NPRPO Meeting February 1, 2006
Santa Fe County Administration Building
Santa Fe, NM
Member’s attendance:
Matthew Roybal – Santa Fe County Ted B.Garcia – Los Alamos County
Tomas Campos – Rio Arriba County Cathy Martinez – Rio Arriba County
Danny Garcia – Rio Arriba County Dennis Wells – Village of Chama
Commissioner Gabriel Romero – Taos County Elsa Vigil – Taos County
Victor Robles – Taos County James Rivera – NCRTD/Pojoaque Pueblo
Commissioner Nicklos Jaramillo – Taos County Hutch Miller – Santa Fe County
French – Town of Taos Patrick Nicholson – Ohkay Owingeh
Brent Jaramillo – Village of Questa Edwin Tafoya – Santa Clara Pueblo
Robert Perry – Town of Red River Sheriff Pat Naranjo – Santa Clara Pueblo
Joey A. Vigil – Village of Questa Councilor Jim West – Los Alamos County
James Duran – Taos Pueblo Daylyn Lujan – Taos Pueblo
Ted Martinez – Vice Chair James Lujan – Santa Fe County
Affiliate Member attendance:
Barbara Deaux – NCNMEDD Sandra Maes – NPRPO Planner
Phil Gallegos – NMDOT – DIST. V Arturo Archuleta – NCNMEDD
Bob Widoe – NMDOT – Planning Sal Soto – NMDOT – EJ Coordinator
Janet Spivey – NMDOT – Planning Tom Wilson – NMDOT - Planning
Levi Valdez – BIA – SWRO@NPA Jack Valencia - NMPTA
Guests in attendance:
Chris Moquino – Senator Bingaman’s Office
Mariana Padilla – NERPO Transportation Planner
I. Meeting called to order at 9:32 by Chair Bob Perry. Introductions and welcome were given by Santa Fe County Manager Gerald Gonzales. He thanked the RPO for the work they do and for the collaboration that occurs within the RPO. He is an avid NM historian, this morning he was looking at an old Wheeler survey map and was reminded that the current highway system generally follows the historic trails and roadways. The RPO works to create more efficient road patterns. Without that kind of work we do for our road systems we could not continue the work in the other areas such as housing and economic development which is all supported by the work of this group. Bob Perry thanked Mr. Gonzales for the cooperative relationship the RPO has with Santa Fe County. Introductions of RPO members and meeting attendees.
I. Approval of the Agenda
Approval of Agenda – The presentation of project proposals was added to the agenda as item five after the NMDOT RTIPR Discussion. Ted motioned to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Ted Garcia. Passed unanimously.
II. Approval of minutes – Amendment to meeting minutes was made by Patrick Nicholson: STIP D5060, Patrick clarified that Ohkay Owingeh did not lose funding for the D5060 project; the PIF submitted was a separate project all together. Motion to approve minutes was made by Brent Jaramillo seconded by Ted Martinez. Motion approved unanimously.
IV. NMDOT RTIPR Discussion Phil Gallegos
· STIP update – off year STIP cycle. We are in a 2 year STIP cycle and 2005 was a major overhaul of the STIP, the NMDOT incorporates projects every other year. We will take 2006 and 2007 RTIPR and add together to then be placed on the STIP. STIP amendments are conducted on a quarterly basis; the next amendments will be held in February at the NM Transportation Commission meeting. Increasing projects by more than 15% requires a STIP amendment. If projects are added to the STIP they have to go through the RPO process.
· Bob Perry stated that MPOs have always been on a two year cycle and are able to more easily add and change projects. It was determined that there is a protocol for making amendments to the STIP and for the RPOs to now work on an annual basis. We have an annual priority list that is created by the RPO Transportation Planner that is given to DOT for recommendations. The RPO process is still a viable annual process.
· Phil said the projects can be added on a quarterly basis if it is possible.
· Bob Widoe stated that if entities are going to submit an amendment to please make sure that it is completed early on and not right before the deadline. MPOs revisit the STIP every four to six months.
· Bob Perry, MPOs have staff devoted to this process which makes for a more fluid process.
· Phil 2006-2011 STIP was accepted by FHWA. Dist. V annual program was $30 – 32 million. They need to make revisions to the target amounts. Dist. V STIP appropriation was lowered to $22 million. Inflationary costs, for construction materials and transport requires that there are adjustments for this increased cost. We are very tight and this is going to impact RPO projects. This is why we have held off on STIP amendments and want to bring it to the RPO before the July cycle. It is a pretty major hit, similar to when we lost our state money and we will have to adjust accordingly.
· Bob Perry said that Bush’s state of the union address discussed how earmarks have been reduced because of the damage being done through Congress as money is taken off the top. As an RPO they were able to push for no earmarks for transportation projects. Bush did not mention infrastructure in his address.
· Control # 3602 in Espanola will be moved to 2007 due to environmental issues, which require new drainage designs due to a contaminated plume and are now out for RFP to redesign the project.
· Bob Widoe GRIP II Update – This morning DOT sent out the final list that is being sent to the legislature for GRIP II. The current amount is $250 million but it started at about $100 million more. DOT tried to reduce the amounts as much as they could to try and get it funded. Good and bad news, some projects were taken off the list and some projects had money cut. Capital Outlay requests are often also reduced in dollar amounts by sometimes as much as 50%. It is his understanding that this is the largest capital outlay bill ever submitted. It is up to the legislature to fund GRIP II, it is anybodies guess what will happen to it. I encourage you to contact your legislators and express what you would like to see happen. This is still a work in progress. I can’t lobby for this but all of you can. This has been a great part of my life over the last seven months and I appreciate all that you have contributed to it. There are some things about this that I have been disappointed in but DOT and the Secretary have worked very hard to make this happen. Bob handed out the GRIP II project list. It will be on the DOT website and on the legislative website soon. Sandra also emailed it to everyone this morning. On the list you will see both a GRIP II amount and match amount. On the bill itself you will only see the GRIP II amount so that they will have the ability to work with local governments on a hardship scale that will be developed by NMFA, similar to CDBG scale. This list is organized by county.
· Phil stated that the legislature is supposed to introduce this today and it is important that local entities call their legislators even if your entity’s project was cut out. Projects located on State Routes were removed. Only local roads/projects were affected like Town of Taos and San Ildefonso and Santa Clara, Chama projects were pulled because it is on a SR. Look at each of the three tabs on the GRIP II spreadsheet so that you can compare projects and look at the adjustments that were made.
· Bob Widoe stated that had it not been for the RPOs and the RPO process none of the GRIP II would have happened. RPOs really brought it to the forefront, so don’t give up hope if your project was cut. Thanks for working with us.
· Chris from Jeff Bingaman’s office asked what other avenues entities have if their projects were removed.
· Phil responded that it is up to the lawmakers so entities should contact their legislators. Through the creation of the GRIP II list, DOT now has a much better handle statewide of what the local needs are.
· Edwin Tafoya stated that there was concern with some of the Pueblo projects that are not getting any results. The elders were leery to participate in this process to begin with. If they go directly to the Governor they often receive more results. If Santa Clara decides to close both sides of NM30 like Pojoaque did several years ago perhaps they will more results on their needed projects.
· Bob Perry stated that the projects from San Ildefonso and Santa Clara have been on the radar as safety issues for many years.
· Phil responded that NM30s program for $8.5M dollars is still there. DOT is in the process of hiring a consultant for these projects that are already on the STIP for 2008. Having it on GRIP II would have just freed up some STIP money, but it will be done.
· Edwin said he appreciated it.
· Bob Widoe, Safety Fund is now a stand-alone project that is determined by statewide priority not through the regional process and that money is also available through this program.
· Commissioner Nicklos Jaramillo asked if we are going to still follow the last draft, their project isn’t addressed here (West Rim Road, for $10M was earmarked on the last draft).
· Bob Widoe, projects go from year to year based on project readiness. We are still working on this process with the RPOs to see how funding should unfold.
· Jaramillo said that Taos County needs a time frame so that they can find the matching funds.
· Bob Widoe, we are still figuring out the time frames and they will need to work with RPOs to do this. This project is programmed in 2010 on the STIP and will stay there.
· French asked how DOT determined that state road projects would be left off GRIP II.
· Bob Widoe responded that he thought that part of the reasoning had to do with those projects that qualify for federal funding through SAFETEA-LU and local roads don’t have any other avenue for funding.
· Phil reiterated that was the primary reason I knew of also, these projects have no other avenue for funding.
· Bob Perry, GRIP II started out for local entities to submit any project that was their priority and those projects that will be funded, like Red River’s project has no other opportunity for funding. Some projects that were knocked down can find funding some other way.
· Levi Valdez asked what is the time schedule on funds.
· Bob Widoe responded that it may be July 1st otherwise when the Legislature decides.
· Phil stated that the amendments for the STIP will be ready before the next STIP cycle but it is something we want to bring to the RPO.
· Ted Martinez, what year is NM68 programmed in the STIP?
· Phil responded that it is scheduled for funding in 2008 or 2009 for $1.8M.
· Sandra asked Phil for clarification; if no new projects will be accepted onto the STIP this year should the RPO still create an RTIPR?
· Phil responded that the NPRPO should submit one but we are trying to keep the current STIP intact. The RPO can substitute projects if they want but generally there won’t be new additions this year.
· Jack Valencia gave a brief update on the Legislature. NMPTA petitioned for projects on GRIP II funds and to make sure that transit related projects should have had more inclusion in the GRIP II funded projects. Jack Valencia thanked the NPRPO for allowing him to talk. HB595 had a favorable hearing yesterday, it received a do pass and is scheduled for tomorrow in the house appropriations committee. He thanked those that have participated so far with this bill. He explained that they are seeking the growth in the vehicle excise tax to assist the local governments in matching funds. GRIP II is a good example of projects that require a match. We are trying to provide the match so that federal funds can be maximized. SB648 is the companion Bill. Chris Moquino has been a God send with the reauthorization period. Senator Bingaman sent a letter to the Governor saying that he supports the transit bill, Jack thanked Chris and Senator Bingaman. Hearing in house appropriations committee, Sandra forwards information received through NMPTA by email. Jack will be appearing with Secretary Faught on a live radio show on Friday.
V. PIF Presentations –
· Ted Garcia presented Los Alamos Diamond Drive Construction Projects, Phase I and II which have a lot of deteriorated pavement and four traffic signals operating at levels D and F, substandard geometrics, sight distance problems, radius are inadequate for buses to turn, signals need to be upgraded, some old water lines that need to be repaired/replaced, etc. They are asking for money for roadway upgrades. Requesting any help from DOT and NPRPO of $1.5 million for phase one.
o Councilor West stated that this project has gone through a lot of public comment. The one current round- about in Los Alamos has had a tremendous amount of public input, initially residents were resistant but now they are supportive and have given ok to move ahead with the project. They have gone through a lot of trouble to get good public input and the city is ready to move ahead.
o Josette stated that she is happy to hear that the project considers pedestrians, and suggested that they also include the pedestrian and bus lane to the Los Alamos power point presentation.
o Ted informed Josette that these multimodal considerations are included in the hand out.
o Bob Perry, fantastic presentation, one of the better we have seen in the RPO, if I had $2 million bucks I would give it to you.
o Please refer to handouts for more information or contact Ted directly at 662-8150
· Brent Jaramillo presented Village of Questa’s proposal to install 82 new street lights along both sides of NM522 for approximately 1.7 miles and NM38 for approximately 1.5 miles, along two roadways that have had numerous accidents and 6 deaths due to poor lighting. Along NM22 there are six businesses as well as H.S and Mid S. and industrial park.
o This is a safety concern. This would be a worth while project and this is the first project Questa has submitted in a long while. Through the public input process Questa has determined that having street lights would greatly help safety.
o Bob Perry suggested that on the PIF check off on enhancement as well as safety. Have you looked into the type of lighting yet? Brent responded that preliminary work has been done by Kit Carson for this.
o Bob asked if the Village has a night sky ordinance in place and if so are they considering that? Brent responded that there should be minimal impact.
o Phil stated that this would be a good safety project.
o Commissioner Gabriel Romero, is there an issue with wildlife crossing? Brent, no not here. The wildlife crossing is a little above here but if wildlife does migrate down the lighting would help.
o Please refer to handouts for more information or contact Brent directly at 586-0694.
· Danny Garcia Rio Arriba County, Two projects
· County Road198, Canoñes railcar bridge, one lane. On the SW side of the bridge there are broken boards and it is a very dangerous bridge and he is surprised there hasn’t been injury so far because the structure itself is failing. Visibility is low to none with oncoming traffic, anyone pulling a tractor trailer or load of hay has a very hard time making the turn. Realignment of the bridge is needed to do away with the curve.
· County Road 142, has met with the DOT bridge engineer and he recommends a bridge over the culverts. The channel is eroding very badly due to run off. The concrete has been eroded and there is erosion under the asphalt of the road due to unstable soils. This corridor is a thoroughfare due to tourist attractions and hauling of heavy materials.
o Commissioner Romero asked how old is the project? Danny responded that it is about 18 years old.
o French, what do you guys do to maintain this now? Danny responded that the RAC basically adds material back where it is eroded. The way it is eroding we just need to replace the culverts and add a bridge. Currently debris plugs the culverts during run off.
o Commissioner Romero asked if the watercourse is a reach into the Rio Grande? Danny responded no, it actually flows into the Rio Chama and it is an intermittent creek, so it needs a 401/404 permit from the Army Corp of Engineers.
o Bob Perry asked what type of bridge? Danny responded that a structure that would deal with debris such as a box culvert or rather several box culverts pieced together due to the span.
o Phil, I’ll take this back and see what Armando used for estimating the price because it is under estimated. There are a lot of BR funds and we will check what we can do with it, we will also look at efficiency ratings.
o Sandra suggested that Armando looked at a contec design. Sandra added that there may be new transportation funding for bridges on emergency basis that the Feds look at on a case by case basis when NMDOT requests bridge replacements as critical. She will send out info to members by email as to what comes from the research.
o For further information on either project, please contact Danny or Cathy directly at 753-2992 in Public Works.
· Santa Clara Pueblo (SCP), Edwin Tafoya
· Kee Street – State Road 30 going south. Kee Street comes off going south with the Senior Center, Head Start, Nutrition Building, Recreation area, BIA School and Fire Station located along this street which is also the main arterial to housing and the village, and a connection to SR 30. SCP wants to remove the old asphalt that has been there since the early 70’s and has had limited maintenance since. The length is .42 miles and project cost is $197,000 to replace the asphalt. They have project readiness including public involvement. They are currently getting a project design and that is all that needs to be done now. There is a portion that the elders don’t want paved, they just want the main access to public facilities. They have a lot of emergency vehicles that come through there and they have agreements with Espanola and Rio Arriba County for access. They need to have a safe road for emergency access. There are safety issues on this road that also impact the children at the schools and recreation area.
o Phil asked if there are curb and gutter considerations. They are very expensive and right now urban projects like these are running $5.5 million a mile. There is additional housing that is not tribal that would be served by this project. The public school buses also come through here as well as meals on wheels delivery.
o Patrick asked if SCP has programmed matching funds in your BIA TIP? Edwin responded yes, they are still fighting over the methodology. There are several regions that received BIA funds and there are some regions like in Alaska that are holding up the funds. Right now it is still flowing around.
o James Rivera asked if SCPs transit was funded through BIA? Edwin responded that the transit system that comes from Espanola doesn’t come regularly only on requested basis. City of Espanola operates a demand response service.
o Bob Perry asked if SCP is working with NCRTD for public transit? Edwin responded, yes.
o James asked if SCP also provide services for non tribal members? Edwin responded yes, through the senior services center.
o James suggested that information would be helpful for NCRTD to note that non tribal transit services are being provided.
o Sheriff Naranjo stated that Santa Clara could make this presentation at the next NCRTD meeting. James responded that would be feasible.
· Black Mesa Road Project in La Mesilla – Off SR 399, right at the junction of San Pedro road. We have all the ROW, environmental, archaeological, public involvement, etc. There are some matching funds available for this through the IRR. SCP gets 19% from the region.
o Bob Perry, what type of surface is it? Edwin responded it was base course. They have a lot of locals that use the road for bikes, running, and walking. We hope to add shoulders to the road for this.
o Edwin said that he appreciates everyone’s attention and to have a nice day.
o For further information on these projects, please contact Edwin directly at 753-7326.
· Bob Perry stated that Patrick, Ohkay Owingeh decided not to present since he is not prepared today although he did present last month so will not require another presentation. Ohkay Owingeh’s PIFs will be passed out.
· Bob Perry asked who wanted to continue the meeting after 12pm. He asked by a show of hands as to who was willing, members decided to continue with the meeting.
VI. NPRPO Bylaws
· Brent Jaramillo stated there was a typo error on page two, “shall present in writing…..”
· Commissioner Romero asked if this is the first time land grants are being considered as governmental entities? Arturo answered yes, land grants were approved by legislature in 2004. Romero asked if we will be working to involve land grants in the RPO? Bob Perry responded yes.
· Membership Section III, Eight Northern Pueblos refers to individuals not an organization. This needs to be specified in the bylaws. Tom Wilson asked if it would it be helpful to spell out individual membership here. Barbara suggested that if you take out the capital letters you can then indicate that it isn’t the organization, but refers to the actual eight northern pueblos of...
· Commissioner Romero stated that Section IV meetings, please remove the word “as”.
· Commissioner Romero wants to thank the sub-committee for the work they have done on the bylaws.
· Patrick made a motion to accept the bylaws with minor changes made today. Seconded by Commissioner Romero. Approved unanimously. Sandra pointed out that these new accepted bylaws will go in affect in June as indicated in the bylaws. Bob Perry asked where that was in the bylaws and said that it goes into affect immediately.
· Commissioner Romero asked if there is an official list of land grants for this area? Arturo responded that there is an official recognized list of land grants in the Secretary of State’s office of official recognized land grants as political subdivisions that are officially registered.
VII. Bob Perry asked for time in the agenda to speak. He stated that when he started with the RPO twelve years ago they did not meet regularly, only meeting to prioritize projects. The first year there were 70 projects and the RPO fought over which projects were priorities. Since then we have come a long way and are the best RPO in the state and he is proud of that. He would like for someone to take over as he is resigning as of now. He acknowledged that in the NPRPO bylaws we have changed from participating members to voting members, this shows that there has been a lot of change. He hopes that the leadership he has shown has been beneficial and that the new leadership continues to be beneficial.
VIII. Next meetings
a. March 1, 2006 – hosted by Los Alamos County – LA Community Center -475 20th Street
b. April 5, 2006 – hosted by Taos County – Location TBA
c. May 3, 2006 – TBA
IX. Miscellaneous/Announcements
· STIP projects, LTAP training – The NPRPO website now has a link to the LTAP website
which has the training schedule. Sandra has been sending out emails on this.
· Sandra has had problems with sending emails to Patrick’s addresses. Patrick asked if the documents can be faxed to him instead. Sandra stated that the documents are lengthy and that wouldn’t be the best method. She asked that he could perhaps get a new email account that would work more regularly. Barbara asked if it is a size problem with the emails as this often creates the problem. She stated that North Central would work this out.
· Barbara wanted to thank Bob Perry for the work that he has done for communities over the years. His work is worthy of an annual recognition to Bob Perry for the work he has done.
· Ted said that he has been the vice chair for many years and Bob will be missed as he has gone above and beyond.
· Edwin said that Bob has been friendly and has been very welcoming. Bob has stuck with us and has worked hard to get tribal involvement along with Sandra. He really appreciates the concerns Bob has showed for the communities. Bob, I truly feel that this is a regional organization and it isn’t a political bout.
· Sandra provided handouts on:
· BIA systems road documents for Tribal entities.
· Sandra reminded members of the following:
· RTIPR to be created by March meeting. Last minute PIFs need to be in two weeks prior to meeting date.
· Thank you to Santa Fe County for hosting the meeting.
VII. Adjourn
Motion to adjourn by French, seconded by Edwin, passed unanimously.
