NPRPO Meeting Minutes

November 1, 2006

Questa Fire Department

Questa, NM

 

 

Member’s attendance:

Ted Martinez –Chair                  Patrick Nicholson – Ohkay Owingeh

Brent Jaramillo – Vice Chair/Questa                   Francisco “French” Espinosa – Town of Taos

Ted Garcia – Los Alamos County                  Francine Suazo – Town of Taos                                                               

Nancy Talley – Los Alamos County                  Rob Straebel – Village of Taos Ski Valley

Shabih Rizvi – Santa Fe County                  Dennis Wells – Village of Chama

Victor Robles – Taos County                  Danny Garcia – Rio Arriba County

Ivan Guillen – City of Española                  Cathy Martinez – Rio Arriba County

Larry Samuel – Pueblo of Tesuque                  Paul Martinez – Sangre de Cristo Land Grant

Snider Sloan – Town of Red River  

 

Affiliate Member attendance:

Sandra Maes – NPRPO Planner                  Tom Wilson NMDOT – G2G         

Benny Martinez – NMDOT –Project Dev.                  Rick Chavez – NMDOT – Project Dev.

Lucia Lopez – NMDOT – Public Transit                  David Harris – NMDOT – Public Transit

Josette Lucero – NCRTD                  Linda Trujillo - NCRTD          

 

Guests in attendance:

 

Citizen’s in attendance:

 

I.                    Call to order at 9:40 by Ted Martinez, Chair

Ø     Thanked the Village of Questa and the Questa Fire Department for the meeting location and provision of the morning treats.

 

II.                 Welcome and Introductions –

 

III.               Approval of Agenda –

Ø     Danny Garcia, Rio Arriba County made a motion to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Ted Garcia, Los Alamos County.  No Discussions/Passed unanimously

 

IV.              Approval of Minutes for August 2, 2006

Ø     Victor Robles, Taos County made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Patrick Nicholson, Ohkay Owingeh.

 

V.                 Public Transit Application Review

Ø     Discussion on scoring sheet

à        French stated that the low, medium and high does not make sense

à        David Harris, Public Transit Bureau (PTB) response

1.      this year public transit reconstructed the scoring system

2.      very subjective type of score

3.      Because of RPOs regional perspective, PTB has the opportunity to look at RPO functions and the RPOs get to see what is happening on the transit level.

4.      high, medium and low grouping was easier to compare among regions

5.      Opportunity to look at the PTB as having to review a low priority and identify its services.

 

à        French further added that if this process continues over a period of 3 or more years and Town of Taos scores low – then we don’t have a chance to go into your system.

à        David responded that was not necessarily so, that viewing start-ups for new systems vs. existing was the key here.  Transit would have to keep Taos solvent as the only 5311 provider for the area.

à        French added that it is difficult to identify purpose of need based on low, medium and high.

à        David responded that TRB is the fiscal agent and hopefully we don’t have to look at that.

à        David further added that last year 5310 received $1.1M and due to SAFETEA-LU this year that distribution was lowered to $800K.  With pass thru $, financial juggling may be able to fund all projects, which of course, would be based on service. 

à        Sandra stated that she provided a matrix, similar to last years and if the members so choose, they can propose a motion to use numerical ratings, and data will be kept on file.

à        David stated that as an RPO, members have a right to make those recommendations from low, medium, high to a numerical rating system.

à        Ted opened up the floor for a motion, none replied, no motion carried.

 

Ø     Public presentations by

à        NCRTD for 5310 and 5311 applications

Discussion from members

ü      Ohkay Owingeh budget page is missing; was included in original application; oversight by Sandra

ü      Due to increase in fuel, good to see that providing more services to area residents and county is a priority, money is secondary – coordination is key.

ü      Regionalization is good, although can NCRTD ensure that administration stays local – part of these initiatives is to create economic base for local areas. Response by stating that intent of services is to keep an internal base, for example the transit program initiative will allow for retaining of tribal members.

à        Los Alamos County – 5311 application

Discussion by members

ü      Please address as an RTD member – why aren’t they taking the lead of admin and operation?  Response; thru this initiative, LA Bus Board of Directors wanted their employees to have an opportunity to become LA County employees.

ü      There appears to be duplication in the systems initiative.  Response; there will not be a duplication of services, although coordination of services amongst NCRTD will occur – the riders will not be able to identify a break in service, we plan to offer a seamless transit of services where necessary.

ü      Is there a possibility of handing over services to NCRTD?  Response; the service plan does address that possibility.

ü      Concern that in the future – possible RTD members get together on marketing efforts to utilize one logo and monies don’t go to waste.  Response; when we are ready to go forward with that initiative, the board will have to be consulted.  We are now just hoping to get monies for Phase I.

ü      How will LAC coordinate construction activities with the upcoming Diamond Drive and NM502 initiatives if in place by that time?  Response; LAC has a permitting process in place for all construction activities, the traffic specialist coordinates with business and construction crews to create seamless efforts for the traffic.

ü      The current fleet for LA is currently five and the grant request is for eight, that’s quite a jump to undertake.  Response; LAC’s plan is to improve transit system service to serve area that have not been serviced and to have a continuum of this services available throughout the day.

ü      Why not work with NCRTD immediately?  Response; LA Bus mgr has not wanted to be a part of that initiative, there was not vision for community service in the plan and LAC is hoping to change that.

ü      Is the branding initiative for the system or for the town?  Response; for the transit system.

ü      Has there been a traffic study conducted by LAC?  Response; LAC did not provide transit in the past, the transit service was provided mainly to LANL.  LAC has not conducted a study.  What we do know is that we have about 10K commuters coming into the County and once they reach their destination, they don’t have other means of transit to get them around the County.

à        Town of Red River – 5311 application

ü      Have you reviewed the cost of refurbishing the trolley, my experience with refurbishing has not been good, have you weighed the possibility of a new unit?  Response; I’m sorry, I don’t have that information for you at this time.

ü      What is the status of the enchanted circle RTD initiative?  Response; you’ll have to follow up with Bob Perry, unfortunately I was asked to present the application and have very little information on anything further.

ü      In the 70’s and early 80’s there used to be a bus that used to go into the community and service workers went from Questa and other communities to RR, that is something that is very important for the workers as well as the community to support the local economic development, are there any plans to start that again?  Response; again, I don’t have that answer.

à        Town of Taos – 5311 application

ü      Does Chili line have a regional plan/transportation plan in place?  Response; not currently.

ü      In the past, Peñasco area was being serviced.  Is that still being considered?  Response; Peñasco is not in the town limits, the Town took the initiative per a councilman’s request, this year I was not in the discussions with Taos County and the Town, but know that they did not meet the application deadline.

ü      What about coordination with the two pueblos in the County?  Response; currently the town provides service to Taos Pueblo, Picuris is not in the town’s limits of service.

à        Chairman Ted stated that last year Park n Ride presented an application to the NPRPO and asked if services were being continued for the next year.  Ted requested an application and presentation by Park n Ride staff. Response; yes, but Federal regulations require that 15% minimum is spent on intercity systems for 5311, that’s about $1.6M, money is matched by other state funds.

ü      Under SAFETEA-LU does Park n Ride need to present to NPRPO or MPO?  Response; no, because of the 15% requirement for intercity services.

ü      There is a concern that you’re not meeting the FHWA requirements under the public process.  No response.

ü      The Park n Ride requested last year $8M, does that exceed the 15% requirement?  Response; yes.

 

 

VI.              NMDOT update

a.      District V – staff not present

b.      Government to Government

Ø                  Tom Wilson

§         GRIP II list went to Legislative drafting, on Nov 15th will go to committee.

§         Requesting resolution requests from entities; want to re-energize efforts, please get those in to G2G unit as soon as possible.

§         The RPO, RTIPR process was discussed by Phil at the last meeting

·              Encourage the NPRPO to continue with this effort and proceed with the process

·              Remember that projects are solicited on a project ready basis – look for a fit when money does become available, and if on the RTIPR early, the entity can feasibly obtain funds that much quicker.

§         LRP plans

·              Bob will try to make an appearance in December to continue with efforts in progress

c.      Project Development –

Ø      Benny Martinez

§         Coordination efforts discussed within the Department on 10/24, yield to Rick Chavez

·        Goal is to reestablish the local government assistance handbook – Tribal/Local Government Agency Handbook

·        Process review will be solicited thru local government and FHWA

·        Nationally there are Federal aid funds of about $750M that have not been expended, in NM we’re talking about $35M of unexpended balances, 23CFR Section 30 includes requirements to the state to justify unexpended funds.

·        There is a definite need to define local government assistance, the Secretary is very interested in the seven guiding principles to improve transportation systems, partner with tribal government and commitments for environmental review.

·        There is a need to close out projects as we speak, money can no longer be put aside to fund larger projects, and money must be expended within the required timeline.

·        Very evident that district & design centers need to be involved from the very beginning.

§         Continue to ask for help.  Contact information for Benny is 827-5531/490-2623 or email benny.martinez@state.nm.us and Rick can be reached at 827-5395 or rick.chavez@state.nm.us

§         Discussion by members

·        If an entity applies for funding for a State Hwy, and the state does not wish to participate in the design of the project, the entity has to come up with the design, by that time the project deadlines may be behind schedule, how can NMDOT offer more assistance or offer a little more forgiveness when project deadlines are not met?  Response; in the past, State routes were identified to be fixed and then transferred the road to the entity – unsure of philosophy today.

·        How do you involve the Local Government Division (DFA) for LGRF funds?  Response; the roles will be identified in the handbook.

                                               

VII.            New Business

a.  LRP continuing efforts

b.  ADA workshop on-hands request and entity to host.  Great workshop provided in Las Cruces that gave an insight to the disability community every day encounters.  Please contact Sandra or Jody Ortiz, NMDOT ADA Coordinator at 827-1774 if interested.

c.  First responders in the community - who is it?  Does the community know who to contact?  Tie that in with the LRP?  Reference the 911 taskforce effort developments within the Homeland Security Handbook.

Ø      Discussion by members

ü                  SAFETEA-LU identifies safety and security separately

ü                  There is a DPS website that identifies NM – Hazard Emergency Plan

ü                  911 board system is centralized in Rio Arriba County

ü                  Thru FTA – because of Katrina – the outcome implemented a plan; Town of Taos adopted the plan with the understanding that we work with Taos County and Questa.  Willing to share the 3 binders of information with the NPRPO

ü                  FTA have requirements thru SAFETEA-LU for transit agencies in NM

ü                  The Forest Services work with an incident command system that seems to be one of the best for information in smaller communities.

 

X.            Next meeting will be

Ø     December 6, 2006 – Town of Taos – Location TBA

Ø     January 3, 2007 – North Central EDD – NMDOT-GO- 1120 Cerrillos Rd. Training Rm. 1

Ø     February 7, 2007 – Santa Fe County – Commission Chambers

Ø     March 7, 2007 – Los Alamos County – Location TBA

 

X.      Miscellaneous/Announcements

Ø     NPRPO Contact list

ü      Concern that there a lot of names on the voting member listings; Sandra had provided members with a listing of presentations to the entities that listed the voting members and contact list provides other names. – Sandra to revise that section

Ø     Capital outlay request forms can be found on the legislative website

Ø     Rio Arriba County will be submitting a PIF for a bridge project.

 

XI.              Adjourn

a.      Motion to adjourn by Dennis Wells seconded by Cathy Martinez.