Minutes RPO Meeting

Red River Convention Center

9/1/04

 

I. Call to Order

 

Chairman Bob Perry called the meeting to order at 9:43 am. Those in attendance were:

 

Bob Perry, Chairman

Arturo Archuleta – NCNMEDD

Greg White – NMDOT

Scott Kirksey – NMDOT – LTAP

Larry Samuel – Pueblo of Tesuque

Dennis Wells – Chama

Ernestine Naranjo – Santa Clara Pueblo

Patrick Nicholson – Taos Pueblo

Phil Gallegos – DOT, District 5

Victor Montoya – BLM – Alb Dist office

Rob Straebel – Taos Ski Valley

Diane Chavez – Village of Questa Transit

Charlene Santistevan – Village of Questa

Matthew Roybal – Santa Fe County Public Works

Dan Rydberg – Santa Fe County Public Works

Alan Ho – Federal Highway Administration

 

Chairman Perry introduced Arturo Archuleta with NCNMEDD, who gave an update on the planning position. NCNMEDD will be having asecond round of interviews after Labor Day. Perry announced a change in the agenda due to the fact that Ernie Padilla canceled yesterday. Perry introduced Greg White with the DOT, then asked for introductions from the group.

 

II. Approval of Minutes/Approval of Agenda 

 

A motion was made by Patrick Nicholson, seconded by Rob Straebel,  and passed unanimously to approve the minutes as presented and to approve the agenda with the change caused by cancellation of Ernie Padilla.

 

III. NCNMEDD Report

 

Arturo Archuleta reported on the progress made in the selection process for a full-time transportation planner. He said that the second round of interviews would take place after Labor Day. He also mentioned that North Central would be making arrangements to pick up RPO items from Eight Northern Indian Pueblos, within the next week. Bob Perry mentioned that there is a computer for North Central RPO to use at the main office of the Highway and Transportation Department in Santa Fe.

 

 

 

IV. Distribution of ADA Materials & Questions

 

Chairman Perry stated that although Ernie Padilla canceled he still wanted to have a discussion regarding ADA compliance issues and asked if the members had any questions. There were no questions from the members so Chairman Perry stated that service animals and service individuals (to disabled people) cannot be refused entry on to public transportation. In addition he stated that there is usually no charge for the service assistance individual to ride public transportation. He also stated that there is no extra charge for individuals who are disabled even in instances where they may take up more room. Chairman Perry concluded by stating that infrastructure improvements such as roads and sidewalks must be ADA compliant.

 

Having no other questions or comments about ADA, Chairman Perry spoke briefly about the New Mexico Magazine August Issue. He mentioned how it promotes Native American Issues, covers Indian Market and how it featured the Enchanted Circle in the Scenic By way section. He said that Red River honored the author with a reception. The issue also mentions Nathan Riley from Laguna who has worked with the RPO in the past.

 

Chairman Perry then gave an update to the Communication Protocol developed for communicating with the DOT Dist. 5 Office in regards to the State-wide Transportation  Improvement Program (STIP). He stated that in the past there were issues regarding communication problems with the STIP coordinators and the RPO member communities. As a result a special committee was formed and came up with protocols for communication. Copies of the protocols were handed out. Chairman Perry stated that the new protocol gives RPOs more of a presence in the STIP process. Perry did have issues with items  # 4. i) and 5. ii). He stated that he wants clarification that the RPO oversees any recommendations made according to the processes outlined in those items.

 

Chairman Perry asked for input about the protocols from Dan Rydberg from Santa Fe County. Dan stated that the clarification to the items mentioned made sense since an MPO is more centralized within an area as opposed to an RPO, which encompasses a larger geographic area with many rural communities. He stated that an RPO can have several different projects within a region and that the selection of projects can be more political.

 

Perry asked Phil Gallegos of the DOT Dist-5 office how he felt about Communication Protocol.

 

Phil believed it was a good idea and that it makes the entire process it easier. However he did mention that changing the STIP to a 2-year cycle might make it more difficult for him to make changes.

 

Chairman Perry stated that the process used to be done annually and allowed for monthly amendments.

 

Phil Gallegos then stated that there will most likely be an emergency amendment process that would allow for a quick amendment change but that it would require the Secretary’s signature.

 

V. Discussion of NMDOT Request for Highway Projects Not on State Highway System

 

Chairman Perry stated that Barbara Deaux had received a letter from DOT stating they were interested in coordinating with Native American and other rural communities to improve the highway transportation planning system. The letter requests assistance to identify roads and ownership of roads that are not adjacent to highways and whether or not they should be a part of the STIP. They also want a list of improvement projects to those roads normally outside of their area. Project examples guardrails or county roads. Chairman Perry stated this is important for public transportation planning.

 

Greg White gave a background summary that the idea of identifying projects not in the DOT system such as public transportation, paving, etc, is an initiative of the Secretary of DOT after she was approached about various projects from the Legislature. Greg stated that an integrated system does not mean every project will get funded but it will allow the DOT to assist in finding funding for different projects normally outside their scope. Identifying projects to DOT will also serve as justification for CDBG, ICIP and other federal programs. The information collected by DOT will become a part of the long-range plan.

 

Patrick Nicholson raised the question of how far this extended into Native American lands?

 

Greg White replied that DOT is willing to entertain all projects. He then gave the example of the Navajo Nation looking at pedestrian pathways.

 

Phil Gallegos noted that the Jicarilla Apache approached the DOT about a trail that is not adjacent to highway and it made the STIP because it was multi-modal.

 

Patrick Nicholson then stated that Taos Pueblo has 125 miles of roads that need paving and upgrades that are not eligible for State funding. He then asked if it was helpful for DOT to know about projects funded from BIA or other sources.

 

Greg White responded that it would be a lot of information but it will help as New Mexico competes for funds with other states.

 

Rob Straebel asked what the objective of all this was.

 

Greg White responded that DOT’s objective was twofold. The 1st is the creation of a new culture around changing DOT and how they work. The 2nd is that DOT may be able to team up with the communities on applications. DOT can act as back up to project validity but they must first know what potential projects are in advance.

 

Chairman Perry then spoke about the role of the RPO. He stated that the RPO works with communities to identify needs and obtain project funds. He then said that this process of project identification will be similar to the ICIP.  That way the legislature knows that projects are planned out. He went on to say that the RPO can offer critical advice and expertise on proposed roadway and transportation projects. He believes the new process will be a good planning tool for RPO communities to use.

 

Victor Montoya noted that the BLM does lots of infrastructure improvement plans and asked if DOT wanted copies of all of them statewide.

 

Greg White responded given the size of the state the best thing to do would be to give DOT a prioritized list of projects for the next 3 – 5 years, specifically those projects tied into DOT right-of-way.

 

Chairman Perry stated that October 15th is the date by which the RPO would like to compile this list, thereby giving the communities a month to info back to their communities and come up with a list by next RPO meeting.

 

Greg White commented that a month is the fast track but the sooner the DOT gets this list the better prepared they can be for this coming legislative session.

 

Break at 10:42

 

After break Greg White gave an update on the Long Range Plan for DOT. He stated that the long-range plan was a requirement of the Federal Government and that the Secretary realizes the importance of multimodal transportation in the plan. He also stated that DOT did a fast track draft and is requesting input from the communities. He mentioned that the plan has no fiscal constraints and therefore it identifies all potential projects even if they are not fundable at this time. He further said that DOT is asking communities to look at the document and edit it for omissions, mistakes and any other necessary corrections. He noted that the official deadline for community input is September 16th. Any changes or additions can be sent to Roy Cornelius at DOT. The plan can be accessed via the Internet at the DOT homepage.

 

Phil Gallegos mentioned that District 5 was solicited for comments by Roy Cornelius as well and that the District 5 office did have some changes that needed to be made. Phil went on to say that there are $1.7 billion worth of needs just for District 5 alone. He believes that the long-range plan covers just about every corridor in the District. He will work on compiling the list of projects for District 5 based on immediate, short term, and long term needs, as well as by County. He finished by saying that if the County Commission had any additional projects not already included, they should send the list to him and he would get it over to the right people of DOT main headquarters.

 

Both Greg White and Chairman Perry then stated that any duplication of projects listed by both the County/municipality or other community and the District 5 Office should be highlighted to validate that there is more than one entity looking at the project.

Phil Gallegos noted that he would present the list of needs for District 5 at the next meeting.

 

Dan Straebel asked that if a project is on the STIP already do they need to list it again.

 

Phil Gallegos replied absolutely. He noted that each project needs to be specific with project descriptions and that all information on the STIP should be included as well.

 

Greg White recommended that communities leave the projects a little bit open-ended so that different funding sources could be sought without having it automatically excluded from certain sources for not being loose enough.

 

Chairman Perry stated that communities should be general on some larger projects & more specific on smaller individual projects, for example, corridor studies.

 

Phil Gallegos stated that currently there are 65 million dollars worth of projects for highway 64.

 

Chairman Perry noted that there was a stretch of highway 38 left off of the list. He mentioned that the area was outside of District 5 and the RPO boundaries but it should be included in the list. Chairman Perry then asked for Alan Ho of the Federal Highway Administration and Scott Kirksey of NMDOT LTAP to give an overview of the Indian Reservation Road Program.

 

Alan Ho stated that he needs to have a discussion with the main office to find out what the new changes in the program mean for New Mexico. He wasn’t sure if the New Mexico Local Technical Assistance Program would become the LTAP for the Indian Tribes and Pueblos or if they will still go through the Tribal Technical Assistance Program in Colorado.

 

Patrick Nicholson noted that this will change funding for Tribes from the Federal level.

 

Alan mentioned that 2005 is the first year that the new funding formula for the tribes and pueblos will go into effect.

 

Chairman Perry asked if any of this duplicates what the RPO is doing.

 

Patrick Nicholson stated that there is some overlap since the tribes and pueblos do their own TIP as sovereign nations with their own federal funds.

 

Scott Kirksey mentioned that the new funding formula is based on the number of roads, the population and the transportation improvement plan. The formula is designed to distribute $275 million between 500+ tribes. The new formula means that larger tribes will see a decrease in funding whereas smaller tribes will see an increase. Scott concluded by stating that all tribes and pueblos must have a TIP or no funding will be awarded.

 

VI. Road Projects

 

Ernestine Naranjo stated that Santa Clara Pueblo is doing well and is working with a consultant on a transportation plan.

 

At this time both Greg White and Phil Gallegos asked that copies of any transportation plans be sent to them at the following addresses:

 

Attn: Greg White

Dept. of Transportation                                     

P.O. Box 1149

Santa Fe, NM 87504

 

Attn: Phil Gallegos

Dept of Transportation

District 5 Office

P.O. Box 4127

Santa Fe, NM 87502

 

Dennis Wells with the Village of Chama reported that the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad was unhappy with the pond that was constructed on the property which they donated to for the pond. The District 5 office is working on settling the issue. The issue should be resolvable since the project is still under construction.

 

Chairman Perry reported that the town of Red River is doing some curb and gutter improvements.

 

Victor Montoya reported that the BLM has pushed back the funding of improvements on highway 68 back from 2006 to 2007. As a result the State DOT will most likely have to push their funding back as well, since the funds should all be expended in the same fiscal year.

 

Phil Gallegos stated that the BLM must send an official letter to the District 5 office in order to amend the STIP in accordance with the new communication protocol.

 

Victor Montoya noted that BLM is at the table with the RPO since it does not receive project funds for improvements directly from the Federal government like the BIA or the Forest Service. He said that the BLM is however working on changing the way it receives funding from the feds.

 

Scott Kirksey mentioned that some counties throughout the state were having problems with bridges getting inspected. Some bridges were not getting inspected at all. He asked if any one in District 5 was experiencing the same problem.

 

Chairman Perry asked if the RPO could get a list of the bridges that have been inspected.

 

Phil Gallegos noted that if a community gets a new bridge they must submit it to the District office in order to get on the inspection list. He said that it is up to the County or local entity to insure that the bridge gets on the list. He went on to say that it is not a problem adding new bridges to the list but that the district office has no way of keeping track of those bridges that are not on the list. In order to get on the list the community must submit a letter to the bridge engineer at District 5 with the location of the bridge and the year it was built. The definition of a bridge is anything that spans 20ft or more over the roadway. If it does then it must be inspected.

 

Following this discussion Chairman Perry announced that the State RPO meeting will be held on September 23 in Red River at 10:00 in the Convention Center.

 

VII.  Next Meeting – Set Quarterly Calendar

 

Questa – October 6th – Presentation of information on traffic signage

Taos Pueblo – November 3rd – Public transportation & scenic by-ways

Santa Fe – December 1st – ADA compliance materials & questions.

 

VIII. – Adjournment

 

Patrick Nicholson motioned for adjournment it was seconded by Dan Rydberg and passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:04.