MPO Technical Committee

MPO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AGENDA February 10, 2016 10:00 a.m. Commission Chambers Aztec City Hall 201 West Chaco Street Aztec, New Mexico  AGENDA FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING February 10, 2016 10:00 AM This meeting will be held in Commission Chambers at Aztec City Hall, 201 West Chaco Street, Aztec, New Mexico. ITEM PAGE 1. Call meeting to order 2. Approve the minutes from the January 13, 2015 Technical Committee 16 meeting. 3. Review the TIP Status Update Report 1 Presented by: Duane Wakan 4. Receive a report on the development of a Citizens (Civic) Advisory Committee 4 (CAC) Presented by: Fran Fillerup 5. Receive a Red Apple Transit update 12 Presented by: Duane Wakan 6. Reports from NMODT a. District 5 (Paul Brasher) b. Planning Division (Brian Degani and Robin Elkin) 7. Information Items: 15 a. Complete Streets Design Guidelines b. Staff Changes c. Other Presented by: Fran Fillerup 8. Business from Chairman, Members, and Staff 9. Business from the Floor 10. Adjournment ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: If you are an individual with a disability who is in need of a reader, amplifier, qualified sign language interpreter, or any other form of auxiliary aid or service to attend or participate in the hearing or meeting, please contact the MPO Administrative Aide at the Downtown Center, 100 W Broadway, Farmington, New Mexico or at 505-599-1466 at least one week prior to the meeting or as soon as possible. Public documents, including the agenda and minutes, can be provided in various accessible formats. Please contact the MPO Administrative Aide if a summary or other type of accessible format is needed.  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #3 Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: February 3, 2016 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. These monthly reviews help correct inconsistencies in the TIP, STIP, the MPO’s MTP, Agreement Request Forms (ARFs), etc.  The next scheduled TIP Amendment cycle begins in January 2016.  There were no projects identified for a TIP amendment. TRACKING INFORMATION (2016-2021 TIP)  Local Agreement Status (ARF)  ITS/Sys ENG Certification  ROW Certification  Public Involvement Certification  Design Completion 30 – 60 – 90% - Deadlines -  Environmental Certification 1) April 15 Signed T/LPA agreements  Utilities Certification 2) June 15 Obligation deadline  Railroad Certification - Design- T/LPA agreement  Archeology Certification - Construction- 9 Day Letter CURRENT WORK  Staff has learned that NMDOT Planning Division has decided to not fund the English Rd- E. Main Street RSA o Plans were already at 95% o HSIP application process opens in the fall of 2016  The South Side River Road River Trail TAP project was put on hold due lacking documentation o Letter of Intent from the COF to NMDOT- expressing their intent to use forces to construct trail o Engineering Estimate & Labor Estimate (on file and submitted)  Ongoing ROW issues with the following projects o East Arterial Route Phase II o Pinon Hills Boulevard Bridge Phases I, II and III  HSIP Intersection issue- San Juan Blvd and Scott Ave (2014-2019 TIP)  Others? INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. Committee members will have an opportunity to provide feedback regarding TIP project status and details. 1  Discussions from the January 13, 2016 TC Meeting ROW Issues 1. Mr. Watson reported the City of Aztec is struggling with right-of-way that may cause the project to be delayed by six to eight months. When the project right- of-way was expanded, FHWA and BLM became involved and NMDOT again changed their rules and requirements. Mr. Watson also said that the lack of coordination and continuity within District 5 creates more difficulties. Mr. Watson stated that he spoke with Aztec’s City Manager and asked for his support in trying to get projects moving forward. City Manager Josh Ray contacted Butch Mathews, this region’s Transportation Commissioner to seek support and assistance from him. 2. Ms. Westerling stated that the City of Farmington is having similar right-of-way issues with their Pinion Hills Boulevard project. A piece of the right-of-way being questioned by NMDOT was deeded to the city in 1971 from the railroad when they went defunct. She said the appraisals were conducted using NMDOT’s format and an appraiser from their accepted list of appraisers back in 2001. NMODT still has not said whether the appraisals are adequate nor addressed the numerous additional documents the city provided as historical back-up. Ms. Westerling said this right-of-way problem has been ongoing for three years with no definitive answer from NMDOT on whether the documents submitted are acceptable. An affidavit submitted to NMDOT over four months ago, and which was to have been discussed at a meeting with FHWA, was never discussed with them as promised. Ms. Westerling said that even after attending a meeting with Deputy Transportation Secretary Anthony Lujan, in which NMDOT representatives were instructed by him to “get it done”, things still are not getting done. Ms. Westerling now copies Mr. Lujan on all correspondence and e-mails with NMDOT and there continues to be a lack of communication and urgency. 3. After being told that two years of work on one of their projects was not correct, San Juan County decided to spend an additional $125,000 to hire a firm in Albuquerque that specializes in acquiring rights-of-way. Mr. Keck added that an entire grant could be spent paying for the process of working with NMDOT – not actually purchasing land or constructing the project. East Pinon Hills Boulevard – Phases I and II Ms. Westerling said the right-of-way plat would be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission this week and then to City Council on January 26. Mr. Watson asked if NMDOT also has problems with their right-of-way division. Mr. Keck said he has spoken with representatives from District 3 who have many of the same issues. Ms. Lopez asked if NMDOT did not understand the issues with this division. The other Technical Committee members thought NMDOT should know about the issues since they deal with the same issues themselves even though their projects take priority over other entity’s projects. 2 CR 350 & 390 Intersection Mr. Keck said that construction is still planned for March. Kirtland School Walk Path The agreements were signed by San Juan County last week and sent on to NMDOT. Red Apple Transit – Capital & Operating No update. Red Apple Transit – Bus Route Accessibility Mr. Montoya said they are waiting on signatures to transfer this from FHWA funding and oversight to FTA. San Juan Boulevard and Scott Ave Ms. Westerling said the bid came in over budget so the city has requested additional funds from NMDOT. This project will be added back onto the Project Status spreadsheet for future tracking. 3  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #4 Subject: Development of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: February 3, 2016 BACKGROUND  At the November 19, 2015 Policy Committee meeting, Staff presented introductory information on Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC) as part of the Public Participation Plan (PPP). The Policy Committee recommended the MPO form a CAC to have broader input on transportation planning issues, and that such input could be a benefit to the MPO and in their work on their respective councils and commissions.  Membership of CAC’s are intended to be representative of the variety of residences of an area with regard to race and ethnicity, age, sex, ability and the many other interests and characteristics of a region.  A CAC is an advisory committee to the Policy Committee, similar to an MPO’s Technical Committee. Development and amendment of the UPWP, MTP, and TIP, along with other studies and reports, are presented to a CAC for their review and recommendation.  MPO Staff would provide the staff support for this committee and recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee would be provided to the Policy Committee.  The Farmington MPO had a Citizen Action Committee during the development of its first MTP in 2005. However, it appears to have been convened on a temporary basis. (It was not a standing “advisory committee”.) CURRENT WORK Common Practices for CAC’s Following is a summary list of research and a review of common practices of Citizen Advisory Committees at other MPO’s.  FHWA published “Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking” which gives general guidance on many public engagement tools, including CAC’s. An excerpt of the document is attached. It describes CAC’s as including: o Representation from interest groups throughout a region; o Regularly-held meetings; o Recorded comments and points of view of participants; and o Consensus building, but consensus is not required. o An important assigned role in the transportation planning process.  According to the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), Citizen’s Advisory Committees: o Act in an advisory capacity to MPO on public involvement strategies; 4  o Meet regularly to review and develop plans and also assists in organizing and managing public meeting and comments; and o Are comprised of members of the public, often appointed by localities and MPO policy board, who may include representatives of interested parties.  Many MPO’s throughout the country have CAC’s. Some CAC’s have been functioning for decades and in some states it is required and organized under state law. Staff performed research of CAC’s across the country, and contacted several by phone. Attached is a table of 6 such groups at MPO’s.  In New Mexico, only the Mid-Region MPO has a committee similar to a CAC – a Public Involvement Committee, or PIC. This committee convenes on an as- needed basis, does not provide recommendations to their Policy Board, and currently sees very little participation.  Some MPO’s and other regional planning organizations convene citizen and stakeholder groups on a temporary basis. Others call on a collection of workgroups focused on a multitude of disciplines and interests (i.e., active transportation, demographics, environmental, freight, and so on).  Some hold joint meetings with staff from government agencies to increase interaction of stakeholder groups and government.  CAC’s from those surveyed vary in the way voting membership is set up. This is typically set forth in bylaws.  Some CAC’s limit the number of total participants. Others are open-ended and allow any organization or individual to achieve voting status. However, these CAC’s have attendance requirements and can remove members who do not participate.  Some are explicit about having representation from certain groups within a community. For example, at the MPO in Tampa, Florida, seats are designated for a person of Hispanic ethnicity, a person of African-American descent, a woman, a person under age 30, a representative of a neighborhood and a representative of the business community.  CAC’s also vary in the frequency of meetings, but these typically match the frequency of other committees.  The time of day of the meetings is also a factor to be considered. Some hold their meetings during the day and others in the evening. Next Steps Creation of a CAC within the Farmington MPO involves at least the following next steps:  At the direction of the Policy Committee, Staff would prepare amendments of the Bylaws, UPWP, and PPP.  The Bylaws would contain details about the responsibilities, procedures and membership of the CAC. The Policy Committee would decide the composition and means of forming the CAC, plus its procedures and other details.  The UPWP would need to reflect the CAC in tasks relating to administration and public outreach, and note that certain projects would be reviewed by the CAC in addition to the other committees.  The PPP would outline the CAC as a means for public involvement in the MPO’s work.  Based on the amendments to the above documents, Staff would handle the details for forming the CAC.  The Farmington MPO has contact with and active participation from many representatives of stakeholders groups and individual citizens. For example, the MPO maintains a list of contacts with interested groups. Members could come 5  from contacts made during the MTP outreach and from the Complete Streets Advisory Group. General advertisements could also be used to invite groups or individuals to join the CAC. Many MPO’s have success finding participants through referrals and word-of-mouth. ATTACHMENTS  An excerpt from a FHWA publication entitled Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking (2015 Update) is attached.  A comparison of select MPO Citizens Advisory Committees will be sent as a separate attachment. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item and discussion by Technical Committee will be forwarded to the Policy Committee. At the direction of the Policy Committee, more information or amendments to the Bylaws, UPWP and PPP will be presented in the future for recommendation. 6  Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking 2015 Update Civic Advisory Committees What is a civic advisory committee? A civic advisory committee (CAC) is a representative group of stakeholders that meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern. While these groups are often called citizens' advisory committees, the term civic is used here because citizenship is not a requirement for participation. CACs have been used for many years and are not in themselves innovative, yet they can be used very creatively. For example, a CAC was used in Louisiana to find consensus on environmental issues for input to public agencies. In Florida a CAC provided input on designs for deployment of a traffic information system. It is very useful to have agencies represented on a CAC as a way for local residents to interact with their government. For example, in Portland, ME, a 35-member CAC developed a long- range transportation plan with agency assistance. Because it can be used either alone or in conjunction with other techniques, a CAC is widely used to achieve a basic level of local input for transportation planning and development. A CAC has the following basic features: • Representation from interest groups throughout a State or region. • Regularly-held meetings. • Recorded comments and points of view of participants. • Consensus building, but consensus is not required. • An important assigned role in the transportation planning process. Why is a CAC useful? A CAC is a forum for hearing ideas. It is a place where agencies and groups present goals and proposed programs. It provides a continuing forum for bringing the public’s ideas directly into the planning decisionmaking process. In the San Francisco Bay area, special efforts have been made to include representatives of traditionally underserved populations. A CAC molds participants into a working group. It is democratic and representative of opposing points of view, with equal status for each participant in presenting and deliberating views and in being heard. It is a place for finding out where participants stand on issues. It is a place where people become educated on technical issues, over several meetings if necessary. It gives a better understanding of the effort and milestones of public agency progress. Its 7 members feel freer to ask agencies for assistance, clarification of points, and follow-up on questions. A CAC demonstrates commitment to participation. Its existence demonstrates progress toward involving people in projects and programs. It helps find common ground for consensus about a solution. If consensus cannot be reached, a CAC provides a forum for identifying positions, exploring them in depth and reporting the divergences of opinion to the agencies. A CAC is flexible. It can be part of regional or State planning or part of a single project—either way it garners assistance from the community in anticipating construction and identifying measures to reduce potential disruption. It can be subdivided. In the St. Louis area, three CACs were formed to develop the regional long-range plan. Who participates in a CAC? Representatives of community groups or stakeholders are selected in one of two ways. Either an agency carefully identifies all stakeholders, including the general public, or the public self- selects CAC memberships—those who are interested attend. If membership is not fully representative, an agency should encourage unrepresented groups to attend or seek their input in some other way. The San Francisco County Transit Authority appoints 11 CAC members, drawing upon a pool of self-selected candidates who submit resumes. People who attend meetings are asked if they would like to be considered for CAC membership. The Authority proactively seeks diversity and balance of representation by race, gender, neighborhood activists, business interests, the disability community, bicycle proponents, and others. The Authority uses the CAC as a sounding board on a variety of transportation issues. Though no special training is required, attendees typically have a broad, long-term view in discussing issues within a geographic area—not a specific, single project. In many areas, such as the San Francisco Bay area, agencies make targeted efforts to involve freight interests. People participate by examining and discussing issues with others. Mailings prior to a meeting help participants understand issues and form questions. Major points of discussion are typically recorded. On some issues the agency and the public may desire substantial detail. How do agencies use the output? A CAC helps monitor community reactions to agency policy, proposals, and progress. By observing interactions during CAC meetings, agencies become aware of opinions and stances at an early point in the process—often before these opinions become solidified. Working with a CAC, an agency crafts compromise positions through give-and-take over a relatively short period of time. For example, in Pennsylvania a CAC helped determine the extent to which a highway project would affect a rapidly developing area in the Pocono Mountains. 8 Who leads a CAC? A CAC elects its own leader. Dynamic and firm community leadership can enliven a CAC. In Chatham County, GA, which includes Savannah, a charismatic leader strengthened the CAC's role in planning. Typically, CAC members select a leader who interacts with agencies in an open and friendly manner, who is sensitive to group dynamics, and can effectively lead the discussion by drawing opinions and positions from participants. What does a CAC cost? A CAC requires support staff within an agency, and the work can be substantial. Meeting minutes must be taken. Background information, minutes, and agendas must be sent out before meetings. A site for the meeting must be selected. Agency representatives must attend to provide resources for CAC questions and response preparation. A CAC may want to sponsor a special meeting on transportation's role in the community, as was done in Pittsburgh. Additional assistance may be required in some instances. For example, in Washington State a CAC led by a facilitator helped plan a highway bypass on the Olympic peninsula. Material needs are minimal, but a quiet meeting room is essential. Written materials may be needed to supplement meeting notes, and these materials should be distributed before the meeting. In many cases, an agency needs to carefully explain its position or analysis, which may require detailed materials and staff time. How is a CAC organized? Ideally, a CAC will have a limited number of members, to allow for in-depth discussion. However, flexibility is needed. Rigid rules may discourage future participation by excluding people who might be able to provide valuable input. If there is no cap on the number of members of a CAC, a large CAC can be divided into subgroups. However, subgroups may curtail interaction among diverse interests. A CAC and its sponsoring agency should explore how to overcome limitations. For example, CAC members can attend conferences where they can learn about ideas and interests that are not represented on the CAC. A CAC usually has officers, with a chairperson or director, an assistant director to chair meetings in the absence of the chairperson, and a secretary who may be an agency staff person. Elected officers may serve for a year or more. CAC meetings are managed by the elected officers with assistance from agency staff. Formal parliamentary procedures, if oriented toward voting, are less useful than informal rules and consensus- building techniques. Meetings are usually held on a regular basis. Pre-meetings help plan the regular sessions and draft policy goals. CAC officers and agency staff work together to bring substantive issues before the larger group. Subcommittees are 9 established to explore details of issues, with meetings held between the regular sessions of the CAC. A typical CAC agenda will cover the following items: • Introductions, if attendees vary each time. • Welcome newcomers. • Discussion of agenda, seeking changes or additions. • Discussion of items on agenda in order, unless a change is requested. • Presentations of information as necessary for clarification. • Determination of whether a consensus on each issue exists. How is a CAC used with other techniques? An established CAC can be a forum to incorporate many public involvement techniques. A CAC leader can use brainstorming to establish consensus on a project. Facilitation by an outside specialist is used within a CAC to establish or resolve a particular or pressing problem. Visioning techniques are used during CAC meetings to establish long-range policy goals. Discussions should consider special issues related to Americans with disabilities. Video techniques can illustrate specific points during CAC meetings. What are the drawbacks of a CAC? A CAC may become inactive if the public perceives that it is being manipulated by a transportation agency. CAC members may feel overwhelmed by technical information if agency staff do not explain essential facts. Transparency can avoid a perception that a CAC is being manipulated by an agency. A CAC is most useful on a project or regional scale. A statewide CAC or one for a very large region can be unwieldy when a large number of people are involved and travel is required of both staff and participants. Effective leadership is essential. A CAC’s success depends on participants feeling that they are being heard and have a stake in decisionmaking, in an efficient and fair manner. A CAC does not encompass all points of view. By virtue of being representative, a CAC is never all- inclusive. A CAC's voice may be skewed if it does not represent all stakeholders and the general public, accordingly it may be difficult to represent minority interests. Opponents may refuse to consider each other's ideas. People who feel they are being controlled or patronized may withdraw. When Agency staff feel that the process is leading nowhere, they may not respond appropriately to questions from participants. 10 Decision and Policy Boards Who serves on MPO decision and policy boards? People who serve on MPO decision and policy boards are drawn from many sources. They include transit representation, State department of transportation, representatives of major modes of transportation, community and business leaders, leaders from special interest groups, and interested individuals. Length of tenure varies, depending on tasks, but is generally one to five years. They represent groups organized around civic, environmental, business, or community interests; specific geographic areas; or they serve as individual experts in a field. They need not be elected officials or agency staff. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) appointed a community committee to develop and recommend alternatives for reconstruction of a large Interstate bridge. These boards are established by statute, regulation, or political decision. Ad hoc committees are set up by legislative acts or executive decision to investigate specific subjects. They may be temporary or permanent. In Portland, OR, a committee of community members works with MPO staff to develop scopes of service for projects and to review and select consultants. For the U.S. 301 corridor study, 11  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #5 Subject: Red Apple Transit Update Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: February 2, 2016 BACKGROUND or PREVIOUS WORK  Staff will need to collect transit data on an ongoing basis to comply with MAP- 21 performance measurement requirements.  New ridership collection methods have been in place since March 2015 using tablets which can also collect basic demographic data.  Red Apple Transit recently released a Transit Trip Planner interface which can be accessed on the Red Apple Transit and MPO websites. CURRENT WORK  Several route changes were implemented in August 2015 as a way to: (1) remove non-revenue miles; (2) add service to concentrated areas; (3) get workers into the COF by 8 am; (4) get students to San Juan College by 8 am; and, (5) provide a link with Navajo Transit.  2015 Ridership volumes decreased by 4.54 percent compared to 2014 volumes. Revenue during the same period went up by 9.69 percent*  Farmington routes decreased by -4.08 percent while the regional routes decreased by -7.55 percent. ANTICIPATED WORK  The MPO will hire an intern in the early spring to help tabulate and map boarding and alightment data.  Staff will analyze gaps in the transit system, the walkable catchment areas of each transit stop as well as demographic mapping for the Title VI Plan. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information report requesting feedback from Policy Committee members. 12  2015 Regional Ridership 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 - Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Tiger (Aztec) Bobcat (Bloomfield) Bronco (Kirtland) 2015 Farmington Ridership by Route 4,000 Red Green Purple Yellow Blue 2,000 0 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 13  Red Apple Transit - Annual Total Ridership (All Routes) 160,000 150,446 139,467 140,000 132,534 130,422 125,995 131,263 125,299 120,000 111,356 101,955 100,000 80,000 71,985 60,000 48,087 44,554 40,000 32,869 20,000 - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Red Apple Transit: Total Ridership Comparison 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 2015 Route Changes 6,000 4,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2,000 - Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 14  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #7 Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: February 2, 2016 INFORMATION ITEMS a. Complete Streets Design Guidelines. The Technical Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 24, 2016 to review and offer edits to the draft Complete Streets Design Guidelines. This meeting is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the MPO Office. b. Fran Fillerup. Staff would like to extend an appreciation to Fran Fillerup for his dedicated service and professionalism while working as the MPO Associate Planner. He has accepted a position with San Juan County. 15  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 MINUTES FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING January 13, 2016 Technical Members Present: Bill Watson, City of Aztec Cindy Lopez, City of Farmington Nica Westerling, Alternate, City of Farmington Andrew Montoya, Red Apple Transit Dave Keck, San Juan County Technical Members Absent: Teresa Brevik, City of Bloomfield David Sypher, City of Farmington NMDOT Representative Staff Present: Mary Holton, MPO Officer Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner June Markle, MPO Administrative Aide Staff Absent: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Others Present: Brian Degani, Planning Liaison, NMDOT (via phone) Larry Hathaway, San Juan County 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Keck called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 10, 2015 JOINT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE & NMDOT MEETING Ms. Lopez moved to approve the minutes from the December 10, 2015 Joint Technical Committee and NMDOT meeting. Mr. Watson seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 3. ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS Subject: Annual Election of Officers Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 6, 2016 BACKGROUND  At the first meeting of the New Year, the Technical Committee selects the Chair and Vice-Chair from their membership who will serve until the next 16  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 annual election.  The Chair presides over the meetings and is responsible for the other duties outlined in the Committee Bylaws and Operating Procedures document.  The Vice-Chair presides over the meetings in the absence of the Chair.  Current Chair (David Sypher), current Vice-Chair (Dave Keck). ELECTION  Elections will take place to select a Chair and Vice-Chair for the Technical Committee for 2016. RECOMMENDATION  It is recommended that the Technical Committee accept nominations and vote to elect the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2016. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup explained that the annual of election of officers is held at this first meeting of the New Year. He noted that Mr. Sypher has been Chair during 2015 and Mr. Keck was Vice-Chair. Ms. Lopez nominated Dave Keck for Technical Committee Chair for 2016 and Ms. Westerling seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations for Chair. The vote to elect Mr. Keck as Chair was unanimous. Ms. Lopez nominated David Sypher for Technical Committee Vice-Chair and Mr. Watson seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair. The vote to elect Mr. Sypher as Chair was unanimous. 4. STATUS OF TIP PROJECTS Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 5, 2016 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. These monthly reviews help correct inconsistencies in the TIP, STIP, the MPO’s MTP, Agreement Request Forms (ARFs), etc.  The next scheduled TIP Amendment cycle begins in January 2016. TRACKING INFORMATION  Local Agreement Status (ARF)  ROW Certification  Design Completion 30 – 60 – 90% 17  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016  Environmental Certification  Utilities Certification  Railroad Certification  Archeology Certification  ITS/Sys ENG Certification  Public Involvement Certification CURRENT WORK  Staff will continue the monthly review of project status for projects in the TIP. This includes updates on NMDOT and local lead projects. Staff will work from the latest 2016-2021 TIP at the meeting. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. Committee members will have an opportunity to provide feedback regarding TIP project status and details. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup stated that this agenda item was to review the current projects in the TIP or those that have moved out of the TIP and are in the process of construction. This report provides a current status of project and benchmarks reached. East Arterial Route – Phase II Mr. Watson reported the City of Aztec is struggling with right-of-way that may cause the project to be delayed by six to eight months. When the project right-of-way was expanded, FHWA and BLM became involved and NMDOT again changed their rules and requirements. Mr. Watson also said that the lack of coordination and continuity within District 5 creates more difficulties. Mr. Watson asked if a replacement for David Quintana had been named. Mr. Fillerup said the technical support engineer position has not been named yet. The new Acting District 5 Engineer, Paul Brasher, has not officially told the MPO who will be replacing David Quintana. He did indicate that he plans to attend FMPO committee meetings and will attend the Policy Committee meeting on January 28. Mr. Watson expressed his frustration on the lack of participation in committee meetings by District 5 representatives. This absence, along with the continuous rotating personnel at District 5 results in a loss of continuity and coordination in moving forward on local projects. Ms. Westerling stated that the City of Farmington is having similar right-of-way issues with their Pinion Hills Boulevard project. A piece of the right-of-way being questioned by NMDOT was deeded to the city in 1971 from the railroad when they went defunct. She said the appraisals were conducted using NMDOT’s format and an appraiser from their accepted list of appraisers back in 2001. NMODT still has not said whether the appraisals are adequate nor addressed the numerous additional documents the city provided as historical back-up. Ms. Westerling said this right-of-way problem has been ongoing for three years with no definitive answer from NMDOT on whether the documents submitted are acceptable. An affidavit submitted to NMDOT over four months ago, and which was to have been discussed at a meeting with FHWA, was never discussed with them as promised. Ms. Westerling said that even after attending 18  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 a meeting with Deputy Transportation Secretary Anthony Lujan, in which NMDOT representatives were instructed by him to “get it done”, things still are not getting done. Ms. Westerling now copies Mr. Lujan on all correspondence and e-mails with NMDOT and there continues to be a lack of communication and urgency. Mr. Keck added his annoyance with the right-of-way division at NMDOT. After being told that two years of work on one of their projects was not correct, San Juan County decided to spend an additional $125,000 to hire a firm in Albuquerque that specializes in acquiring rights-of-way. Mr. Keck commented that a lot of time and federal funds were wasted up to this point. The three entity representatives present at the meeting all expressed their frustration with the ongoing run-around and continuing lack of support and coordination from NMDOT. Mr. Watson stated that he spoke with Aztec’s City Manager and asked for his support in trying to get projects moving forward. City Manager Josh Ray contacted Butch Mathews, this region’s Transportation Commissioner to seek support and assistance from him. Ms. Westerling said the City of Farmington has invested the staff time of three employees for a year to get a project grant of $200,000 that has still not been finalized. The right-of-way division of NMDOT keeps asking for more and additional forms to be completed and submitted, all of which require going back in time six months or longer. Ms. Westerling reported that a completed sidewalk project took NMDOT over a year to look over and the city still has not been reimbursed for the project. Mr. Keck added that an entire grant could be spent paying for the process of working with NMDOT – not actually purchasing land or constructing the project. Ms. Westerling added that 100% plans for the Pinon Hills Boulevard projects have been completed for two years and have been with NMDOT for two years. The project remains stuck in NMDOT’s right-of-way division over seven pieces purchased prior to 2001. East Pinon Hills Boulevard – Phases I and II Ms. Westerling said the right-of-way plat would be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission this week and then to City Council on January 26. Mr. Watson asked if NMDOT also has problems with their right-of-way division. Mr. Keck said he has spoken with representatives from District 3 who have many of the same issues. Ms. Lopez asked if NMDOT did not understand the issues with this division. The other Technical Committee members thought NMDOT should know about the issues since they deal with the same issues themselves even though their projects take priority over other entity’s projects. CR 350 & 390 Intersection Mr. Keck said that construction is still planned for March. 19  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 Kirtland School Walk Path The agreements were signed by San Juan County last week and sent on to NMDOT. Red Apple Transit – Capital & Operating No update. Red Apple Transit – Bus Route Accessibility Mr. Montoya said they are waiting on signatures to transfer this from FHWA funding and oversight to FTA. Ms. Westerling asked about the intersection project at Scott Avenue and San Juan Boulevard. Mr. Fillerup said it had been moved off the TIP. Ms. Westerling said the bid came in over budget so the city has requested additional funds from NMDOT. This project will be added back onto the Project Status spreadsheet for future tracking. ACTION: The projects were updated. 5. FFY2015-2016 UPWP AMENDMENT Subject: FFY2015-2016 UPWP Amendment Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 6, 2016 BACKGROUND  The MPO maintains a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) document which sets forth the tasks the MPO will undertake in a fiscal year.  In November, staff presented changes to tasks within the UPWP based on the 2040 MTP and direction from FHWA.  In December, staff presented a summary of carry over requests and new total budget amounts for the FHWA PL grant and the FT 5303 grant.  According to Appendix A of the document, the total MPO budget amount for FFY 2016 is $369,168.97. The previous MPO budget amount for FFY2016 was $302,458. Increases are due to new award letters and requested carryover in the FHWA PL and FTA 5303 grants.  The total estimated expenses are $367,000. Details are also provided in the second table of Appendix A. CURRENT WORK  MPO staff will present the Draft Amendment to the FFY2015-2016 UPWP. ACTION  The Draft Amendment to the FFY 2015-2016 UPWP is presented for recommendation by the Technical Committee. The document would then be presented to the Policy Committee for consideration and final action. 20  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup explained that the Unified Planning Work Program document details the tasks that the MPO undertakes each year. This has been presented in two parts in November and December. The first presented the outlined changes to text within the document based on the MTP and performance measures. In December, the carryover amounts requested and the budget were reviewed. Mr. Fillerup reviewed some of the budget details that reflected the carryover amounts with a $369,000 new estimated MPO budget. Due to the sizeable FTA grant carryover, additional spending has been identified for a follow-up to the transit hub study for design concepts and other possible transit studies. ACTION: Mr. Watson moved to recommend approval of the FFY2015-2016 UPWP Amendment. Ms. Westerling seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AMENDMENT Subject: Public Participation Plan Amendment Prepared by: Fran FIllerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 4, 2016 BACKGROUND  The current Public Participation Plan (PPP) was adopted on January 19, 2012.  The PPP needs to be reviewed and amended at least every five years.  An overview of amendments are as follows: o The public comment period is proposed to be 15 days instead of 30 days. (See page 14). NMDOT has recommended, and the other MPOs throughout the state have already adopted this change for most documents including TIP amendments. A new TIP adoption would continue to have a 30-day comment period. o At their November 19 meeting, the Policy Committee recommended the use of social media in MPO outreach efforts and this is reflected in this amendment. (See pages 8 and 9). o Representation by NMDOT on the Policy Committee, and by NMDOT and Red Apple Transit on the Technical Committee, are updated. (See page 2.) o Newsletters will be published at least three times per year (previously, four newsletters have been published). (See page 8.) o Planning factors of MAP-21 have been clarified and are included. (These may again be updated as similar federal guidance is provided as part of FAST Act, the new multi-year transportation bill.) (See page 2.) o A series of demographic maps will be produced to help comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights and issues of environmental justice. (See page 7.) o Amendments related to these and other minor changes are shown as track changes in the Draft Amendment of the PPP. 21  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 o In November, the Policy Committee also recommended developing a Citizens (Civic) Advisory Committee. Staff will present on this topic in February, and several documents may be amended in the future.  The 45-day public noticing requirement for the Public Participation Plan began on November 29, 2015. CURRENT WORK  Staff will review the proposed amendments to the PPP. ACTION ITEM  Staff recommends that the Technical Committee recommend approval of amendments to the Public Participation Plan. This recommendation would be forwarded to the Policy Committee for consideration and final action. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup reported that the Public Participation Plan (PPP) is up for review and the 45-day public notice began on November 29, 2015. No public comments have been received to date. This document outlines how the MPO conducts business in an open manner and how we reach out to stakeholders and the general public. Mr. Fillerup highlighted some of the proposed changes to the PPP: - Update the RAT representative under the committee structure section; - Text added to the reflect MAP-21 goals, but note that these will also eventually be updated with guidance from the FAST Act; - For the new TIP development there will remain a 30-day comment period; however, for TIP amendments, the MPO is proposing changing to a 15-day comment period. This is recommended by NMDOT and what is also used by the other MPOs in the state. This change will allow amendments to happen in a shorter time frame and potentially reduce the need to hold special meetings to meet the noticing requirements; - Changes to the environmental justice section to say “underserved areas/communities” rather than “environmental justice” areas; - Create a social media presence. The Policy Committee recommended this be done to ensure good public outreach through this type of widely-used media. ACTION: Ms. Lopez moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Public Participation Plan. Ms. Westerling seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 22  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 7. GRANT WRITING BY MPOs Subject: Grant Writing by MPOs Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 6, 2016 BACKGROUND  At the December 2015 Technical Committee meeting, Committee Members asked Staff to investigate the possibility of additional funding being acquired and being used for grant writing on behalf of local entities.  Currently, FMPO staff presents on opportunities for federal and state grants to fund project design, project construction, planning studies, and other similar programs. FMPO staff also offers data, maps and other analysis in support of grant applications, and to review application content.  Federal and State regulations with regards to 5303 & PL funds need to be considered when making decisions regarding planning activities in the UPWP. CURRENT WORK  Review of grant writing efforts at other MPO’s in New Mexico:  Mesilla Valley MPO, Santa Fe MPO, Mid-Region MPO and El Paso MPO each provide assistance to local entities similar to the help offered by the FMPO staff. They produce data made available generally, write letters of support, and review application content.  Mid-Region Council of Governments and the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments offer grant writing to local governments, but indicated this is more of a function of their council of governments.  A member of the Technical Committee gave the example of the Cowlitz Wahkiakum Council of Governments in Kelso, Washington for its grant writing. The transportation planner at that office indicated that they have done grant writing in the past, but have lost staff in the past three years and do not currently offer grant writing. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup reported that during the December Technical Committee meeting, the question was asked if the MPO was able to obtain more funding for additional staff, could they consider doing grant writing for the entities. The MPO currently provides the entities with support material, tries to enhance any grant that the local governments are seeking, and tries to help align applications with the goals and scoring processes. 23  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 Mr. Fillerup stated that Staff queried the other MPOs in the state and this is the same approach they take. They do not try to take on grant writing or pursuing grants as MPO staff. Mr. Fillerup said that Staff had been referred to a council of governments (COG) in Washington State that had provided grant writing in the past. They reported that in the past they had offered grant writing, but this was more a function of their COG rather than just the MPO. With the loss of staff over the years, they do not currently offer grant writing. The Northwest Regional Transportation Planning Organization (NWRTPO) reported that grant writing is a function of their COG and is offered where the local community does not have professional staff. Staff asked Mr. Degani if grant writing and pursuing grants to the benefit of the local governments would be reimbursable for the MPO. Mr. Degani wants to first be able to review the new FAST Act legislation to see what it says about the policy of using PL funds for grant writing efforts. Mr. Fillerup concluded that what Staff offers now is consistent with the other MPOs. Others doing grant writing do so as a function of a COG that they offer to the small communities. ACTION: The report was received. 8. REPORTS FROM NMDOT District 5 Update No representative from District 5 was present at the meeting. Planning Division Update – Brian Degani Mr. Degani offered the following written update for the meeting and attended by phone with additional comments: Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act Transportation Bill Both the U.S. House and Senate passed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which is five-year legislation for improving the Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure, including roads, bridges, transit systems, and rail transportation network. The bill is intended to provide the following: reform and strengthen transportation programs, refocuses on national priorities, provide long- term certainty and more flexibility for states and local governments, streamline the project approval processes, and maintain a strong commitment to safety. The bill, once signed into law by President Obama, will be the first long-term transportation authorization legislation (1,300 pages) in the United States to be passed in a decade since SAFETEA-LU in 2005. More information on the FAST Act can be found on-line. It is anticipated that the roll-out of the proposed regulations would occur in early 2016. MPO Workshop on Performance Measures occurred on 12/16/15 in Las Cruces. The Required Performance Measures (Final Rule May 23, 2016) on the NHS Pavement 24  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 Condition, NHS Bridge Condition and Safety were discussed. Overviews were provided by FHWA-NM and NMDOT on coordinated performance measures and data requirements. A framework for future discussions on coordination, data and modeling, plan consistency integration, project selection/evaluation criteria/methodology and on-going discussions and topics were presented. More information will be discussed by FMPO staff at the TC meeting. T/LPA Project Updates Please provide Tribal Local Planning (TLPA) project updates at each meeting on the status of your local projects to the FMPO staff so they can continually update the spreadsheet so local entities, NMDOT District 5, TLPA Coordinator, and the NMDOT Planner Liaison can work in a concerted effort towards keeping all of the projects on- track. Upcoming Meetings/Trainings/Timelines National Highway Institute Trainings • Federal-Aid Highways 101 – three two-day sessions scheduled week of 2/22/16 and 2/29/16 in Las Cruces, Albuquerque and Santa Fe. This class is mandatory for all MPO and RTPO Planners/Planning Program Managers. • Highway Program Financing –Sessions are scheduled for 3/15/16-3/16/16 in Santa Fe, 3/29/16-3/30/16 in Albuquerque and 4/5/16-4/6/16 in Las Cruces. If you already registered, please contact Cecilia Romero, Continuing Education/Workforce Development Coordinator, Northern NM College, by email at cromero@nnmc.edu or phone at (575) 581-4117, to change or confirm your registration. This class is mandatory for all MPO and RTPO Planners/Planning Program Managers Mr. Degani added that there is preliminary information available on the FAST Act, but the proposed regulations should be rolled out in April 2016. This will provide more information about the eligibility of activities and other requirements of the new legislation and answer the question of whether PL funds can be used for grant writing purposes. The MPO workshop on performance measures occurred at the MPO Quarterly in December. The Final Rule will be made available on May 23, 2016 on the National Highway (NHS) Pavement Condition, NHS Bridge Condition, and Safety. Mr. Degani reported that some of this will impact US 64 through Farmington. The T/LPA project updates provided at each meeting allows MPO Staff to continually update so all agencies can work in a concerted effort in keeping the projects on track. The National Highway Institute has two upcoming trainings: - Federal-Aid Highways 101: Three two-day session the week of 2/22 and 2/29/16 in Las Cruces, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe; - Highway Program Financing: 3/15-16 in Santa Fe; 3/29-30 in Albuquerque, and; 4/5-6 in Las Cruces. 25  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 Mr. Degani asked to be kept in the loop on any issues with District 5 along with Mr. Brasher. Mr. Degani said he has heard that Mr. Steven Lopez is expected to be the acting technical support engineer from District 5, but that no final determination has been made. Mr. Degani said he would make Mr. Brasher and Mr. Lopez aware of the MPO concerns expressed today. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 5, 2016 INFORMATION ITEMS a. Complete Streets Design Guidelines. The Complete Streets draft edits are now available for review on the MPO website. We need to set a date for a review of these edits by the Technical Committee’s Complete Streets Sub- committee. b. TIP Call for Projects. Staff will send out a Call for Projects for the FFY 2016-2021 TIP Amendment cycle. New projects to be added to the TIP are due to Staff by February 3. c. Transportation Acronym List. The MPO has an acronym list on its website under the heading of MPO Documents. (See www.farmingtonmpo.org.) Please note other terms which may need to be added. d. MPO/NMDOT Meeting on Performance Measures. On December 16, 2015, staff of FHWA, NMDOT and MPOs throughout the state met in Las Cruces to coordinate performance measurement in the state’s NM Transportation Plan and MPO MTP’s. e. Transportation Research Board Annual Conference. MPO staff will be attending the Transportation Research Board Annual Conference the week of January 10. f. Other DISCUSSION: a. The Complete Streets Design Guidelines draft document has been sent out for review and is also available on the MPO website. Mr. Watson said he had recommended a section or information on capacity be added. Mr. Keck said this had also been a recommendation from Mr. Sypher. Mr. Fillerup said he did not think that had been included. 26  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 Ms. Holton stated that the draft, as well as a later revision that addressed updates to only Page 27, were provided. MPO Staff would like to know how much time the Technical Committee members need to review the document before scheduling the special workshop to discuss the document. Ms. Westerling said Mr. Sypher asked for a month’s time to review the document before holding the workshop. Ms. Holton said the MPO would send out a follow-up e-mail in a month to set a date for the workshop. b. A call for projects will be issued by the MPO for the next quarterly TIP amendment cycle. February 3 will be the deadline to provide project information to the MPO. Mr. Fillerup said this was just an amendment to the existing TIP and that Staff would provide the forms needed with the call for projects e-mail. Ms. Lopez asked about adding a project to the TIP. The City of Farmington is seeking funding for construction drawings for the complete streets design for downtown Farmington. Ms. Westerling said that the February 3 deadline would be difficult to meeting since projects may need to be delayed. Mr. Watson also asked if the new projects would be seeking funding and put through the vetting process or would they be added to a wish list. Mr. Fillerup said the new projects would be scored and then reviewed by the Technical Committee. Mr. Keck added that he liked the process whereby MPO Staff would meet with each entity individually and review the potential projects. Mr. Fillerup said Staff could meet with the entities individually, but they would still ask them to use the same form as well. Ms. Westerling asked if this was the only amendment cycle before July. Mr. Fillerup stated that there would be another amendment cycle in April. c. The transportation acronym list has been updated and a copy provided to the Technical Committee members. If additional changes are required please let Staff know. d. The discussion at the MPO Quarterly on performance measures related to mainly three topics: safety (related to injuries and fatalities); NHS pavement condition, and; NHS bridge condition. Mr. Fillerup reported that in December, Mr. Sypher had asked for a draft of the performance measures. Mr. Fillerup said that there is not a draft yet available of what the performance measures will be. The discussion held at the MPO Quarterly was preliminary and more information will be forthcoming. e. Duane Wakan is attending the Transportation Research Board (TRB) conference in Washington, DC. f. The next TAP and RTP call for projects is expected this summer with applications due in August 2016. These two programs will be detailed in one guidebook, but remain as two separate funding accounts. 27  TC Draft Meeting Minutes January 13, 2016 10. BUSINESS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND STAFF There was no additional business from the Floor. 11. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Hathaway reported that San Juan County had passed a new business registration ordinance. He said that with the county’s volunteer fire department, many volunteers want to know what is in a business when responding to a fire call. For the safety and health of the volunteer firefighters, plus the public frequenting the businesses, the county believed this ruling was necessary. Mr. Hathaway stated another reason for the ordinance was to ensure businesses were signed up with the state to operate their business. The county also believed this ruling was good from an economic development standpoint and that it might add some credibility to local businesses. There was no additional business from the Floor. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Keck adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. ___________________________ ___________________________ Dave Keck, Vice Chair June Markle, Administrative Aide 28