily due to safety. It's, it, it could be just enhancements itself but ... Barraza: And just cause it lists signal upgrades on there and that was my concern with, throughout the nation that we keep hearing that signals are not working and vehicles have been hit or pedestrians. That was my concern. Flores: Okay. Mr. Sorg and then after Sorg did you, then Commissioner Hancock. Sorg: Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question on two of the projects. On 250, the University/1-25 interchange, will part of the cost of that project involve the underpass of Triviz underneath University as well as on the other side, Don Roser, they connecting up or is it just the one side? Doolittle: Madam Chair. That, that project will only include the Triviz underpass. Sorg: Underpass, okay. Doolittle. Right now Don Roser, with traffic volumes and counts didn't, didn't warrant a bridge ... Sorg: Okay. Doolittle: Underneath so it would just be the Triviz, very similar to Lohman. Sorg: Okay. Thank you. The second one is 270, Highway 70/North Main- Spitz/Solano to the interchange. In, in, in a study or when you start working on a project, can you also talk about finishing the project up with landscaping in the medians? I notice there's a, a relatively small median E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 there that's just not been landscaped ever and I think it would be really important if we have a median that is included, that landscaping would be included in the project. Doolittle: That funding that you're seeing there is purely for the, the study to determine whether it warrants a six -lane. There is no construction money in that one. Sorg: Okay, Doolittle: So once we establish that, then we can start looking at including it in the STIP, some construction ... Sorg: Okay, Doolittle: For that section of roadway. If it's going to be some time or if for some reason we can't fund that project we can always get with the City to determine whether we'd enter into a landscaping agreement. Sorg: Okay. Doolittle: I'm currently working with David Maestas on some landscaping agreements for the University interchange, Lohman, US-70, Missouri, I, I'm sorry, not Missouri, Motel, Avenida de Mesilla. So the next time that that committee meets I will be sure to bring up with David ... Sorg: Okay. Doolittle: The consideration of doing that US-70 corridor. Sorg: Okay. Thank you very much. That's great. Thank you Madam Chair. Flores: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. Hancock: Thank you Madam Chair. On LC00240, does that include drainage along that stretch that's getting widing, widening? Wray: Madam Chair. I'd have to defer to Mr. Doolittle on that one. I don't, I'm not familiar with the design. Doolittle: I'm sorry Commissioner Hancock. Can you ... Hancock: That's the, the ... Flores: 240. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S �y j t) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 z7 Ig 29 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Hancock: San Augustin Pass. It's the 240, LC00240. It's San Augustin Pass shoulder widening. Does that, as, as we've talked before there's drainage issues there running down into the trailer park and, and there's concern about, about the drainage. Doolittle. That project is actually the funding for the road safety audit that we completed so it would just be the pedestrian facilities basically from Organ over the pass to the Dripping Springs, I'm sorry, not Dripping Springs, Aguirre Springs. Hancock: Oh Aguirre Springs. Doolittle: So it's only going to address drainage and pedestrian/bicycle facilities on Hancock: Okay. Doolittle: On that section of roadway. Hancock: Okay. Very good. I know you've addressed some of the other issues, the drainage issues there on the side and that's appreciated by the owners down there. I apologize for not being here on the, I don't think I was here on the 10th. No. Flores: No, you weren't. Hancock: No, I wasn't. But as I see this, the policy was approved 2016 through 2021 and I don't see anything about the Upham exit planning for the interchange at Upham. Did we just not, we weren't able, we're not going to be able to get to that until after'21? Doolittle: Commissioner Hancock. That's correct. I've, I've discussed that both with Commissioner Garrett and with executive staff out of the General Office and currently, based on the needs that we've got elsewhere it's, I don't have the support to even get a control number to get it on our planning STIP at this point. Secretary Church has said that if other entities come up with, with some funding to conduct those types of studies that we would certainly entertain that idea, very similar to what we're doing at Arrowhead with NMSU but at this point with, with other needs we just don't have the money to pursue those, those things. Hancock: Could, could you give us a little guidance as to who we could be approaching for those funds? Is that, would that be the Federal Government or maybe Colorado or Texas? I don't know. Doolittle: I can certainly try to find out, Commissioner. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Hancock: I, I'd appreciate that. Yeah. It's a, that, it's a problem. Thank you Madam Chair. Flores: Okay. Anyone else? Councilor Small. Small: Thank you very much Madam Chair. Also on the, oh what is it here, the 240 with the shoulder widening and some of the drainage right there onsite, is, is the wildlife underpass or wildlife corridor features in that area being considered or can that be considered? Because it is an area of, of very high traffic for a lot of different local creatures. Doolittle: Councilor Small. At this point, I believe the, the proposed wildlife crossing that we've been discussing with Game and Fish is further east than this section. I will certainly bring it up to the project development engineers but that was not part of the RSA so if we decide to include it in this project because this one is safety funding, we would probably have to pursue some other options to fund those portions of the, the construction. Small: Understood, and it's good that the, the discussion is ongoing with New Mexico Game and Fish. I guess maybe that's a separate item to address but thank you for bringing that up and that's good that it's ongoing. Thank you and I, 1 think, yeah that that's it. Thank you. Flores: Okay. Anyone else? Member Doolittle. Doolittle: I, 1 do have one, I just wanted to provide an update to the, to the Board itself. That 1100820, that is the West Mesa Road. That is one that this Board had elected to not approve on past TIP amendments. We are moving forward with that utilizing 100% State money. I know one of the concerns of the Board is what took place as part of the Phase A/B study. We had requested a presentation to do a quick summary of that study and couldn't because we did not have any more money as part of that original Phase A/B contract so once we move forward with providing an amendment to the consultant that did the Phase A/B, we can have them come in and give a summary of that before they move forward with the C and D portions of that study. But ultimately we as a department felt it was necessary to complete that project, or at least that study so we are moving forward utilizing 100% State funding. Flores: Okay. Thank you. Mr., Councilor Small did you have another comment? Small: Thank you Madam Chair and thanks Mr. Doolittle. I, that's one, the other one that I was going to ask about because there have been concern and as you pointed out it had been taken off. Is the, the summary is great. Will there be in the presentation or in the C and D phase of this any IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 consideration for the concerns that have been expressed regarding traffic, really more through the valley and trying to find ways to make that economically viable and beneficial for communities in the valley, perhaps with additional construction in strategic locations or is this solely on the West Mesa and consideration of additional truck traffic in the valley is entirely separate? Doolittle. Madam Chair, Councilor Small. At this point it will, the, the Phase C/D will further analyze the options that were in A/B so it's going to be mostly on the west side. Commissioner Garrett has brought up concerns or, or the request to analyze an option to tie into 404 on 1-10. That was one of the options in the Phase B that will be expanded upon and looked into further as part of the C/D. At this point it's really too early to tell which, which ones it's going to strictly focus on. Small: Understood, but again that's appreciated that it's still part of, of, of the next steps here that can tie into some of the concerns that had been expressed. And I think, appreciate and, and kudos to you Mr. Doolittle for bringing that up even though it hadn't yet been addressed by any of the Board members. Ways to keep everyone abreast of that as it moves forward I think is, is in everyone's interest and you're practicing that now so thank you very much. Thank you Madam Chair. Flores: So any more discussion? Did I get a motion on that? Okay. Could I hear a motion? Barraza: I make a motion that we approve Resolution 15-01, 09. I'm sorry. Hancock: Second. Flores. Second by Wayne Hancock, Commissioner Hancock. You may take a vote. Wray: Councilor Small. Wray: Commissioner Benavidez, Benavidez: Yes. Wray: Mayor Barraza. Barraza: Yes. Wray: Councilor Pedroza. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Pedroza: Yes. Wray: Mr. Doolittle. Doolittle: Yes. Wray: Councilor Sorg. Sorg: Yes. Wray: Commissioner Hancock. Hancock: Yes. Wray: Madam Chair. Flores: Yes. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7.1 NMDOT Update Flores: Okay. Moving on to discussion items: 7.1, New Mexico DOT update. Doolittle: Thank you Madam Chair. As part of my normal update I'll give you just a quick update on our projects that we have in the area. The one that always comes to question is the North Main project. We're currently working on the concrete pavement near the Madrid intersection. We're looking at probably about three weeks to finish that. We're working on assembling the signal poles. You know right now at that intersection we have a temporary signal span. The problem is one of those posts sits right where the, the new one is supposed to go and then another one, if you've been through that intersection actually sits on part of the widened roadway of Madrid. So ultimately when we replace those signals it will be on a four-way stop condition for, we're hoping about two weeks but at that point some of the Madrid traffic will be rerouted but we're moving forward with project. Right now the contractor is still behind the original schedule. I think last, the June meeting I was think, I proposed a date of July. Since then it's been pushed back even further. Last that we had heard we're probably looking at more of an October or November before they're completely finished. Understand that that's complete finish of the project. We're working on trying to get a current update so that we can figure out you know when the impacts to traffic will be reduced or H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 minimized or eliminated even though there may be some sidewalk work or those types of things outside but right now we're, we're working diligently with the contractor to try to get those kinds of updates but they are behind schedule and there have been questions tied to you know how the Department is handling that contract. Understand that the contract does allow for liquidated damages, those types of things and ultimately that's really our only repercussion at this point and to try to, to encourage them to complete that project. It is moving forward, a little slower than we would like to see but we, we're doing everything we can to encourage them to get, get finished more quickly understanding the, the impacts that we're having to the traffic in that area. Flores: You were saying how much per day, much, do you, do you recall? Doolittle: Madam Chair. I believe that that project, our liquidated damages are based on the size of the contract monetarily and I believe that that one has a liquidated damages cost of $2,900 per day. Flores: Okay. Sorg: Does that include weekends? Flores: Okay. Doolittle: Councilor Sorg. I, 1 don't know that it's a, it, if it's a working day contract it's based on working days. If it's a calendar day project it would be based on calendar days and I can't remember specifically which one that is. Flores: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything else you want to add? Doolittle: Just a couple of more quick projects here in the area. The Missouri bridge for those of you that have been through there, they are moving very quickly. Right now we have Don Roser shut down while we redo the Don Roser portion of that roadway. The contractor is looking at being finished with the southbound bridge in August, sometime this month and then switching traffic over to that new bridge and then rebuilding the north side. Contract time on that one expires in April. Contractor is, is hoping to be finished in December so they're actually about three months ahead of schedule at this point, so as long as weather continues to cooperate you'll see that, that project finished three months ahead of schedule. Been very happy with FNF and the work they're doing. Appreciate the, the community. I know that the closures of Don Roser and Missouri and before too long there'll be some closures on Triviz, but we've had a lot of compliments and it's, it's moving along real well. The last one I wanted to touch on is one we just started on a couple of weeks ago which is the 1-10/Union bridges and what we call Ramp E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Flores which is basically the, the ramp at Whataburger that crosses under 1-10 onto 1-10 eastbound. We have switched traffic onto the eastbound lanes. Union bridge will be closed this weekend on Saturday and Sunday while we demolish the westbound bridge and then from there the, basically the traffic will stay where it is now for several months while we, while we demolish the westbound. We started on that project July 14th. It's currently scheduled for about one calendar year, just short of that one calendar year. So you'll see a lot of, a lot of construction there for quite some time. I, oh, I do have one more. We do have a maintenance project on South Main which is New Mexico 478. We're working on pavement preservation in that area. They're almost, actually I drove there earlier today and they're almost past Carver headed south so once we get out of town it will certainly speed up but that work will actually go on for quite some time because we're going to do pavement preservation on all of 478 and so it will run all the way from the Texas border to the Las Cruces city limits. Very similar to what we did on New Mexico 28 except it's a different process but it will be the entire roadway, and then next year when the chip seal crew's in the area we'll actually chip seal over that section of roadway. Madam Chair, and that's all the projects that we have in the area ongoing right now and I'll stand for any questions. Councilor Pedroza. Pedroza: Thank you Madam Chair. I've heard so much about, oh around the country not, not specifically you know focusing on our area or our state on oh the need for rehabilitation of bridges etc. etc. but this sounds very positive to me. Can you confirm that? Am I, am I right in thinking that in fact our infrastructure is being repaired timely and, and so on? Doolittle: Madam Chair, Councilor. That, that's correct. We were actually without a bridge engineer in our district for quite some time and our, our deficient bridge rating, and we were actually worst in the state. We still are to some extent but we have been very aggressive in, in doing some bridge work. The reason that you've been seeing a lot of bridge work specifically on I- 10 here in town is because several of them were road, load restricted so we were having to detour all of our oversize loads onto our secondary smaller routes and basically it was destroying them so we've been focusing on, a lot of them on 1-10 so that we can put those loads back where they're supposed to be. Missouri is being replaced because it did have some condition rating issues but it's a capacity problem as well. Once we finish Missouri and, and Union here in town, that's really all of the, the deficient bridges specifically here in the area. We are doing a lot of other smaller bridge rehab projects. For instance, we have some in the Anthony area where we're taking four, five, or six and we're either doing 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 concrete repair or we're taking off the deck and putting new decks on them but we have been very aggressive, actually to the point that some of our executive staff thinks that we ought to be doing more pavement preservation as opposed to bridge but we're behind the eight -ball and we're trying to catch up but we're, we're very aggressive on our bridge program. Pedroza: That sounds really very encouraging to me. Thank you. Flores: Anyone else? Commissioner, I keep wanting to say Leticia. Leticia ... Benavidez: Benavidez. Flores: Commissioner Benavidez. Benavidez: Thank you. Mr. Doolittle, I was coming south on Main close to the Madrid intersection and I noticed that they had just poured some new concrete but then I noticed that they were jackhammering the concrete again. So why would they do that, pour some concrete, it looked like it was a freshly - poured section of the road, it had already dried but then I saw them jackhammering it. I said, "Why they doing that?" Do you know more or less why they would be doing that? Doolittle: Commissioner. I, I, on that section specifically I don't know why. It could be a, a quality of materials issue, it could be cracking in the concrete, it could be wrong grades or slope. I, 1 can certainly try to find out but there's various reasons that they would be doing that. Typically it's a, it's a control of materials or control of, of work issue. Benavidez: Okay. I, 1 just don't want for the construction company to take advantage for example of, of the, of the NMDOT because it just is, it looked like a waste of money but I'm not, I'm not exactly sure what was going on. And then the second thing is I was going south on 1-25 close to the bridge on Missouri and I noticed that there's a lot of speeding cars. I was going 45 miles an hour and people were passing me going over 60 right there in a construction zone though, so do you have any say-so with the police when they could be patrolling the area? Doolittle: Commissioner. We do and we have actually been working real closely with State Police. I agree with you that control of that speed's been rather difficult but I've talked to Lieutenant Frietze with State Police on numerous occasions. They've come out probably more so in the morning and the afternoons when we're getting the university traffic, sporting events, those types of things, concerts, they try to be, be visible. Same as anybody else they have a lot of other work and other priorities and they typically come out when we ask for you know a day or two and then they, they try to 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 move on to other things but we'll continue to ask them to come out periodically and see if we can control that a little bit more. Benavidez: Okay. You know my, my husband was in construction for many, many years with the County and it just, it just makes me really sad that the people don't respect construction sites. I, 1 notice that some construction people got killed in El Paso not too long ago which is you know very scary so we need to make sure that they respect the, the construction zones. Doolittle: Absolutely. I agree. Benavidez: Thank you. That's it. Flores: Mayor Barraza. Barraza: I just want to thank you Trent for the signs coming off the ramps on highway, Avenida de Mesilla of, off the interstate. They're very attractive and it definitely gives a direction which way is Mesilla and which way is Las Cruces on both sides, so thank you so much. We appreciate it. Doolittle: Absolutely. Thank you Mayor. Flores: Okay. Anyone else want to make a, have a question or want to make a comment? Oh, okay. 7.2 Committee Training (Taylor Road Functional Classification) Flores: Then in that case we'll move on to 7.2: Committee Training on Taylor Road Functional Classification. Ken Thurston came in last meeting and, and was requesting a change and I guess I'll just let you explain it. Murphy: Okay. Thank, thank you Madam Chair. And as you were saying last, last meeting Mr. Ken Thurston came in and was requesting a, a change in the MPO Functional Classification Map. I'm not sure why he did not come again today. I just checked to see if he was in a different meeting there but part of, part of the, the explanation there, the, this Committee directed staff to put together a presentation to kind of walk you through what, what goes into functional classification and when we do classify things what it entails so even, even absence his presence this afternoon, I, the, this, this presentation will still be beneficial to the Committee. Okay. So functional classification's a federally, a federally, a federally - designated, try and avoid using the same word but it, it, it's a require, it's a requirement per Federal Code of Regulations and it, it establishes the Federal Aid System in the country and I can get a copy of the language. Please don't try and, try and read it. It just, this shows that it does come from the Code of Federal Regulations and there's three takeaways from all 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 that text, is: 1) there's a difference between urban and rural; 2) the state, State Transportation Agency is the agency that is charged with developing and updating functional classification in cooperation with local elected officials which would be represented by this body; and then the third takeaway is that the final approve, approval of the functional classification is by the Federal Highway Administration. Through that guidance NMDOT has, has developed a classification guidance manual which we use, and, and other MPOs and other jurisdictions in the state use to develop what we recommend as functional classification upwards towards the state for them to, to designate. The, the characteristics that are used include mileage, volume, speed, route spacing, usage, existing and future land use development, and then the regional and statewide significant and I think kind of an, an important note relative to, to the individual's request at the last meeting is the, the actual right-of-way width is not a, is not a factor in this determination so, just kind of put that out there and leave it for a while. The state, the state uses the functional classification for many things: Program prioritization, asset management, safety programs, bridge programs, traffic control maintenance, it, and then it, pertinent to this, this discussion that got us is the highway design also is guided by the functional classification and that impacts the design standards, the speed limit, lane width, horizontal and vertical alignment. Again it does not call out a specific right-of-way width so. And then these are our functional classification and I think everyone's been on this, served on this Board long enough to, to understand most of them: The interstate, principal arterial, you know other freeways such as US-70, and then other principal arterials which you know is, which are our New Mexico 478s, our Lohman Avenues; minor arterials of which Taylor Road is, is one and that was the request that, that was brought forward and then it goes down through major collector, minor collector, and locals. Everyone can read faster than I can talk so I will pause just a moment. Okay, and through all of that the MPO develop, develops its own Functional Classification Map. Again this is, we'll, we'll focus in on a later slide on, on the area in question but this is just to give a general overall, the black lines represent the urbanized area so inside, outside that's urban versus rural. On the maps that we publish we also have, have kind of a Cliff Notes of those guidelines of, far as what makes a functional classification. This map's available for download on our website, again not meant to be, be read through this presentation. We also maintain the Future Thoroughfare Map and that's where we're, what, what we as an organization are calling for a future roadway system and again we, we reiterate the, the differences between the different types of classifications over there on the, on the left side of the document and then we have potential future, future lines on the map itself and again this is also downloadable on our, on our site. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Okay, and as promised the, the zoom -in. Okay, so if you can see the mouse move this is the, the existing Taylor Road. We have it designated as a minor arterial. It meets the Regional Significance Test currently. It, it connects at least you know, you know it connects two principal arterials from Valley to Elks. It also crosses two other minor arterials so from that aspect the, it, it, it is an important for regional traffic, traffic mobility. And then this is the excerpt of our future roadway plan and I believe, I, I, not everybody was at the meeting last time but the IHAS study does call for a possible future improvement of an underpass at Taylor, Taylor and Tecolote similar to what was recently done at, at Engler and Kennedy. Although that's not funded yet it does remain something that's within the realm of possibility which would then increase the regional significance as, as Taylor would be a continuation up to Peachtree Hills Road. Okay. While, while the MPO's functional classification does not set right- of-way widths the, the County and as well as the City whose subdivision regulations do account for, for right-of-way widths. This is a excerpt from the County's Design Standards. It is also, it's also the, the same roadway cross-section that's been included in the draft Unified Development Code so we do expect that this cross-section will, will continue to be utilized and so it, it calls out the right-of-way width, the design ADT, the design speed, and so on. Also if you look below the table there's a note saying that a three- or five -lane cross-section may be constructed depending upon the improved traffic impact analysis, so while this cross-section shows five lanes it does not, you know it does not mean that has to be built. There need, there will be a traffic impact analysis to determine if there's a more appropriate cross-section to be built. And then, then following down even though Taylor Road is within our urbanized area it's still a relatively rural characteristic part of the MPO area. You know it, it's certainly something that the, the developer can negotiate through the County and the, and the, and the Development Review Committee, a different cross-section. The rural one would be even, even, even less amount of pavement width and also you know achieve the, achieve the function of a minor arterial roadway. Okay so this comes us down to what our options are. So this, this Committee can recommend, or direct staff to start pursuing the amendment, the amendment process to recommend to NMDOT that we change the functional classification on that and then if NMDOT agrees with that then they would submit that up to FHWA for their approval or, and this is the, this is the way that the staff has, had pursued it previously. We advised the petitioner to seek administrative relief through the local processes and, and you could also direct us to support a waiver meaning that when it comes to vote at staff level committees, you could authorize myself or Mr. Wray to, to vote to support the applicant's waiver if you, if you so choose. We had this presentation at the Technical Advisory Committee last week. The County Engineering staff member did, did state 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 that his recommendation would be that the second option is what County Engineering would prefer they do rather than have the MPO attempt to change the functional classification of the roadway and so with that I'll stand for any questions. Sorg: Madam Chair. Flores: Councilor Sorg. Sorg: Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. In my discussions with the developer there, we just, I just threw out an idea and see if, if, if this is possible by anybody who might know here especially maybe the engineer here. The, the arterial that it's called for now requires a 100-foot right-of-way. Is that not correct? Murphy: Councilor Sorg. Yes, that is correct according to ... Sorg: Okay. Murphy: The County Design Standards. Sorg: But if he, he is choosing to have an 80-foot road, wide road there instead of 100-foot one. I said to him, "How about if you keep your development out of the 100-foot right-of-way but only build the 80-foot," so someday in the future, cause I'm worried at some point in time in the future there's going to be somebody that's going to be very annoyed at us for allowing this waiver, when they want to build that road wider and put the extra lanes in because of the extra traffic coming all the way from Peachtree and all the new development to the east there. I don't know what timetable the DOT is, has for that underpass but I don't think it's very soon is, wouldn't you agree? So but anyway it's going to be a long time but allow them to build that 80-foot road but keep the development another 20 feet on each side, or ten feet on each side, in order to add it up, yeah away so that, that right-of-way could be obtained in the, the future someday. I don't know if some kind of a parkway or something that could be done there. I, I, 1 don't even know if this is possible so I'm just throwing that out as a, as an idea. No question, just an idea. Flores: I'm just not sure I understand what you're proposing because if you ... Sorg: The problem in the past, yeah the problem in the past is that people build their houses right up to the edge of that right-of-way. Flores Yeah. 17 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 fi 1� 13 14 1.5 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 �5 27 29 30 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Sorg: And if it's just 80 feet they'll have to tear down buildings in order to get the full 100 feet. Flores: Right. Sorg. I'm saying don't put any development other than maybe some landscaping Flores- Within the 100 ... Sorg: In that ten foot on either side, 20 feet in all total, so that you know it doesn't have to be damaging to the property owner. We obtain, in other words you obtain the 100-foot right-of-way but you only build the 80-foot street. Flores: All right. Sorg: That's all he wants to do is just to build the 80-foot street cause he, he is not a, it's my opinion anyway that he is not that forward -thinking or forward -viewing. Flores: Right. Sorg: That you know he, he might not be alive by the time this happens, none of us may be alive by the time this happens ... Flores: Yeah, Sorg: But that, I'd just like we'd keep that option open should Taylor Road become a minor arterial and need that 100-foot right-of-way. Flores: Yeah, well I'm just going to talk and then I'm going to ... Sorg: Okay. Flores. Let Councilor Pedroza speak but, but the way I see it is that's why you have the right-of-way to start with is to make sure that that right-of-way stays clear and I'm just thinking from the perspective of University which Mayor Barraza and I are painfully familiar with is we have the problem with houses built up and just no room to grow and we're at a spot where we were very, very rural and we've got Highway 28 which has 18-wheelers coming up and 1-10 and it's a horrible situation now trying to get right-of- way after the fact. So I mean to me that's why you have right-of-way and, to begin with and so, Councilor Pedroza. 18 Pedroza: Thank you Madam Chair. I was very surprised when the first time I saw 2 that in fact several of the highways were forward -thinking and had a space 3 in the middle that looked like a empty space, a median or whatever but it 4 was actually expressly reserved for future expansion of the highway itself 5 and I was very impressed with that. I said, "Hey, these guys really think 6 ahead." Did, did Mr.... 7 8 Flores: Thurston. 9 10 Pedroza: Thank you. Whatever, yeah, did he agree with your, with your ideas? 11 Was, was he willing to, to do that voluntarily, say, "Okay, if I only build a, 12 an 80-foot-wide roadway I will provide some room for expansion later on in 13 the future." Is he willing to do that? 14 15 Sorg: He seems to be, yes. He indicated very positively towards that and keep lb in mind that this land there is totally undeveloped now. It's 100% desert, 17 undeveloped land. 18 1.9 Pedroza: Is that something Tom or Mr. Doolittle that, that we could actually put into 20 writing? 21 22 Murphy: Madam Chair, Councilor Pedroza. I don't know what we would, would put 23 into writing there. I think that, I do know that he had pursued a waiver in 24 July through EDRC, he was going to go through the ETA request, 25 requesting a waiver for reduced right-of-way but similarly to what 26 Councilor Sorg had put, put, put forward. You know something that been 27 the staffs position was that, you know that he work a way with to you 28 know kind of negotiate with, with County Engineering on a ways to 29 accommodate that and, but not give away, give away possibilities for the 30 future and I guess we were, we were kind of surprised when he, he came 31 in requesting a waiver for, I, basically the, the, it was, to paraphrase it, "I 32 want to build, I want to build none of it, give none of it." So he you know 33 went through the waiver process and we recommended denial on that. 1 34 do not know if that's gone through the, you know the Planning 35 Commission or the, or the ETA yet. I've not, I've not been tracking that 35 case but I think from, you know at least from the MPO staff standpoint it 37 does sound like you, you know, you know want us to, to enforce the right- 38 of -way preservation you know to keep future options open. 39 40 Pedroza: Would that be something that the, that administrative review would, would 41 be able to, to handle, not that I you know want to take it off of our plate if it 42 really belongs here but if it's some way that somebody else can deal with 43 it, that they already have a, a way to, to deal with it that might be the best 44 way to go? 45 19 Murphy: It is something that we deal with on a, you know a weekly basis. All, all 2 development cases do come in, staff reviews them. We, you know we 3 maintain or we, we enforce and seek, seek adherence to these regulations 4 and the County's regulations, the City's regulations. The reason that, that 5 this is coming to your attention now is cause the member of the public did 6 specifically want relief from those regulations that, that staff couldn't, does, 7 does not have the authority to, to, to give so we'd, you know you'd have to 8 give us that authority you know with, and of course I'll note that with the 9 caveat that we don't think that, that relief should be given in that nature for 10 all of, you know all of the discussion that has occurred here because there 11 are reasons why those, those standards are in place. 12 13 Pedroza: Thank you very much. 14 1 Flores: Anyone else? Councilor Small. i () 17 Small: Thank you Madam Chair and thanks to Mr. Murphy for the great 18 presentation and I, 1 join in agreeing that the right-of-way seems very 19 critical in this area given especially the constriction on east -west traffic, 20 something that we deal with in the city, inside the city limits, course this is 21 outside of it but inside the city limits in this area. It poses significant 22 challenges and so I think it would be quite unwise to create more of those 23 problems in the future when we have the opportunity to avoid it. Thank 24 you. Thank you. 20 Flores: Councilor Sorg. 27 28 Sorg. Yeah, just a quick question. I, 1 want to make sure I get it right here. Is 29 the major collector the 80-foot-wide right-of-way? 30 31 Murphy: The, at least from what I, 1 remember from City and County Design ti? Standards, there is only design standards for collector, the major and minor collector is something that's ... 34 35 Sorg: Same width, 36 37 Murphy: Recently come down to us from FHWA and you know has not had time to 38 filter down to local governments, adjusting theirs. Having said that the, 39 those, both the City and the County call for an 85-foot right-of-way for a 40 collector roadway. 41 42 Sorg: Oh, any collector, yeah, okay. 43 44 Murphy: That's major or minor, yes. 45 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Sorg: Okay. Because I, 1 believe that's what he was asking for is just to build a collector rather than a minor arterial. Do recall if he mentioned that to you? Murphy: In my interactions with them he did not express a preference for which specific classification. I think he wanted what, wanted it to get to a point where the right-of-way that already exists would be sufficient so he, but he did not, he did not specifically call out a classification request to me. Sorg: Okay. We'll work on this later then I think, Madam Chair. Thank you. Flores: Okay. So that's right, we didn't say, this isn't, this is just education. This isn't requesting any decisions at this time so okay. Murphy: I, Madam Chair. I guess the only thing would be whether you wanted us to bring you know begin a formal amendment process and bring it back that way but it sounds like we want to leave the processes in place as, as they currently exist ... Flores: Yeah. Murphy: Which would mean that there, we would need no more action ... Flores: Okay. Murphy: Or no more direction. Flores: All right. Does anybody have a problem with that? No, okay, I don't see anybody. 8. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Flores: And so then we'll move along to committee and staff comments, so anybody in the Committee want to make a comment? Councilor Sorg and then Commissioner Hancock, go ahead. Sorg: I've been thinking lately about this Policy Committee. The question I have is should be, shouldn't we be making policy in this Committee and are we have, do we have any restrictions on what kind of policy concerning transportation, of course. I just wonder if, if the rest of the Committee members, what their feelings or thinking is on that and when I'm, what I'm thinking about in more specifically is such as the wildlife crossing on, on Highway 70 in the Organ Mountain/San Andreas Mountain area, also for funding. It's been said over and over again, over year, over year that there needs to be more work done but the, they're limited on funding and so maybe we could make a policy recommendation to those places that 21 supply funding for projects that we're involved with can be done. So I'm 2 just throwing that out. Thank you Madam Chair. 3 4 Flores: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. 5 6 Hancock: Thank you Madam Chair. Great book, the Transport 2040, very nicely 7 done. In looking on page 23 when I looked at the South Central Regional 8 Transportation District there are some facts that are listed there that 1 9 need to correct. Since the time that this was put together Sierra County 10 has voted to exit from the Transportation District. I've not received their 11 formal letter yet but I've spoken with their Chair and with the County 12 Manager in Sierra County and he has indicated that they are withdrawing. 13 They are, we're working with them and the COG. The COG is trying to 14 negotiate with the hospital that has a bus and they are trying to create a 15 circulator route within Sierra County and we've agreed to try to connect 16 with them with South Central Regional Transportation. Subsequent to that 17 discussion we learned that the Board of Directors at, at Ben Archer at Rio 18 Grande Transit decided to cancel fixed -route services in the north part of 19 the county, in fact fixed -route services period. They're only going to be 20 doing basically dial -a -ride. 21 There was, I had a phone conversation with NMDOT and a number 22 of other individuals on the subject and it turns out that Rio Grande 23 Transit's receiving federal transit funds and they have two buses that are, 24 that were purchased with the federal transit funds but if they do fixed -route 25 services with Regional Transportation District they do not get to count the 26 passengers towards their federal funds. So they chose to stop doing 27 fixed -route which means that South Central Regional Transportation 28 District will not have services going north from the Move It Center. We will 29 only have south services and east services. When we, the County has 30 hired a, Dona Ana County has hired a transportation consultant to revise 31 stops and revise the plan in consideration of those factors and we, the 32 County has, County Commission voted on July the 30th to approve the 33 budget and within that budget was $750,000 a year for the Transportation 34 District. So the Transportation is, District is funded and we will not be doing, be able to do services going north until the State Legislature very , possibly allocates more funds for buses in the next ICIP. We have ,7 requested buses, funds for buses in our ICIP package that will be going to the Legislature this next year. So that, in addition to those factors the buses have been ordered. However, Ford lost their manufacturer for the 40 rear axles and they've had to go out and get another manufacturer and the 41 buses, the delivery of the buses has been delayed. The first 30 buses will 42 come off the assembly line in mid -September and they're hoping that, I've 43 begged for our five, to try to get our five buses by October the first. Even 44 at October the first we, it requires close to 30-60 days for us to get all, all 45 of the elements in place: Hire personnel, train personnel, do all the other 46 things. We, the Transportation District is in the process of negotiating 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 right-of-ways with NMDOT and with the County and obtaining private right- of-ways where necessary in order to try and get out of the way all those elements that we can so that when the buses do arrive the amount of time that it takes to become operational will be less. So some of the elements within the, the book, unfortunately anytime we print things it, things change so I did want to bring those factors to the attention of the Board because I know we are all concerned with transportation within the, within the County. Thank you Madam Chair. Flores: Councilor Small. Small: Thank you very much Madam Chair. Thank you to, actually it's a brief question if that's okay for Commissioner Hancock and, who will the, and see in, in not having routes going north but seeking funding for buses to facilitate those routes, who will own those buses should that funding be available? Hancock: The, it's on the South Central, Madam Chair and Councilor. Those, it's on the ICIP for South Central Regional Transportation District. The buses will be owned by the South Central Regional Transportation District as is, or as will be the five that we are going to be taking delivery on. Small: Understood. Thank you and, and thanks for your, your really committed and, and excellent work on this. Madam Chair, and then just one other I guess quick comment. The Valley Drive, of course which was included and we just approved, it's a very exciting project. I compliment the process so far. The Amador Proximo which was a, a development Charrette that recently took place included a great deal of work on Valley Drive to help facilitate safety as well as additional investment and development and I wanted to see if we might at our upcoming September meeting perhaps get a presentation on some of those thoughts, or at least an update on that because I know there's great opportunity to kind of mix and mold the best thinking that's come forward including with the Amador Proximo where over 200 members of the public came and participated, so just to put that out there and flag it without any specific recommendation but to make sure that it does be brought up publicly. It's been very public up until this point and it's a great opportunity perhaps moving forward. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Flores: Member Doolittle. Doolittle Thank you Madam Chair. Councilor Small, just one question. When you, when you ask for a presentation are you talking about a presentation on the Valley Drive development or are you talking about the presentation for the Charrette on the Proximo or ... 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Small: I, 1 guess it's, we'll have to work on it cause it would be a, thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr. Doolittle. We'll have to work on it cause it would be a bit of both because the redevelopment of Valley Drive is such an exciting opportunity for the City and for this area in addition to of course a very important project for NMDOT. I think the, some of the new exciting thinking that's guiding the visioning for the road is connected to how the potential development would influence in -fill in that area so I'll be happy to work in appropriate capacities to make sure that it's a, the right mixture of both without going too heavy on the, the actual neighborhood which 1 know is not this Committee's concern. Doolittle: Okay. And I, and I would, I would say that we could probably get Molzen involved too, to, to provide information on the development to Valley so I guess another question I have is are we asking MPO staff to take the lead on preparing, compiling that information or ... Small: Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Mr. Doolittle. I, 1 always defer to experts. At, I would say that because we're looking at transit -oriented development in a very, in a corridor that's quite close to the Intermodal Transit Center and some of the other very fine efforts that MPO has been significantly involved with that I would feel very comfortable to have, for them to have a leadership role in shaping of the presentation and the product. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank, and, and, oh, and with, and of course if I might add Madam Chair, with New Mexico DOT as we've said before here, really compliment the approach that NMDOT has taken in terms of the stakeholder outreach although not everybody always comes when there's great opportunities, the incredible way that social media and multiple forms have been integrated into that outreach I think is absolutely a model and a standard that we can all aspire to. Thank you. Flores: All right. Mayor Barraza. Barraza: I just wanted to know if a date or a tentative date has been set for the public hearing on the University Avenue project. Murphy: Madam Chair, Mayor Barraza. I was going to cover that in the staff updates but I ... Barraza Oh, okay. That's okay. Well I can wait till then. Murphy: Okay. Barraza: Okay. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Flores: So you wanted a public presentation, are you willing and you said you were fine with that, do you mean here or somewhere else, I'm kind of, sorry. Small: Sorry, no, thank you Madam Chair. And thank you for following up. I, at the MPO. Flores: Okay. Small: Yes. Flores That's what I thought, so can I, 1 don't see anybody that's against that idea so I'll just direct you to get together with staff and Mr. Doolittle as well to set something up. Small: Perfect. Flores: Do we want to set a specific time or just leave it? Small Thank you Madam Chair. I, I, 1 would hope, and I'll connect with folks very quickly. I would hope that it might be ready at least for just from a brief informational perspective at our next meeting. Flores: Okay. Small: Our next regular meeting. Flores: All right. And you don't see any problem with that, with what's coming up? Okay. Then let's do that. Okay, so moving on to staff comments. Murphy: Okay. Thank you Madam Chair. I believe I'll, I'll start with the University Avenue project, one of the study corridors that MPO staff is working on under contract with Bohannan Huston. We've, in addition to since the, the kickoff meeting we've met, the consultant's come down, has met with the, the, you know the meeting out in the general public, meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee, Bicycle and Pedestrian. The, based, and based on all the feedback received from that, our communication last week with them is they've narrowed it down to two cross -sections that they expect to you know plan on studying further and then we'll present that back out, we're going to present that first to the BPAC at their, at their next meeting I believe is, it's next week, right? BPAC. Yes. You know we, we don't have meetings in July and I lose my head, my calendar inside of my head. So we'll present that forward and I think we're tentatively looking at bringing that back out, we have a public information meeting in early October and then, and then take it through, back through the committee process for approval of the report ultimately I think it, at this, at your 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 November hearing and, or your November meeting and throughout that time we'll you know, excuse me. The, there is no November meeting this year, it's, so approval for your December meeting but we will, we will provide updates through that time and, and in direct response to the question I think we're looking early October for the next public opportunity for. Missouri study corridor, we had a stakeholder meeting last week with City, County, NMDOT, all, all, and, and Bureau of Land Management all represented. We're looking at the, the possibility of connecting from the east side of the city to, more directly to Centennial High School. We're looking at, I guess we're, I, 1 think we're also looking about a mid -October public hear, hearing for that one. The consultants is going to be putting together various options based on the input from the staff, the, the staffs that we met with on there. It's looking like there's a, there's a preference for some sort of non -motorized access first. They don't, they, the sense from the technical staff members is that there's probably not a, a, a, a vehicle traffic need for that but the connectivity aspect would be more important but again we're going to be developing a list of alternatives, take that out to the, out to the public. We're, I think we're, our consultant's going to be speaking with the Farm and Ranch Museum about hosting a, hosting a public meeting and we've also learned that they're, they have some expansion plans that may be impacted as well so we're bringing them into the stakeholder, into the stakeholder group. Staff is also working on a short-range transit plan update for the city. We went out, we went out for public meetings on that in early July. Staff is revising some of those recommendations based on public input. We're testing the running time for those routes and we expect to present that back to a, a meeting of the Transit Advisory Board next time that they meet, I, 1 believe it'll be in, in September. Thank you Councilor Sorg. And I, and then one last thing from Committee, or from staff and this kind of relates to, I, I, 1 believe something Councilor Small was alluding to. We don't always get thanks but we did get an unsolicited thank -you card. I, it's addressed basically to all of us: "Thanking you for, thanking you for your work and, and caring about transportation issues," and I'll go ahead and pass that, pass that around. Flores: All right. Murphy: That's all I have. Flores: Okay. Councilor Sorg did you have a comment you wanted to make? I thought I, 1 thought you raised your hand. No? Okay. Well then that being said I'll let people look at the card as they want to. Im 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 9. PUBLIC COMMENT — None 10. ADJOURNMENT (2:26 p.m.) Flores: And we'll go ahead and go to adjournment. So thank you everyone. .01 Chairperson 27