MPO Technical Committee

MINUTES FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING December 18, 2014 Technical Members Present: Bill Watson, City of Aztec Teresa Brevik, City of Bloomfield Cynthia Lopez, City of Farmington David Sypher, City of Farmington Dave Keck, San Juan County Technical Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mary Holton, MPO Officer Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Duane Wakan, MPO Planner June Markle, MPO Administrative Aide Staff Absent: None Also Present: Larry Hathaway, San Juan County John Shepard, City of Farmington 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Lopez called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. with a quorum present. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 20, 2014 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING Mr. Keck moved to approve the minutes from the November 20, 2014 Technical Committee meeting. Mr. Sypher seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS FROM NMDOT Neither David Quintana nor Brian Degani was able to attend the meeting. Mr. Wakan received e-mailed updates from them just prior to the start of the meeting, but not in time to be copied to the Technical Committee members prior to the meeting. Copies will be sent to all the members following the meeting and will be included in the meeting minutes. Mr. Wakan reported from Mr. Degani’s e-mail update for the Planning Division: • The Congestion Management Air Quality Flex Funds (CMAQ) are normally distributed to entities in non-attainment or poor air quality areas. The Flex  Funds, however, can be administered throughout the state. This program will now be administered by the Planning and Safety Division in coordination with our NMDOT State Engineer and they will try to disperse the funds across the state for supplemental projects. Ms. Holton commented that part of the purpose for distributing the funds statewide was to help to reduce congestion and she thought there were projects in this area that would qualify. Mr. Wakan said more information would be presented by NMDOT in the near future. • Administration of the HSIP program will be moving to the Planning Division of NMDOT. Mr. Wakan reported that all funds for FY2015 and FY2016 have been programmed. Another call for projects would be sent out next year for FY2017. Mr. Sypher asked if the quarterly submittal of projects had been changed. It was noted that with the Planning Division taking over administration of the HSIP program, it is anticipated that there will be changes that could include a move to a semi-annual process. Ms. Holton recommended that the entities continue to submit projects as they have been until more details are forthcoming from NMDOT. • A Strategic Highway Safety Summit (SHSP) is scheduled for March 24 in Albuquerque to have a public review of the draft SHSP strategies to be used in guiding the HSIP. Mr. Wakan reported that Staff will plan to attend this summit. • MPOs are encouraged to continue to track TAP projects. Additionally, FFY2015 construction awarded projects must have all their certifications and PS&E package completed by 7/15/15. Show below is Mr. Degani’s complete update: Congestion Management Air Quality Flex Funds or CMAQ Funds will be administered by the Planning and Safety Division in coordination with our NMDOT State Engineer. We will have more information in the near future. Nothing new to report on the Freight Plan. Highway Safety Improvement Program Will transition over to Planning. Again, all of the FFY16 funds appear to be programmed and the next call for applications will be spring/summer of 2015. The Strategic Highway Safety Plan Safety Summit will be held March 24, 2015. The Summit's purpose is to have public review of the draft SHSP strategies that will be used to guide the HSIP. State Long Range Plan activities will resume in January 2015 FMPO and the governmental entities should continue tracking the FFY14/15 TAP projects. FFY15 construction awarded projects must have all their certifications and complete PS&E package complete by 7/15/15. FMPO Staff have developed a 2014-2015 TAP Project Status Update sheet that needs to be updated on a  weekly basis due to the tight deadline. I provided an additional comment included on this tracking sheet. A Project Agreement Start and End Date need to be included for any federal aid awarded projects per 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance beginning on Dec 26, 2014. More specifically, costs after Dec 26, 2014 can only be incurred within the Start and End Date, thus no additional costs can be incurred or claimed for reimbursement after the Project End Date. Project End Dates may be beyond the anticipated construction completion date to account for project closeout, final audits and/or a delay in the project beyond the control of the federally awarded recipient/subrecipient. This note was provided on the FMPO 2014-2015 TAP Project Status Update sheet to the FMPO Staff. More information will be provided per the MPO 2CFR 200 Uniform Guidance webinars in the coming weeks and at the next FMPO PB and TC meetings. At this time, I am still reviewing the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Template and will provide comments to FMPO Staff. Lastly, I provided information to the FMPO Staff on the JPA/Bylaws needing to be amended to allow state representation from NMDOT District 5 on both the FMPO Policy and Technical Committees included with your agenda packets. For the District 5 Project Update, Mr. David Quintana, provided the following: Please use the same project update as last month. There have been no changes since then. (NOTE: The last project update was received in October.) Please advise the committee that District 5 is considering a more hands on role for the T/LPA construction management. We are having internal discussions that we take over all Independent Assurance Testing for the entities. This will be determined over the next few months as project loads and manpower is assessed. We may only do larger scale projects or all; that is TBD. Please advise the technical committee to get hold of me if they are having concerns with reimbursements. I will work with William Montoya to try and get them processed more timely. Mr. Keck reported on a new CFR by FHWA addressing prompt payments to entities. NMDOT has seven days to respond if there is a problem with an entity’s reimbursement request. Additionally, the entire reimbursement cannot be held up because of an issue with one item. The remaining portion of the request must be reimbursed within 14 days following the seven-day comment period. Mr. Keck said he would forward this information to the other Technical Committee members. Mr. Keck added that FHWA is pushing prompt reimbursements because they believe it is important for the funds to keep flowing and not get bogged down at the state DOT levels. They are concerned that money is not getting back into the local economies and that there are smaller entities that cannot afford to wait months for their reimbursement. Mr. Sypher did not think NMDOT could feasibly respond this quickly and doing so would depend on the penalty for failing to do so that might be imposed on them by FHWA. Mr. Wakan said at the MPO Quarterly Meeting, the NMDOT Planning representative, Ms. Jessica Griffin, said that they realized they have some internal issues with the engineering group. She asked the entities to document all the problems, delays, required re-certifications, and any other communication issues they are having with NMDOT and she will take those up their chain of command. Mr. Sypher asked if Ms. Griffin knew what she was asking to receive. He said he has an enormous amount of e-mail exchanges with NMDOT on various projects and did not have the staff to compile all the issues to send to her. Mr. Fillerup suggested that he detail the issues on one project and state which issues existed on the other projects. Mr. Wakan had sent a list of questions to Mr. Quintana on December 11 and asked him to respond (see below). Mr. Quintana, however, has not responded to these questions. • Please review the FMPOs TIP on all NMDOT led projects to make sure project descriptions are sufficient and where we might consider changes, inform us where you foresee red flags with any other regional entity led projects as well. Mr. Wakan had forwarded a copy of the 2014-2015 TAP Project Status Update list (distributed to the Technical Committee members) to Mr. Quintana and asked him to speak to any issues he might foresee with the projects listed. • Please review the attached FFY2014-15 TAP projects and comment on any status updates as we have a short window to complete PS&E on a couple of projects. • Please provide comments on the attached TIP template that I want to be utilized by all the lead agency project managers. One area is incomplete (TIP Modifications) but you can see where I am going with it Mr. Wakan had sent the new TIP template to Mr. Quintana and asked for his comments on having the lead agencies complete the template when there is a TIP amendment. Mr. Wakan is seeking NMDOT input and comment on using the template in the future. • Please provide us an update on US 64 public outreach meetings • Please provide us an update on Pinon Hills Boulevard Extension Phase I status (local agreements and Agreement Request Form) • Please provide us an update on any other project in our region under construction, etc. Mr. Wakan had also asked for project status updates on the next phase of US 64 and details on an upcoming public outreach meeting for the next phase, local agreements on Phase I of the Pinon Hills Boulevard extension project, and any other projects in the region that might be under consideration. 4. REPORT BY STAFF ON THE FFY2015-2016 WORK AUTHORIZATIONS Subject: FFY2015-2016 Work Authorization Update Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: December 11, 2014 BACKGROUND or PREVIOUS WORK  The MPO prepared its FFY2014-2015 Budget based on initial funding estimates from NMDOT for FHWA PL and FTA 5303.  Work Authorizations now provide official amounts for PL and 5303 funding. CURRENT WORK  The MPO is receiving a base amount in federal PL funding of $192,211 + $32,755 in local match for a total of $224,966.  There will be no carryover of federal PL funds from FY2014 to FFY2015.  A purchase order was issued to the FMPO in the amount of $168,724.50 for FFY14 PL funds. This is 3/4 of the $224,966 total amount because the current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) only carries us through June 30, 2015. Additional work authorizations and purchase orders will be issued for the remaining 3 months (July 1 – Sept 30) of FFY15 once the new MOA is ready.  The FFY2015-16 UPWP estimated $231,742 in total PL funds for FY2015 including the local match, a difference of -$6,776  The MPO received federal FTA 5303 funding of $56,573 + local match of $14,143 for a total of $70,716 that will cover transit activities from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015.  The FFY2015-16 UPWP estimated only $63,750 in total funds for FY2015 including the local match, a difference of +$6,966.  The MPO intends to use FTA 5303 funds to finance a feasibility study to recommend an appropriate transit hub for Red Apple Transit services. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an informational report only. DISCUSSION: Mr. Wakan reported that the MPO received the PL and 5303 funding work authorization award letters (see Pages 2 and 3 of the Agenda). The PL work authorization showed a base amount of $192,211 plus a required local match of $32,755 for a total of $224,966. Mr. Wakan said that there is no longer any carryover of federal PL funds. The MPO needs to ensure they are spending down the entire amount of each year’s awarded funding. Mr. Wakan explained that only three-fourths of the PL funding was awarded because the current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) carries the MPO through June 30, 2015. Additional work authorizations will be issued for the remaining three months (July 1 – Sept 30) of FFY2015 once a new MOA is ready. Mr. Wakan also reported that NMDOT will be changing the term MOA to Grant Agreement in the future. This change will be proposed for the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and other MPO documents once it is finalized by NMDOT. Mr. Wakan reported that the work authorization for FTA 5303 funding was for $56,573 plus a required local match of $14,143 for a total of $70,716. This will cover transit activities from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015. Mr. Wakan said that some of the FTA funding is planned to be used for a feasibility study for a transit hub location for the Red Apple Transit. Ms. Holton said this work will be in lieu of hiring the summer interns to do survey work. The Red Apple Transit is actually purchasing computer hardware and software that will do this ridership data collection instead of the interns. ACTION: The report was received. 5. REPORT BY STAFF ON THE 2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) Subject: 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: December 11, 2014 BACKGROUND OR PREVIOUS WORK  The MPO’s consultant compiled input from public outreach efforts in August and September 2014, and has provided recommendations for updating the MTP.  Staff has drafted several changes and additions to the goals and objectives set forth in the MTP based upon the public comments and priorities identified through the public outreach efforts and the recommendations of the consultant.  As required by a review of the MPO from FHWA, a method of prioritizing projects is being developed as part of the 2040 MTP. CURRENT WORK  A review of the vision, mission, and draft goals and objectives will be presented.  The goals are the accomplishments which the region hopes to achieve through implementation of the plan. The objectives state more specific steps which should be taken to pursue those goals.  The goals and objectives should be based in the vision, mission, and the results of the data analysis and public input.  Staff has drafted criteria for the project prioritization methodology based on the draft goals.  The methodology will prompt applicants for funding to address the various criteria. The MPO needs to determine which criteria should be used, how they should be weighted or scored (including quantitative scores or qualitative findings), and how such a methodology should guide funding decisions.  DISCUSSION ITEM  Input on the vision, mission, goals, objectives and project prioritization methodology criteria will be sought. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup referred to several handouts that showed the current Vision and Mission Statements as well as the existing Goals & Objectives in the 2035 MTP. A draft list for the project prioritization methodology for the 2040 MTP was on Page 5 of the Agenda. Vision Statement “The Farmington Metropolitan Planning Organization vision is for a safe, efficient, and reliable multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of residents and visitors in the region”. Mission Statement “Provide a forum to develop an effective transportation system to move people and goods safely, economically, and efficiently while maintaining a high quality of life”. Mr. Fillerup said that these were the current Vision and Mission Statements and Staff was not proposing any changes. He encouraged the Technical Committee members to recommend any changes they thought should be considered. Mr. Fillerup explained that the goals represented the achievements desired by FMPO through the transportation system. The objectives provide more specific steps that would be taken to achieve the goals. Mr. Fillerup referred to the Draft Development of Goals, Objectives, and Criteria for the Project Prioritization Methodology – 2040 MTP on Pages 5- 8 of the Agenda (see below). He noted that project prioritization methodology came out of the FHWA review of the MPO and the planning process. FHWA thought that by developing a project prioritization method, the MPO could more closely tie the goals to the projects actually being proposed and built. Mr. Fillerup asked the Technical Committee to review and comment on the goals, objectives, and criteria for the project prioritization methodology to ensure they are in line with MPO and MTP goals. This methodology was based on the existing goals and objectives, but updated to include changes over the past five years due to changing priorities and public input. Mr. Shepard noted that the goals were action-oriented. He asked if, when the criteria were evaluated, would it be the verb “support” that was being evaluated and not the economic vitality of the MPO region itself. Mr. Fillerup clarified that when the goal was evaluated the MPO would evaluate how well it supported the economic vitality of the MPO region and would not be assuming responsibility for the entire economic vitality of the community. Mr. Wakan added that Staff is working to develop the prioritization process now that will provide the methodology for accurately prioritizing projects for inclusion in the TIP and ensuring they are in line with the MTP goals. Mr. Fillerup reiterated that the MPO goal was to do their part to “support” the economic vitality of the MPO region. DRAFT DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES & CRITERIA FOR THE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY – 2040 MTP Below are the draft Goals and Objectives of the 2040 MTP, and draft criteria for the Project Prioritization Methodology. The Criteria would be used to evaluate projects proposed for funding to ensure that projects are pursuing the goals developed through the planning process. The Criteria are based on the Goals, and the Objectives give guidance to the work which would help attain the Goals. GOALS OBJECTIVES PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA A. Support the economic 1. Invest in and maintain transportation 1. How does the project or program vitality of the MPO region infrastructure serving economic activity centers support economic vitality? by investing strategically 2. Develop all modes of transportation system for 2. Does the project or program improve in projects and programs efficient delivery of goods and services and quality of life within the community or which create long-term, access to businesses, training and jobs region? financially-sustainable 3. Enhance aesthetics and quality of life factors of 3. Does the project or program address economic value the transportation system to attract visitors and workforce training or job access new residents transportation needs? 4. Expand transit services hours and days of operation to meet needs of residents in the workforce and San Juan College students seeking education and training B. Foster regional 1. Incorporate locally-adopted plans in the MTP 1. Is the project or program based upon a coordination on 2. Involve local planners in the transportation locally-adopted plan? transportation projects planning process 2. Did the project or program have and policies among all 3. Maintain collaborative relationships within the stakeholder input? levels of government and region through ongoing public outreach to stakeholder groups stakeholders and open public meetings C. Develop transportation 1. Prioritize the completion of networks for 1. Does the project or program help network connections and individual modes complete a transportation network? associated facilities into a 2. Increase intermodal connections 2. Does the project or program include cohesive intermodal intermodal connections? system D. Manage congestion by 1. Maximize use of current transportation system 1. Does the project or program improve the prioritizing projects that 2. Minimize congestion and delay efficiency of the transportation system? enhance the Quality of 3. Integrate Intelligent Transportation Systems 2. Does the project or program include  Service (QOS) of capacity- elements aimed at increasing system efficiency Intelligent Transportation Systems efficient modes like into the regional infrastructure features? carpooling, transit, biking, and walking and reduce overall person delay E. Provide reasonable 1. Increased multi-modal accessibility by 1. Does the project or program improve access for all of the completing networks for all modes access for groups which currently face region’s residents, 2. Expand transit service hours and days of some obstacles to access within the regardless of age, operation transportation system? income, ability or location 3. Develop the Complete Streets Design Guidelines 2. Is the project or program consistent with for implementation by local government entities the Complete Streets Design Guideline and does it accommodate more than one mode? F. Minimize negative 1. Minimize air quality impacts 1. Will the project or program create any environmental impacts 2. Minimize impacts to existing development new negative environmental impacts? and enhance the 3. Develop strategies to educate the public about 2. Does the project or program help environmental quality of how travel choices affect air quality address any negative environmental the MPO region impacts? G. Build, operate and 1. Maximize transportation system performance 1. Is the project or program financially maintain the per project costs sustainable and how will it be metropolitan 2. Include life cycle costing into proposals for all maintained? transportation system in projects 2. Does the project or program improve the a financially-sustainable, 3. Prioritize maintenance of the existing cost efficiency of the transportation cost-efficient manner transportation system system? 3. Does the project or program improve upon existing infrastructure? H. Identify and implement 1. Improve multi-modal street design for high 1. Does the project or program incorporate new technology for activity areas Intelligent Transportation Systems balanced multi-modal 2. Implement Intelligent Transportation Systems elements? transportation 2. What other technology is included in the project or program and what are the expected benefits? I. Develop a transportation 1. Include local plans into MTP development 1. How does the project improve quality of system that enhances 2. Address aesthetics of major thoroughfares life and aesthetics of the community and  quality of life and works within the region and gateways to the cities region? in concert with cultural 3. Minimize access to adjacent developments 2. Does the project or program employ the and environmental along key arterials to maximize capacity adopted Access Management Plan? resources. consistent with access management principles 4. Include MPO review in local development review J. Integrate transportation 1. Encourage the local entities to integrate 1. What are the land use impacts of the and land use planning to regional transportation policies into their project or program? improve quality of life adopted local plans 2. How does the project or program relate and to protect the natural 2. Emphasize connectivity and development of to adopted land use plans? environment by using alternative travel routes as a means to avoid 3. Does the project or program improve transportation widening of roadways connectivity of the transportation investments to system? proactively shape land use patterns rather than react to growth K. Ensure safety for all 1. Improve system safety through improved levels 1. How does the project or program modes of service and reduced congestion improve the safety of the transportation 2. Promote safety design practices for all modes system? 3. Minimize emergency vehicle response time 2. Are there negative safety impacts of the project? L. Coordinate with local 1. Implement Intelligent Transportation Systems 1. Does the project or program support agencies on security (ITS) technologies for improving the safety and local and regional security needs? planning and strategies security of transportation modes 2. Does the project or program address any 2. Coordinate transportation system design and natural disaster prevention needs? operation with emergency response and disaster mitigation efforts M. Foster public private 1. Facilitate connections of all levels of 1. Does the project or program leverage partnerships aimed at government, school districts, San Juan College, any public private partnerships? reaching regional businesses, non-profit organizations and other 2. Is there a plan for the sustainability or transportation goals interested stakeholders expiration of that partnership? 2. Support public private partnerships in identifying needs, accessing data and technical assistance as available N. Provide a transportation 1. Promote access to healthcare services for all 1. What are the health impacts of the system which promotes users, with focus on populations without the project? healthy living ability to drive 2. Does the project support active 2. Maintain existing complete streets and expand transportation modes? complete streets infrastructure to promote active transportation modes Mr. Sypher commented that he thought the proposed goals and objectives were a substantial improvement over the exiting list of goals and objectives. He asked if the Red Apple Transit provided a ridership report. He thought it important that with an MPO objective to expand transit service and ongoing constraints on funding, that the ridership data needed to support this objective. Ms. Holton said the Red Apple Transit system is part of the City of Farmington and informational reports are provided to City Council. Mr. Sypher said that with all the competition for funding, he thought it was important that before a goal to expand transit service hours is set, the Technical Committee should see a report that provides justification for this expanded service. Mr. Wakan said that much of the justification for the expanded service is coming from public input. He added that the data the MPO is able to gather during the three months in the summer with the interns provides only a small snapshot of the actual yearly ridership. The City of Farmington is planning to purchase software that will provide a year-long, detailed look at ridership. Ms. Holton commented that much of these changes are in response to requirements of the City of Farmington by FTA. Mr. Sypher reiterated his point that the MPO was setting a goal of expanding transit service. Ms. Holton said that the work of the interns the last few years has been utilized to expand the service. The data collected has assisted the city in changing routes and schedules in order to attract more ridership. She added that over time there has been improvement. Ms. Holton said that during the public participation process, the community was aware of transit service and had opinions about the service, but that most did not use the service. Mr. Wakan added that oftentimes the comments are coming through the higher level stakeholders and the end users of the Red Apple do not attend the public meetings to provide their input. Mr. Sypher asked if this topic was of interest to the other Technical Committee members. Mr. Keck commented that the Red Apple Transit has branched out to the county areas a little over the past few years, but that ridership remains low. He thought it was more of a “feel good” thing by offering transit in San Juan County. Mr. Fillerup stated that at a recent meeting with NMDOT, Red Apple Transit can get more money for buses, but getting more personnel is the issue. This lack of personnel creates a problem for expansion. Ms. Lopez commented that she believed the transit system was still in its infancy and was still developing. The Red Apple system was started to fill a need in the community for people who do not have their own transportation or who cannot drive themselves. Ms. Lopez said that the ridership data was not the ultimate driver to support expansion of the services. She stated that it was important to remember that this is a need of the community. The Technical Committee members discussed: • 30% of MTP survey respondents said the Red Apple Transit was a high priority; 30% also said it was a low priority; good to have available, but the service could be better; • Paratransit is more costly per ride, but also more flexible; • More funds needed to hire drivers; one paratransit bus is booked every day; new bus will be purchased; • Operation is primarily between City of Farmington and FTA; Mr. Fillerup asked if Mr. Sypher’s concern was in spending money on transit that would not be available for other areas. Mr. Sypher said he thought it was more of a philosophical concern. If there is a need for this goal to be included by the MPO then he would approve of it, but he wanted the goal to be justified and thought that accurate, detailed data would highlight the need for this. Mr. Fillerup said that further discussion on this can be included when the MTP transit chapter is presented and reviewed by the Technical Committee. Ms. Lopez added that there had been a study completed by a consultant a few years ago and many of the concerns Mr. Sypher voiced had already been vetted in that study. She recommended the study could provide the background on the need for transit service. Mr. Fillerup continued to review some of the proposed new goals for the MTP: • Build, operate and maintain the transportation system in a financially sustainable and cost-efficient manner; • Enhance quality of life and work in conjunction with cultural and environmental resources; • Address public health Ms. Holton asked when Staff was planning to have the final review of the MTP chapters. Mr. Fillerup said that would occur in March. Ms. Holton said Staff would like the Technical Committee members to think about and provide their ideas and input over the next few months. Mr. Fillerup asked the members to consider if the Project Prioritization Criteria were scored qualitatively or quantitatively. This scoring method would be used in the future when considering projects for inclusion in the TIP. Performance measures will be included as a separate chapter in the MTP. Not all the goals and objectives will need to be measured, but the MPO does need to decide which ones they want to measure. Mr. Fillerup said the goals and objectives were being presented now because they will inform and impact the other MPO actions. ACTION: The report was received. 8. RECEIVE A TIP PROJECT STATUS REVIEW Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: December 10, 2014 BACKGROUND  The STIP Protocols, finalized in early 2014, indicate that each MPO shall develop a process to monitor the progress and status of each project in the first two years of the TIP.  MPO Staff recommends a monthly review of all FMPO TIP projects with the Technical Committee.   Recent attention to inconsistencies in the TIP, STIP, the MPOs MTP and Agreement Request Forms (ARFs) necessitate the need to review project details on a regular basis for consistency.  Reviewing the status of projects is an opportunity to review project details, programmed amounts, and any potential situations that may cause funding not to be obligated by September 30th. CURRENT WORK  MPO staff will seek updates on the three regional TAP projects for tracking purposes (Local Agreement Status and Project Certifications).  MPO staff created project detail TIP PDF document that will improve the communication between the MPO and lead agency project managers.  MPO is required provide these updates to NMDOT on a regular basis. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. DISCUSSION: Mr. Wakan reported that in an attempt to improve consistency between the TIP, STIP, MTP, and local agreements and to, hopefully, alleviate project delays, Staff developed a TIP template. Mr. Wakan said the template will help to improve the detail accuracy of projects and the communication between the MPO and project managers for the lead agencies. Mr. Wakan reviewed the TIP template with the Technical Committee: • PDF that is fillable and savable; • Can be found on the MPO website; • Project description – details need to be accurate and thorough; • Mileposts/termini; • All items in red are required fields; Mr. Wakan said the project description area is where many of the discrepancies with NMDOT and the entities are happening. The descriptions are too brief or vague or do not match the local agreements which leads NMDOT coming back to the MPO and requesting amendments. Mr. Watson commented that everything needs to be included in the description. He noted that even though the City of Aztec is paying for the utilities on the East Arterial, the project description must include this information or that information cannot be included in the project advertisement for NMDOT’s portion of the project. For instance, the utilities were not included in one of his project descriptions and Mr. Watson had to advertise those separately. Mr. Keck commented that NMDOT had changed the project description on a county project when they put it into the STIP and then came back and required the county to amend that project in the TIP. Mr. Sypher added that the differing versions of the cooperative agreement for the Pinon Hills Boulevard project that has required the agreement to be re-written numerous times is because NMDOT keeps changing the description to include the bridge in the scope of Phase I of the project. Mr. Wakan said that Staff is recommending that the completed TIP template be reconfirmed and approved by the District 5 liaison or the STIP Coordinator. Ms. Lopez suggested that the Project Description box on the template expand as it is filled in. This allows the project manager to include all the necessary project details. Mr. Wakan added that this should be sufficient since there also was a limited amount of space in the TIP for this type of information. The Technical Committee members made some recommendations for formatting this area of the template. Funding Sources Up to three possible sources Identify funding source: federal, state or local funds Match types: state, local, or other Fiscal year Federal funding categories – lots of choices (all that are identified in the TIP database are noted in this section and any can be selected); Mr. Wakan said that Staff is recommending that all the lead agencies begin using the template for TIP amendments and modifications. If a project manager has questions, they can e-mail the template to Mr. Quintana and ask for his assistance. Mr. Sypher asked if Mr. Quintana had reviewed and commented on the template. Mr. Wakan replied that Mr. Quintana had not yet reviewed the document. Mr. Sypher said he thought the template looked really good, but thought that Mr. Quintana’s support and buy-in was necessary. Mr. Wakan agreed that it was important to have NMDOT’s support. Mr. Sypher said that the City of Farmington has always had issues with submitted documents to NMDOT and not hearing back from them. Ms. Holton added that with the transfer to the Planning Division, additional delays may be created. Mr. Sypher thought that without enough staff, the lack of communication would continue to be a problem whether the Planning or Engineering department is processing the applications. Mr. Wakan stated that Mr. Quintana is typically quick to respond to TIP amendments or modifications, but the changes are never fully or accurately completed and requires Staff to sort through numerous e-mails to get a change accurately completed. Mr. Wakan hopes that the new TIP template will allow an amendment or modification to be fully completed and one form can then be kept on file for reference. The Technical Committee agreed that the template would be very beneficial and agreed to start using the form. They want to have Mr. Quintana review the template and offer his recommendations. TAP Project Status Update Mr. Wakan reviewed the handout for the FFY2014-2015 TAP Project Status Updates. Vereda del Rio San Juan River Trail Phases II and III Ms. Brevik reported that she had received the design certification today for Phase 2. Agreement requests for construction on both phases have been submitted and she is just waiting on the PS&E package. She noted that there had been a hiccup on one of the deeds that had not been caught until now and that deed had to be re-executed. Once this is completed, the rights of way for Phases II and III will be complete. Ms. Brevik also added that NMDOT’s environmental coordinator, Rick Wessel, has been very cooperative and responsive. All the other specifications – ITS, utilities, and railroad – were completed in one day. 20th Street – Phase I Mr. Sypher reported that the Archeology Certification section was left blank because it was not applicable. He reported that there still is no local agreement even though the Agreement Request Form was submitted on October 29. The City of Farmington had a typo on the documents that showed the year as 2014 instead of 2015. NMDOT did not get back to them on this typo for two months. Mr. Sypher is frustrated with the loss of two months’ time and the lack of prompt feedback that would eliminate this type of project delay. Mr. Sypher said he anticipates nothing happening on Phase II until the design completion in May 2015. Mr. Wakan reminded the members of the July 15, 2015 deadline for submittal of PS&E packages. Mr. Sypher said the problem continues to be the lack of timely responses from NMDOT. South Side River Road River Trail Cory Styron is the project manager for this trail. Mr. Wakan reported that the only outstanding item was the completion of the local agreement expected in March 2015. Mr. Sypher reiterated that the Pinon Hills Boulevard project was once again delayed in receiving the cooperative agreement. This issue has been going on for months to try and get the language corrected to not include the bridge portion of the project. Another three weeks have passed since the most recent problem. Mr. Watson mentioned that Phase IB of the East Arterial was held up on materials. There is also a language/scope change for Phase II of the project that may require a simple TIP modification. Mr. Watson said that this change is to allow the City of Aztec to bid the water/sewer lines with the roadway project and not have to bid them separately. ACTION: The report was received. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: December 11, 2014  INFORMATION ITEMS a. NMDOT staff members to join Policy and Technical Committees. NMDOT has requested to have a staff member serve on the MPO Policy and Technical Committees. They currently may have an appointment as ex- officio non-voting members. This change would require an amendment to the MPO Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws. b. Statewide Long Range Plan. Staff participated in two meetings as part of the NMDOT Statewide Multimodal Long Range Plan: • Dec. 2 – Plenary Meeting of Statewide Working Groups, Albuquerque • Dec. 10 – Meeting of the Northwest Regional Working Group, Milan c. MPO Quarterly. Staff attended the MPO Quarterly on December 16 in Las Cruces. d. Completing Project Forms. NMDOT staff contacted the MPO in November regarding consistent listing of termini in the STIP and the Agreement Request Form for a particular intersection project. Using consistent language on all forms will help avoid delays. This particular case was resolved through a TIP Modification beginning at the MPO. e. Complete Streets. The Complete Streets Advisory Group approved in draft format the design guidelines for the Downtown/Urban Area. f. Other DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup reported that NMDOT has requested to have a staff member as a voting member on the MPO Policy and Technical Committees. Ms. Holton said this was something that had come out of the FHWA audit a few years ago. Staff thought it was more important for local entities to be members of the MPO committees, but now other MPOs have added NMDOT members to their boards. FMPO is the only MPO that currently has no NMDOT voting members on their committees. Ms. Holton said this is something that will be undertaken in January. She noted that this will be problematic for the Policy Committee because the MPO bylaws currently require that these members be elected officials. The Policy Committee members will have to agree to this change before it could be implemented. Ms. Holton stated that she thought there could be ongoing issues with reaching a quorum if an NMDOT representative is named to the committees. She believed this will be an issue, because they currently attend so few of the MPO meetings. Additionally, there is no NMDOT staff that lives and/or work in the area, so how can they represent this region. Ms. Brevik suggested considering Cassie Pescor who works for District 5 and lives in Bloomfield. Mr. Sypher asked if they could be called into the meeting. Ms. Holton said this was left up to the NMDOT representative on whether they call in or not. She added that if they are a voting committee member, they need to attend the meeting in person to provide active engagement. The members discussed the issue of the number of members needed to meet a quorum if an NMDOT representative was added to the committee. Ms. Lopez asked why would we want them as a voting member of the committees if they are not invested in the community or possess an understanding of the region’s concerns and issues. Ms. Brevik agreed that a voting member needed to reside in the community. The Technical Committee discussed: • the need for a voting member to be invested in the community; • all the other MPOs (4 total in state) have NMDOT representatives that live in their communities; • Mr. Quintana covers two MPOs (FMPO and Santa Fe); • Write bylaws to indicate that NMDOT representative must live in MPO area; • Write bylaws to spell out the required quorum and whether the NMDOT representative would be counted as part of the needed quorum. Consider keeping quorum at three of six members present, if at all possible; • Could be asking that NMDOT hire another employee that could fill this position. All the discussion items will be considered before any changes to the bylaws are explored. Two Statewide Long Range Plan meetings were held on December 2 and 10. Mr. Fillerup attended these meetings and reported the meetings were to analyze alternatives regarding funding levels, adding more policies on how NMDOT functions, and how projects are prioritized (large projects only or all projects within the state). Both Mr. Wakan and Mr. Fillerup attended the MPO Quarterly on December 16. Ms. Griffin, the supervisor for the Planning Division specifically asked for entity comments and documenting problems they were having with NMDOT. She asked that these comments be provided to her by January 5 and she would take the comments to the higher supervisory levels of the Engineering Division. Mr. Fillerup reported that Mesilla Valley and El Paso MPOs did not report significant issues with delays, but they also have NMDOT representatives who live right in their communities. Mr. Wakan added that the NMDOT planning liaison for Mesilla Valley was aware of issues and she has heard the concerns that FMPO and MRCOG had raised. She said she would go to bat for all the MPOs statewide. The Albuquerque MPO (MRCOG) has a lot of the same concerns as FMPO. There were no representatives at the Quarterly from Santa Fe. Mr. Wakan clarified that the severity of the issues fluctuates among the MPOs but clarified that all are having some type of problems and this is why Ms. Griffin has offered to step in. NMDOT Planning has recognized the problems between them and Engineering and that the problem does not rest with the MPOs. Mr. Sypher asked if Ms. Griffin was going to take on the issue with or without documentation and instances documented by the MPO. Mr. Wakan assured the members that they had an advocate in NMDOT Planning. Ms. Griffin asked that when the entities submit their documentation to make sure it is specific, detailed and not open to interpretation. Mr. Wakan said he thought the investment of time to compile the information would create the change at the upper levels. Mr. Wakan reported that the Complete Streets Advisory Group met and approved a draft of the urban/downtown design guidelines. Ms. Lopez said the City of Farmington’s MRA Commission is working on a contract to hire Blue Zones (Dan Burden’s new company) to do a Complete Streets evaluation, research, and design for Main Street and how those changes will affect traffic on Broadway. The MRA Commission received approval from City Council to spend the funds to hire Blue Zones. Ms. Brevik said the City of Bloomfield’s landscape project along US 64 should begin in March. They are trying to develop some private/public partnerships for the project. Ms. Brevik said they have already received some interest from individuals and groups wanting to adopt a median. Many showing interest are outside of Bloomfield yet are interested in participating. Ms. Brevik added that the landscaping should have been included when the project was initially designed and funded. Ms. Holton said the upcoming meetings to discuss the next phase of the US 64 project will be advertised to encourage public participation and comment. 8. BUSINESS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND STAFF There was no additional business from the Chairman, Members and Staff. 9. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR There was no business from the Floor. Mr. Hathaway wished everyone a Merry Christmas. He also said that the election to incorporate Kirtland is set for January 6 by mail-in ballot. There are 430 people eligible to vote. 10. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Watson moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sypher seconded the motion. Ms. Lopez adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:50 a.m. __________________________ ________________________________ Cynthia Lopez, Chair June Markle, MPO Administrative Aide