e e e e e e e come back out there good morning everybody good morning everybody we're getting ready to start the meeting imortal so can everybody take their seats uh we need to start the meeting [Applause] I was looking at pictur i'ms e e we're ready Mar all right good morning everybody Welcome to the October 2023 Transportation policy board we're GNA start the the meeting now so Mr chair you ready with the meeting order ready the Pledge of Allegiance yes States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right so we're gonna move on now to roll call um start with the chair judge amo good morning here mayor oser here Senator Cesar Blanco representative Chris Canales mayor Ramon Cano senator Joseph Cervantes representative Rudy Cruz Aaron chavaria uh representative Mary Gonzalez representative Gander nandez I nandz uh commissioner Ian morning here uh representative Willie Madrid Alman Walter Miller representative Joe Moody representative Eddie Morales Mo moed mayor D Muro representative CLA oras representative L Orga nor Palos mayor Pera mayor Rachel kintana mayor is Rees Sam Rodriguez representative Isel Salo alen SMI mayor Anthony Turner thas trino and city manager Carrie Weston all right so we do have cor all right do we have anybody signed up for for open comment marol no no public comment okay so no no public comment all right so we're going to begin now with the action items it's item number one is discussion and action to consider approval of the minutes of the September 22nd 2023 TPB meeting approve second those in favor I opposed motion carries all right item number two is considering authorizing the executive director to submit a comment to the Texas Department of Transportation regarding the proposed revisions to the Texas administrative code that would allow Tex that to redistribute funding allocations of categories five and S due to significant carryovers so with this um the I think this is a a pretty important uh item here it's a it's a change that the commission the Texas Transportation Commission already initiated by passing a minute order with some proposed of revisions to the TAC that we'll get into it um as as part of the the process the um these revisions are are going through public comment and and hence the the uh the idea of submitting a comment as part of the process there will be a public hearing later on and and we'll see the the schedule in a in a little bit um but I I do want to get a little bit into the the uh you know the the mechanical part of what it is that they're trying to to to do if there is really a problem that that uh that you know we all need to try to solve and um but one of the things that is important to consider is that this these actions will directly affect the ability of mpos to program projects um especially when we're talking about categories five and seven uh these are the categories that the no pretty much controls you know we have a lot of control on them we select the projects uh assign the funding to these projects uh especially when it comes to local government projects right because the the other funding categories that are that that we use a lot here categories two four and 12 which are the the ones that are used for the big ticket items those can only be used on system in other words only for tch. projects right we cannot use category two for a local Road or well Municipal Road or a County Road and and so on um I I'll give you the the sort of like the the brief background and then we can go through the couple of presentations to fill in a little bit of of the gaps so the the the main issue that is being that that the commission and tex that are trying to address is the fact that there is a a lot of carryover in categories five and seven right carryover means that you know we start with a every year with a certain amount of of money our allocation then we program projects and then we whatever balance carries over to the following year okay um at the state level teot has the ability to to manage that and again we're talking about Federal programs right because CMAC Category 5 and category 7 are are really you know Federal programs so the concern that teot has is that by carrying over too much money and doing it year after year after year there's a possibility of that Federal money lapsing okay as you know the federal funds that we get awarded at the state level and and then you know distributed to districts and npos it only has a a certain shelf life of four years right so if our allocation from year one we have have to spend it by year four but the state does have the ability to you know play around at the you know at the state level right so you know if we're using a project uh category seven funds right here in El Paso we really don't know if they're using you know 2020 category 7 money or 2021 whatever it is you know we don't see that right that's that's something that at the state level and granted it's pretty complicated you have you know 23 mpos and 20 five districts so so it is complicated that's what the finance division does over there so the there is a problem potentially a problem if at the state level their projects get delayed right so if you can't move the money around because nobody has a project letting for this year and then your federal funds May lapse right so that's the concern um in in I'm only aware of one time where CMAC funds lapsed but that was my understanding is that that was due to a somebody that you know instead of using the oldest money first um they left the oldest money sitting and then it lapsed right um also let me say that this is not a this concern is not really a new problem you know we've had this problem always right and and we know that you know we we don't want to delay projects you know this and P you years ago did have a problem where projects were being you know pushed back and pushed back you know projects were programming the tip and you know they were not Advanced for whatever reason and so we had continuous carryover carryover right what of those Senator has a oh I'm sorry quick when you said uh the CAC funds laps you're not talking about in El Paso you're talking about in the state state level right um so so the CAC funds you know the the feds well Federal Highway specifically send CAC money to the state and then the state distributes the CAC money among the non-attainment areas right so that's one of the difference between five and seven that that we'll get into so the again this is a yeah it's it's a real concern right nobody wants Federal money to to lapse right um you know I think this region for several years now has done a really really good job in making sure that projects Advance right um yeah it's complicated especially the local government projects there's a lot of issues you know with starting with you know the agreement with text do and then you know getting your rideway and getting the all the project development activities etc etc yeah it's complicated it's messy right but uh but I think we've done a very good job um you know for for many years now in in making sure that projects advaned right there's always problems and there's legitimate reasons for delays for whatever it is but it's I think we've done a very good job in addition this just wanted to see maybe toas might sort of put it in perspective from teex well I was actually going tostain on the boat um but you know here here locally like said you know uh you know we're we're not in danger of losing any dollars but if if you scroll down further on his uh on his PowerPoint you can see some of the balances that some of the other npos are carrying uh and there's only a number of four districts that actually get CAC money but if you look at the balance say in uh Houston I believe that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 million uh so so that's their concern uh regionally here locally at we're not in in any danger of of of this particular issue but I you know I know I know at has concerns potentially you know that could be an issue we ever thank you um for category five and seven has the AL Paso no ever had been beyond the 200% threshold I don't think so certainly not in the last five years we've I think we've been you know this no has been pretty good in programming in in the past uh there was a problem in implem right but the first step is to make sure that you program it right the second step is is to ensure that whatever you program moves right into construction right so so that that's that's important but um so as oh sorry I want to make sure I understand what's being requested is this already something that's being proposed and by if so by whom to the administrative code the on the Texas administrative code is it being already proposed and who is proposing it the Texas Transportation Commission all right so what you're doing is this would be uh submitting a letter to State Tex do saying we support this uh proposed change in the Texas administrative code yeah or or not or not yeah but here the request is to support it right okayo can you scroll down to uh slide 17 let let's talk about the schedule before we getting into the [Music] detail so that that's the the schedule that text that presented to the mpos after the fact right um so they they met with us I forget it was early September but but the key dates here are the September 28th um commission meeting um so they presented and actually the commission passed a minute order saying well these are the proposed changes right um one of the things that that that gives us a little bit of heartburn not a little bit a lot is that when this PowerPoint that we're showing that was presented to us it's they told us this it's a dumb deal you know we're doing this right and it was like wow I mean these are significant changes right I mean why not coordinate with the npos I mean we've done this in the past coordinating among the mpos and in you know being part of the of sharing the funds right there used to be trade fairs in the past with Category 2 where you say well you know I have a lot of money here but I don't have a project and and Houston says well you know give me your money today because I have a big project we can use it and then whenever you're ready we'll give it back to you so it was it was a really really you know collaborative effort right this time it's like they presented these proposed changes but there was no consultation with mpos or anything so I mean it's something that that is affecting us so that generates a little hard work just in the scenario and and and and to my previous question about when was the last time that uh Paso went over the 200% threshold you said in the last five years none to your knowledge have we ever for cat five and seven I I can't tell you categorically yes or no but I doubt it sincerely that would be important for us to know um while things are good now my concern is that if we're sending local or federal dollars that have been allocated to our n for whatever reason whether it's changing leadership in the no the change of the format or the membership of the M where for some reason we're not uh we're holding on to the monies because we know that a lot of these projects there it's a cocktail of of of categories for the funding right my concern is that we're giving money back and what happens to the local projects um as it is in my understanding and andas you correct me if if if that money goes back some of that money will be distributed throughout the state to to local tex. districts right depends on on category five the the 200% rule applies a little bit different so what with category five because the state does have the ability to redistribute funds among this the npos and in entainment that's easier for them to do they can say okay let's say if our allocation is $10 million a year and we carry over 23 right so that differential over 200% would be the 3 million txat can say okay we're pulling that $3 million and we're going to give it to Houston or to Dallas forward right so that's you know what they're proposing right in addition to uh another U well I I would call it a constraint right that for CAC projects the district would need to concur before we program those projects in the chip which is something that we're not doing now so it's a little more more more more control so my concern is that you know in the event that for whatever reason our n doesn't have its stuff together that we could lose those funds for projects that are in the district um and then those funds would go to uh the state's discretion my concern is that when you look at the UTP we're already underfunded uh throughout the state because the state has control of those funds uh we don't get our fair share so who's to gu there's no guarantee that those funds would end up in a bule um so while things are good now my concern is down the road if we if we say yes and I get it look the the state wants to make sure that we're keeping those federal dollars and that we're putting those federal dollars to use but I just want to flag that there's no guarantee that El Paso will get those funds right not not for C right go ahead for all right I want to make sure again that I understand but will those federal funds be uh taken back if they're not used within that time period is that a given yeah I mean federal funds lapse right lapse yeah exactly they will lapse but Texas at the state level uh what they want to do is well if if El Paso CAC dolls are not going to be or because we're not programming or we're delaying projects we'll take that that differential over 200% the $3 million and and give it to Houston because they have a project that can spend the money right so so going back to what our Senator was was saying the point that he was making um it's like we don't want to transfer those funds to a to somewhere else in within the state but if they're going to lapse anyway then it's going to be lost and so if there are funds that are lapsing in another Community where we could take advantage of actually receiving them I you know so that's something that we need to consider and you're right I agree with that that like so for example right now Dallas and Houston they're having this issue right so so so our region could benefit from those Dallas is okay has um we could benefit from those funds but there's no guarantee that we will well that's true that we won't but we have an opportunity to potentially benefit especially if we do have funds that are going to lapse anyway because we have no use for them but the other question I have is is State Tech St asking mpos to authorize this to support it is that why we're considering it so this is something that you decide decided to ask our m board to support it and are you I'm not well not support I'm asking you this okay did you brought it up to it but do you have any personal comments as to whether this is a good or bad thing to do let me hear from the mayor or even professional yeah professional um do you um can we allocate the funds and if we do is there a time limit to spend it because it's going to expire but can we allocate it and then spend it within xmi years just like arpa funding if we allocate it by December we have to spend it by 2026 so is that kind of the same thing you can do and is the federal government allowing you to extend it and if so for how long yeah so the the there are two like time periods right one is the four years that we're talking about is really to obligate the funds right to program the project and and and get it ready to start construction then the funds also have a a period for you to spend it after that after that right this uh I don't remember exact seven years or eight years say it's something we'd want to know though before we would take any action and is there a possibility of extending the funds from from them not EXP well typically no I mean typically they whatever the the years we could apply for it um no because we we can work out and coordinate getting getting some of those those funds but for the for the obligation not not not once you go into constru we need to see what time period is that we have to spend it by so I'd like to know that right now Ty ially that that is not a problem because you know if if Texa for example on on CAC they give it to another region it's because they have a a project that is that is you know letting tomorrow right you know very very soon and it's ready to go have Walter you comment put on the senator was talking about this that would only be a return of funds if we had a lapse in our program right so it's really AR Inc comb on this board to make sure that we don't lose F so I think what we're weighing here is number one our responsibility to operate a a no in the appropriate manner we could also be in a position to take advantage of those who don't so it kind of comes back to a local yeah we want we want to manage our no that so that we don't lapse but if others that do then we would be in a position to take advantage of that uh then again uh the representative ask while ago what was your opinion and you didn't get to do that what you stand on just one more Senator we can answer that question then I'll have I was going to wait until the end of the presentation because there's there's you know several ises here but if you want me to to give you an answer is that I don't like this yeah I don't like it because it it feels like a further infringement of of of the state on our duties they're taking you know our ability to decide locally and that's something that goes beyond Transportation as you know but I don't want to get into that right but but my very personal feeling when I from day one when I you know realize what they were doing is like you didn't even tell us or consult with us they at this meeting they said this is what we're doing it's a done deal and and again you know I'll I'll borrow the expression that a good friend said well tax that is shielding this under you know the good idea that we don't want to lose federal funds right I mean who wants to lose Federal F nobody right so it's it's a good idea but the way that it's being done I have a problem with a technical question um and I'm not asking specific to El Paso but if whatever let's say the Houston no they've got a return uh unspent dollars when those dollars from five and seven category five and seven are sent back um and they're redistributed to the districts what category are they dist redistributed to and does that impact our projects so let Mees let let me uh now move on to category seven so category five tchat can move the the funds away from the region and give it to somebody else in the case of category 7 it's a little bit different because the allocations for that Federal program are set by the fets right so the $23 million that we get every year that's coming from you know from the feds right tat really can't take away or or modify our allocation what they're doing in this case you know tricky is they say Okay since we cannot punish you taking away category seven but we can take away category two right and so we will put that equivalent dollar a month that Delta uh from your Category 2 and and give it to the district's category 11 which is a district discretionary so it's a little bit different in that that money would not technically leave the region right one of the questions I have is well yeah you give it to the district yeah but the district has six counties right so we would lose it within El Paso County but it's not clear to me and not notas if you have that that uh that answer um if they put it on on category 11 do you have to use it within El Paso County or you have the discretion of using it it was my understanding that it's not CAD 11 District discretionary is CAD 11 s you're right I misspoke it's category s safety so it would go to the district's safety program you're correct but again they could use it we were so if pass were to benefit from Houston's loss those funds would be restricted to safety not necessarily any other project they would no it if it's category 7 the funds stay in in Houston so that's a big difference between Category 5 and seven right so we could use or we could receive some of the Houston's category five the category seven stays within the Houston District what I I don't know is like in you know the does it have to be used under the the safety program for Tech within the No Boundaries which in our case would be you know they'll pass hand question for thas all right so if they're taking excess funds under category seven it still stays in the region if it's under cat five it it stays in the region but it's placed a different category under safety right there's there's only no not a cat five of the CAC money there's only four districts that are uh eligible for CAC dollars and those are the districts that are non attainment so it's us Houston uh Dallas [Music] andan San Antonio San Anton yeah yeah Alamo and so when it goes under that category you can it's used within the whole district and the decision is still there to the El county is the only non attainment uh okay so it has to be used within El Paso County yeah and it's actually not even the entire County it's only just south of uh of 375 so then on the for the reallocation of funds um it's not clear what the process is still so I'm I'm still very confused and then um are there matching requirements dollar matching requirements and do projects have to be letting already in order to qualify for these yeah so it it's not you know that process of how that it would be redistributed is not part of these revisions so it's you know we have that question exactly how are you going to do it are you going to use the same formula to to you know whatever Houston's money you know distributed among the other non- attainment areas including us or but it appears that the that the administration Tech has the ability to say to P discretion now we'll take the full $3 million from Houston and put it on a project in Dallas Fort Worth because that one's ready to go that seems to be the the the process and a little bit of the concern that it's very you know it takes away the ability for npos to to decide so are you are you suggesting that if we buy into hey let me take your funds because they're lapsing could unintentionally hurt us as an no in the future because they could do the same thing to us okay so is there like a call for Unity between npos to to stand against this I mean I'm I'm just trying to understand what the best direction would be the the reaction is is mixed because we're talking about categories five and seven and first of all many of the small npos don't receive five or seven so yeah so that's about you know more than half of the the npos uh we're talking about the larger npos the tmas of over 200,000 right um so right now the the the big issue and let let me move on to the slide clearly right now the the big issue is is Houston okay Houston their their no right now is having a little bit of not a little bit but a lot of issues in in um um in selecting programming and moving forward with with projects right for multiple reasons um so right now they're the only ones that under this this uh this proposed rule they would be the only ones that have bigger carryovers more than 200% so you know right now they're the ones that that are that are in trouble right and yes these are big I mean Houston has tremendous you know 10 times the budget that we had that we get in both five and seven so 200% is a ton of money right so it's a lot um but yeah I mean it just happens at right now well Houston has issues right um if you remember this no mayor this no um you know this board has not always been you know super functional right so there may be some some issues so careful what you wish for in terms of saying hey maybe we can right now take use some of the funds from from Houston right Edo so what you're asking us to do and I'm not sure was that clear and no is to make it common the comment is not to say that we want to do anything except make a comment that we don't agree or this is what we want we don't want so your item on the agenda is just to make a comment but not to give him a letter to well the the the intention of the way that that that item was written and I'm looking for guidance from Shu was really I'm presenting this to you and I'm looking for guidance from you okay that's what I'm saying so it's not that we're going to agree to give back anything or do anything what language and what is our opinion and what how we feel moving forward is what you're asking us to do so so if we approve this item we're not approving language at this point you could come back 30 days from now with language for this uh body to look at and kind of determine what the language should be and what our agreement would be is that correct and do we have to submit a comment no I think we're following uh there's already been is a Dallas that has already begun to oppose this yeah the the Dallas Fort Worth um Mo nor Central Texas Cog presented this to their policy board and I actually have um slides of their presentation what they presented to their uh respective uh board um they are definitely submitting a comment um yeah I don't know the the details but you know they agree that that they that this is not desirable in general for mpos I cannot tell you if if there is consensus among all the mpos that this is a bad idea I don't know that because again this has been done pretty pretty quickly and um you know we were all pretty surprised Senator and then s speak as well judge um walk us through the timeline we need when do they vote on this and when right so my understanding of the process is that um it started with a commission meeting in September where they pass a minute order so that initiates a process right and they also that initiates also once they put it on the Texas register it initiates a public comment uh period that goes through November 13th right so during that public comment Peri period there's a public hearing happening on the 3D then um well then of course there's a commission meeting on on the 16th but that's after the public comment period ends okay so clearly we if we submit something and we want to be on on record it has to be submitted before November 133 before our next no that would be before the next no unless you know we we have a special you know meeting for that if that's what what you all want to do um now um in out of sort of like in practice right um we can also be on record by commenting at the commission meetings you know outside of the public comment because you know that also counts right you know we we do that all the time and we're there but it um so we could still do something at the December um at the December uh Commission meeting because the the the final final decision by the commission on it is is in January so we still have some opportunities at the commission meetings but but again you know how important is it to be on record for the formal public comment period for for this revision right so let me let me see if we understanding so it's only category five and seven we're talking and it only goes to four mpos five okay and right now they expire in four years if we don't if we don't progam yeah so okay so we already have one deadline so Houston has apparently amassed this chunk of money in less than four years that they haven't spent so what they're saying is before we reach the four-year mark and it and Houston loses it we want to save it and redistribute it to the other three or four that we may or may not benefit from is that kind of it in the nutshell um so uh we we discussed this issue internally uh just a few days ago so just just for the benefit I know many of you understand the difference between an admin change and a law but for those of on the board who who may not be as familiar let me just first start off by telling you that what you're dealing with is a proposed change to the rules that tex. follows in its uh you know day-to-day operations um so you have state laws and then you have administrative rules and Tech do uh can only do what it's allowed to do by statutory law uh now now it's understood that when the legislators and lawmakers make laws that they don't think about all the small details that an agency needs to follow in order to effectuate the law that's been passed at at the at the legislature by by the legislature so then ENT uh departments and entities such as techart are allowed to enact administrative rules that allow them to carry out again to follow what the law says but those those rules have to align with the laws that they're following so here TCH doot is saying that they already have the authority to do all of this uh and and the way they're telling you that is by saying we're making these changes to our rules um and if you look at their um at at the official record of the rules they site to the specific statutes in the Texas Transportation code that they claim allows them to to make these changes so so just so you know you're not dealing with laws you're de you're dealing with internal rules however before an agency allowed to adopt or or make changes to the rules they have a public participation process and um I raised my hand initially because I wanted to just uh Ardo had not uh shown this uh slide yet but in the process Ardo right now is asking you what comment if any do you want to submit as part of the public participation Ru making process because that's that's an opportunity that you all have as an no um so so that deadline is November 13 and that would be a formal opinion on the proposed rules whatever that opinion is is obviously entirely up to you all uh but you're dealing with an with a rule a text Audi is you know or changes to the rules uh that they're proposing um and um if watero inh harison correct me if I'm wrong on any of this stuff but I I also want to make clear because I'm not sure that there might be some misunderstanding uh the the Crux of the changes now uh appear to be that there is now a trigger uh that you know that gets pulled once an Mo hits the 200% carryover of allocations it's not really tied to to a duration or a time period of four years if your carryover of allocations exceeds 200% that amount the carryover is subject to these new rule changes uh it's not tied to a particular particular time period the the lapsing of funds is more a concern that Tech has I think at the at the state level because if funds lapse at the state level that's when they can revert back to to the federal government and they go unused and then that's what I think teot is trying to protect against by enacting these rules B you know basically and and I think some of you have already hit on it they're going to punish inefficient npos in a sense um and that can go in one of two ways because as Senator Blanco stated if you're very efficient um well if you're inefficient right then you can be subject to these rules but if you're you're not hitting that 200% carryover in the larger noo is there's a possibility but you never know that you may benefit from the redistribution now another point that L of them mentioned um that you all need to be aware of though is in the proposed changes to the rules it doesn't say how that carryover is going to be distributed so basically as as currently drafted and you all can submit a comment on this issue uh you know start will have complete discretion as to how that carryover gets redistributed um if you all think that there should be a different way of redistributing rather than just having text. decide that could be a potential comment to make uh because right now uh with CAC uh well with category five funding uh the carryover uh over 200% it's redistribute redistributed to other mpos but as wed as drafted that would be entirely up to text do as how that occurs um another thing that you all need to be aware of in the proposed rule changes teex do is going out of its way to ensure well not to ensure but the rules would define all of these changes as not being major changes um and therefore the redistribution of of of allocated I'm G to call them ex's funds uh can occur entirely uh or the decision can be made entirely at the staff level it doesn't have to go to the commission for approval um so the the proposed rule changes would uh Define all of these changes as not uh not major changes because in their internal rules if something is a major change it needs approval of the commission um and just just another thing I wanted to clarify was so you're dealing with category five funds and if there's any carryover in the category five funds then Tex do can do whatever it wants with that with that carryover and redistribute it as it as as it wishes because um as El mentioned category five funds Tex out has a lot of discretion over now that's one source of funds there's another source of funds that is also impact by these rule changes and those are the category 7 funds and if there's a carryover in the category 7 funds and it's the same carryover it's the same threshold 200% any carryover that's where it goes uh because because Techo can't touch the category 7 funds they say their rule proposed rulle state if there is a carryover in your category seven funds not category five in your category 7even funds then we will take money from your category two funds and shift them over to the district's category 11 discretionary uh allocation for use of the safety program so I don't know if that helps explain it a little bit but okay all right so and just to just to be fair to everyone this there's lots of moving Parts with these rules so it's hard to explain but that's start I think we can agree we don't want to lose it right and so if they're clearly not going to spend it there should be a way that that Tech stock can pull it pull a piece of it so just for easy math 100% is your one 200% is if you never spent a penny 200% is your two 300% is your three and four right just for easy Ma so maybe 200% is not the right threshold maybe 350% like you are this close to losing your first year you know may because in theory using it for safety or breed Distributing F El Paso you know with our air quality we could use more money right now in Houston so maybe the 200% and like I said we're not understanding all the minute details but maybe we can ask maybe in the comment we could say since they didn't ask previously which they probably should have maybe instead of 200 maybe it should be 350% or 333 per or you know something where we know because you know how slow government works right it's hard to spend money money and program money and if they're that close to 333 they still haven't used the odds are that last 70% is going to go is they're going to lose it I mean and maybe we have some data maybe we can see how much they cost over the last three years and that that if we had had 33 333 per we would have saved this 7 million it could have gone so allow me just to explain the the the mechanical part of their of The Proposal right the the percentage right so what you see right now on that slide is using fiscal year 23 as an example the the current uh well last year's um allocation because we're already in 24 right so there in the First Column you see what's the what's the allocation then the next column is what carry it over from the prior year which is 22 right and so your new allocation where the total allocation that is available in 23 is in column well with a little column B right so this is your allocation your carryover and this is the total that you have available right so and this is what you have programmed in 23 right so in the case of well let's use our case we start with nine carried over 6.6 and so out of the 16 we're only spending 2.53 in this year and there's a good reason for that right so the remaining allocation is 13.74% so you know we're not in trouble the only one that is in trouble here is Houston because they're carrying over uh 286 per. right so that 26% which is the Delta over differential over 200% is equal to 81 million so that 81 million is what Tex thought and again this is category five right they could redistribute that that 81 million to the other non attainment areas so yeah potentially we could receive some of the funds part of that 81 million what how much or in what propor we don't know that hasn't been determined but that what we do know is that the tax administration has under these proposed rules the complete discretion of of uh making those changes so with that example it it sounds really good let's pocket 81 million yeah but look at how small our budget is County delays one city delays one horizon going to hit that 200% before we even know it our budgets are too small to put ourselves at this type of risk liability if TTC wants to write right size it it should be at the UTP level not putting restrictions on us I I think works will 43% is too close for cfort 100% over a $200 million budget for Houston okay I get it that's maybe like 50 projects that they're laate on we're laate on three we're hitting it before you guys know it and it's not it's not uh I mean consultative calls we all know with C five we have consultative calls which takes forever because you have to get all the people there for the call um clearing environmental sometimes working with our utilities all that has to be move before we're I think we're putting ourselves at a huge liability EXC just just a quick repetition but if we get to 200 we're already at risk to feds right no the four years on the FED four years okay that's the difference yeah that's what I was going to ask with regard to the 200% is under the the proposed rule rule change does it immediately go over to to Tex for redistribution yes so it's not like there's no time period there's no time period I I I do believe there's uh some language in the proposed rules where Tech do would you know try and work with the no that's about to lose some of uh or about to hit the threshold or or for them to come up or or for the or or it puts the burden on the no to show that there's a plan to you know uh start spending the funds but at the end of the day as the rule is drafted the moment you go above the carryover threshold of 200% those funds are subject to redistribution by texto you know when we first uh discussed it that there's a couple of things you know on a personal level we always deal with everything they're trying to do with the state and sort of take away the authority and so I I saw it more like the uh the line on the sand kind of situ situation and then also the discretion that the chances are if it if they have the discretion to determine how to distribute it um I don't think we have that much of of a leverage for us to be the one so we're excited about we can use the benefit of it but if it's at their discretion I wouldn't put ourselves in this situation and that's how we begin to discuss this idea of having a very robust discussion to say I think we should comment on on the things that that might affect us judge allow me to to then move on to the next slide of a couple of slides below for category s down there you go so this is similar to what we just saw but this is for category 7even right the to the right you see the the mpos that currently um after fiscal year 23 would be in danger of losing some funds right um or that would be subject to to that to the new rules we are not you know we are 160% you know we we're okay but um but let me just say that there's some legitimate reasons why we may carry over a bigger balance and that's banking right if we have a big project if if you see for example our allocation for 20 fiscal year 23 is 26 million if we have a $50 million project like we've had for the the county the John Hayes ande or you know some bigger projects that are that are bigger than one one year allocation well so we we bank right so there's some really good reasons sometimes to carry over a bigger balance right we cannot hit every year to the penny right you know there's always going to be some carry over right but um but but by these rules Sol also uh limit our ability to use our cash flow you know in a smart way right yeah nobody wants to delay projects unnecessarily or just keep projects there that are not moving and all that but if it's part of a you know a a a well-thought strategy I think it's okay right and and we are doing that specifically with a category five you know the the city has a a big project and you know we've been banking right not to exceed the 200% um but I think one of the things that that is really important is that regardless of what we choose to do you know we have to stay very Vigilant in making sure that that we program everything and that our projects move so that we never get in trouble I mean that's but I I think that's obvious right um and you can ask a question well why is Houston in trouble well that it's because they they're going through a pretty tough period right right now politically where the their board can't agree on anything right and and projects are you know and the funding is not being used so yeah I mean they have that problem today um so one of the one of the the alternatives for us is to to say do nothing okay other than be vigilant we're okay right now you know we're doing a good job we're not in trouble and I don't think we are we will be in trouble in the next few years you know we've been programming pretty well and all that so do nothing the commission is going to do this anyway so why bother right if they're going to do it anyway see if they'll increase the% I I agree I think they're going to do it anyway yeah so yeah and that's a that's a good point you know why 200% and not 250 or or 300 I mean I I don't know if there 's any thought into that that number right I think it's going to go through because it's already this far along I think our comment should be we don't like this but if you're G to do it would you please consider raising it to could could we propose okay we don't like it but if if you're going to do it change the proposed language of of the administrative rule to the point where we where they say you don't get to take any monies until the federal time period is run even though you're reaching the 200% and when you redistribute it you distribute it back to the region where the the money is rather than giving it anywhere else so that would be something that we could say hey we're against it but this is what we would suggest that that the changes be made to the proposed rules when you say region who do you mean the district district yeah because if they're going to put uh cat 7even uh into cat two you can give it to the same district and place it into their cat too do you follow and so it it would be so they get to keep everybody gets to keep their money and let them redistribute it a different way uh but at least give them the time kind of like what our noo Ed was saying is if this uh happens right after you reach the 200% then no let's follow the federal regs that say okay you've got to distribute it by a certain time period before it lapses per I I agree that we do that I I still think that it shouldn't be the discretion of Tex do I think it should be at the discretion of the mpo and and I think that's fundamentally the problem how do you bring back the loc control because then tax out will decide well we're going to put this money you know to maybe outside of the of the city limits or whatever um I'm not trying to blame I'm not trying to he's gonna take the money I'm just should I think I think the the the body should should stand against this I think it should be clear that local control um should be had through the no I think this this works fine I think 200% is too low and then there's no telling because of the matching dollars like I don't even know like that's that's what TPP does they are the ones who determine do we have the matching dollars do is it is a proposal competitive enough you know so I think it needs to go through all that technical so I'm sorry goad thank you I while I fully agree with you I do think that unfortunately the changes will happen I think to miss M's Point like we do have to consider the practicalities here of what can we ask for you know I think the the whatever incremental gain we can get out of our asks is is maybe where we need to be focused here because I mean you use the term uh was a foregone conclusion or something like that it's a done deal that's what you said yeah which is what it seems like and so you know unfortunately I think no matter how firmly we stand it it's not I don't think we'll be we'll be successful so I mean I do think it's helpful Ellen to think about the percentages in terms of you know years of unspent funds right like um and so raising that threshold makes we this could be really really harmful for all Pas well I looked for example like when you pulled up the cat 7 funds Loro was like 600% but it's because their allocation is seven s million they're probably banking that for one single project like it was they had 46 million Banks that's you know one large project for them probably and so it completely removes their ability to to do that and our ability and our ability as well I mean we're we have a little bit more wiggle room than them but not that much more um and I think that has to be the the selling point of our of our comment is that it's removing the flexibility of the smaller not the small npos but the smaller of the larger npos to to bank for projects so goad yeah I think I agree I think we should I feel like we should be against this but I don't think we should underestimate our voice I think I I do agree that we should say why we're against and then use public opinion uh to get out there to put pressure on the TTC uh we we can reach out to the governor and talk to the governor about why we're against this that this is you know a tactic that that TTC is using without our input and it's right at the end uh very condensed comment period we they know our npos meet monthly um almost it's like the fix is in but we can use our power and our voice to to tell them why we're against it not necessarily that and maybe they can change it uh if there's public opinion that's out there in the press and and and express our opposition and why we're why we're opposed to it yes I just had one one comment and really and and I agree with with what board is saying um uring that local control is is part of the conversation um the process is quite confusing um increasing the threshold I think would be good input but my my concern and my question is through this process if there's excess funds who makes that decision is it the commission or is it or is it that at the administration level and I think that those comments need to be included from from the board as far as what that process looks like um really for transparency purposes of moving forward so um I don't know how we're planning on doing this whether it's a comment or a letter whatever it may be but ensuring that the process um is clear for mpos if this is a done deal Ur what what that process is it the commission or is it the administration level as well so I think that Al So to that point I think it's pretty clear and and se you know we talked about it yesterday the the the proposed changes to the to the tax to the to the code specifically say that this process is not a major change so it doesn't have to go to the commission which means that the Tex that administration at the staff level they can make these decisions right following this this process so so that that part is clear so maybe that could be part of the comment in in understanding that this is an administrative decision by the by text out can we propose a method in which they would consider to re like a uh an application method that other districts could apply or could we perhaps suggest an enhancement to their rule to allow upos to participate in that selection process just like a a project call we have this much available please submit your com your project so could our could our comment also have some positivity to it about okay you're going to do this to us can we suggest an enhancement to your process so that everybody can participate and what where is it better the that it stays at the staff level or goes to the commission you know that's un concerned very political yeah that's what I'm saying so because I was going to say what right do they have to say that it's not a big a big change when we know it's a big change AIG then if it goes to commission we might not be that excited about it so yeah to me that that's also one of the the big questions you know it's like why is this a major change or not a major change right I mean you're talking some you know I mean the code already says that that the commission needs to formally uh amend the UTP whenever there's a major change right they don't do that they don't like to amend the the utps in the middle of the year but but they've done that right um but you know what is the the definition is there a threshold no but what they're saying is that whatever results out of this process is not a major change so so it doesn't have to go through the commission now I think the difference between the administration doing it and the commission is that at least there is more opportunity for comment right you know the commission makes a decision in as part of a public meeting and you know we have the chance to comment there's at least the perception of more transparency right point the staff might not yeah I mean the staff doesn't have to go and receive public comment or anything they somebody in in an office in Austin makes a change and that's it right so uh this slide I borrowed from the presentation that the Dallas Fort Worth no gave to their board and this was uh last week I believe so they say well these are three options right and you know we don't need I mean we may have different options right but I think this is this helps us right and I I like the language you know level one is pretty much you know they're going to do it anyways right but we need to be very very you know Vigilant and work really hard to never reach the 200% right or go over the 200% right um you know as part of the changes as I was saying before now the the district has also the under these proposed rules the authority to to approve seac projects well that goes to the relationship between that that each mpo has with their District right if you have a good relationship as we have today and we work together at the at the local level it's not not an issue but if there is a contentious relationship like think about five or six years ago here locally right it wasn't always uh very good um so so level one is nothing and just make sure that we never we never uh um you know exceed the 200% um what they call level two is well provide comments right um they Identify some fatal flaws that I'm not really sure they're fatal floss but uh but you know provide comments and and that's what you've been discussing we have been discussing here right now what what comments you know we don't like the the way that that you're doing it you know why the 200 if we feel that the 200% is is low uh maybe 300 you know um and and the fact that uh that these are not considered major changes I think that's a that's a big one may not be make a big difference in practice because they're going to do it anyways but but at least there's an opportunity for comment there's a little more transparency and and we as npos have an opportunity to you know at least formally in a public public meeting work with them right um their level three not sure what they what they meant confirm compliance but but this is also one question that that that that we have and and we we posted in a meeting at this you know with Federal Highway staff it's like were you aware of this because I mean this is federal money right these are you know it's part of the federal uh process you know the allocation of funds to different regions and and uh and and districts and so on but are you guys aware of this I mean is this okay with are they following the federal rules or loss by doing this I don't know but that's something that I think needs to be um you know ask right I mean I would be surprised if if uh the tech. uh um you know attorneys you know didn't check that right I mean I would be surprised but it's also something that that is of conc concern maybe it's not necessarily illegal or incorrect but does it follow the spirit of the of the trans Federal Transportation Planning process which is the three C's collaboration and and so on this doesn't look very collaborative in my opinion so I think I guess maybe if if you could I mean you've heard our comments and maybe if you could post but but you know our time frame is just so short that I'm concerned about because I was going to suggest that you put something together bring it back to us to see what what you heard and of course but I don't know if we have that opportunity right come back till after would it be appropriate and and I'm also looking you said here if you know in this meeting you give me guidance right and so like the the basic uh messages that this letter uh would would have and just drafted and send it over um withle of our chair with in terms of what you draft and then having uh our chair approve it just so we can meet the time I think we're in agreement uh the percentage the discretionary I mean there's certain things we spoke about so I think that would be sario from put this together yeah then from a procedural level set here is that the I'm sorry I mean this yes so the way the the motion is drafted it's drafted pretty broadly uh on purpose um and so I think the the proposal is to give you know direct approve give authority to the executive director to draft and prepare and submit a comment subject to the chair's approval um and and we we can make that small change here to the motion and and prove it as is and then clearly the executive director staff and myself you know whatever letter or comment does get generated will be based on the commentary and discussion here today still moved second okay those in favor passes item two agenda all right so then moving on to item number three consider authorizing the executive director to sign a letter of support for the op Paso County application to the United States Economic Development Administration fiscal year 2023 disaster grant for the design and construction phase of the Paso the nor PDN Trail project Mission Valley and we have George nataniel go ahead George good morning members of the board um I'm George Rees the assistant planner with County plan and development sorry Daniel couldn't make it today he's uh actually out of town he's on a plane as we speak I believe so I'll be covering for him today and so um we are requesting approval of this item to allow the executive director to provide a letter of support for our uh Grant package the US uh Department um US economic development Administration uh the funding will be used for the design and construction of the fishion valley PD and Trail segments uh okay going say on this slide please um the Mission Valley uh PDN Trail project is a um 1.6 mile multimodal uh hike and bike trail system along the County's historic Mission Trail on sakoto road and part of the B the nor Trail master plan we qualify for this uh project for the fiscal year 23 disaster Grant with the uh Eda because um back in 2021 there was actually a disaster declaration in the area due to a snowstorm and so we meet it on that level and we also me it on the um level that it provides a positive economic impact to the community because it enhances our historic Mission Trail uh this slide uh here we are showing the uh theel project as a whole and so um this Mission Trail project is going to be the uh part in the in the light blue I'm not too sure we can see it on there but it's the U not the southern part it's the the blue part in the middle and so um with this if we're successful in receiving the funding the county will be doing the portion from uh sakoto at the end of sakoto City Limits all the way to the selli chapel in the um in the in the Placita and so uh Tech start is actually also in the design phase continuing the project from that uh sanelli limit all the way to Clint and so next slide please and this is just showing the best possible alignment our our consultant came up with as you can see it be uh starting from I believe that's glor at the road up there in sakur all the way down I'll bring it down to the uh Chapel in San Lai next slide please and this is just uh uh what a typical section will look like through the trail that'll give you an idea of of what we are proposing next slide another example and as you can see there we're also including some of our uh uh Transit bus stops along this Trail which I'll get into in in a future slide next slide please we would just wanted to highlight some of the projects we are doing in the county uh in regards to the uh Trail this map shows uh phase one that's happening in fabin and phase three that's happening in torneo uh which are the the the bookends of the project those two are currently under uh fully funded and currently under designed as we speak and then hopefully within the next month we'll hear some good news from Tex out about our receiving funding for the uh middle portion in phase three and so next slide please and so um throughout the County's portion of the trail of including the mission Mission Valley one the one in Toro and the one in uh fabin we're incorporating we're adding a multimodal Improvement that benefits our Transit Riders uh so the um Mission Valley um uh project will also have one of our County bus stops as was shown in the in the renderings and this is what one looks like currently this is what the uh uh another tornos shared use path uh looks like we have the path with one of our transits uh bus stops next slide please and this is just a picture of one of our completed projects we have in Toro it's a Toro shared use path which is a 2.21 mile 12T uh uh shared use path that connects uh our Park interal and and it's highly utilized next slide please and we just added this one of the the pad drain to also show some of the improvements going on outside of the county inside of the city as in uh pertains to the uh pass the nor the trail and so um with that uh that's the end of my presentation I can take any comments if there's uh questions if there's any those in favor motion passes right thank you thank you all right item number four um consider adopting the proposed 2024 TP PB meeting schedule that would be for next uh calendar year is is there a reason it moves from the second I mean the third Friday the fourth Friday why it's never like always the third Friday or always yeah in in those cases uh it's because there is very little time between Tac and the TPB right so we you know it if I I remember exactly what months it is but when we were looking at it you know it would be like a tpv and Tac almost the yeah back to back not the same week but back to back well yeah we could but but you know teac always happens on on the first Wednesday of the month right so that's what we flipflop all over so some meetings I am already committed to that third Friday okay we can it's fine I mean I mean that's what it's proposed um I if anyone else noticed that or not what we can do is is adopt it because you know we also want make want to make sure that we have the the meeting rooms you know selected for for the dates whether it's here or we find some something else but um but if you know as we get closer to a meeting um you know we may have the possibility of moving it approve second all right so then moving on to reports and discussion uh item number five is a text. Statewide active Transportation plan and we have a Brent Crowder from kimley horn are you there I think you were muted sorry about that uh Brenton is not able to be on today U I'm Pete Kelly with kimy horn I'll be presenting on the Statewide active Transportation plan this morning I'll go ahead and share my screen [Music] all right can you let me know if those of you in the room are able to see the screen yes we can thank you okay so this presentation will provide information on the development of a Statewide active Transportation plan um before we provide the study details I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that every day for the last 22 years at least one person has died on Texas roadways and texto aims to reach a goal to end all fatalities on Texas roads by 2050 you're probably familiar with in 2019 the Texas Transportation Commission directed tetto to work towards a goal of reducing the number of deaths on Texas roadways by half by the year 2035 and to Zero by the year 2050 the vision of zero deaths on Texas roadways is based on the belief that everyone no matter how they travel should be able to arrive at their destination safely so achieving this goal will require Statewide investment in safe and safe infrastructure for non-motorized users and as well as non-infrastructure investment in education encouragement enforcement and evaluation so we have a part to play in ending the streak that includes taking our own actions to buckle up drive a speed limit or slower depending on Road conditions um plan a sober ride and put away all distractions and encourage others to do the same so techop plays an important role in considering active Transportation uh in design supporting local active Transportation projects uh improving connectivity and safety for all modes of transportation so during this meeting uh which is I'm virtual y'all are there in person text invites you to learn how the Statewide actor Transportation Planning process um to learn about the process and to share your vision for the future of Transportation through 2050 uh so this is to mainly actors an advertisement but begin getting feedback from stakeholders uh throughout the state uh so this presentation will provide an overview of why this plan is necessary how the plan will be develop how you how you can provide input on the on the process um and towards the end of the presentation I'll provide some instructions on how to submit comments um and input virtually so anyone who's interested uh we're weening to we're doing a tour around the state to the public stakeholders and to the noos so any anyone who's interested um there's multiple ways to participate in this first round of public meetings um we were there Brent crowler was there in the first week of October to present to the shareholders and the public on this plan um and we have 10 inperson public meetings throughout the state that'll be going through mid November and all those public meetings are being held from 4:30 to 6:30 pm um in the in the local time zone and all materials are available at the inperson meeting uh those will also be available at textop project web page uh which if you scan the QR code on the screen that'll take you to that project web page um and so we encourage you to visit the website to participate and provide your contact email as well so this is the first time that TCH do has ever undertaken a comprehensive Statewide actor Transportation plan this plan will provide infrastructure recommendations for improving conditions for bicycling walking rolling or other modes that are typically human powered non-motorized Transportation the plan may also include recommendations to better smaller electric powered micro Mobility options such as E Scooters and and ebikes and plan will inform decisions to help connect people to where they want to go whether they use after transportation for the whole trip or just a part of it such as a walk to the bus stop uh bike ride or work using wheelchair to meet daily needs it'll also establish priorities and policies through 2050 and prioritize prioritize improvements in places of highest need and performance measures to monitor progress will also be developed as part of this plan um since envisioning is the future is a crucial part of text's process um the Tex do and the consultant team work together with stakeholders to develop a vision statement for the Statewide plan um so the the vision statement is before you uh today that that statement is the Texas active Transportation plan is a collaborative effort to advance walking biking and rolling as viable options sort of safe accessible connected and fully integrated multimodal transportation system for all Texs the plan will support healthy economically vital and resilient communities with innovative solutions to increase active so just to give you an overview of where we are in the process and where we hope to end up uh we're currently in the early phases of plan development our plan team has been Gathering data uh from across the state we've been hosting meetings with internal and external stakeholders convening a steering committee and now hosting our first round of public meetings accompanied with meeting with the npos and stakeholders as well um so you'll notice throughout this process that Tex out will have public and stakeholder engagement opportunities uh we'll also be conducting multiple meetings with our steering committee and forming technical committee technical details to dig into issues such as Community needs and multimodal integration just to name a few after this first round of public meeting concludes our team is going to work to analyze all the feedback that we have gathered that's been provided uh by you and by the public and other stakeholders uh we also anticipate uh completing an existing conditions report this coming winter and then moving forward to the summer of 2024 that's when we plan to have a draft plan ready for review by public and stakeholders at a second round of public meetings all around the state again to do that um so at those meetings we'll just want to verify that there's General agreements and a level support for the plan it contents and just we'll just be asking those questions and more and then analyzing your input so uh our final step will be to adopt uh the plan by our steering committee and that'll be posted on Tech's website that'll be fall 2024 is the current Target so the future is uncertain we know that so our plan needs to consider a lot of factors that could affect transportation in the decades to come uh so according to work being done on tex. Statewide long range Transportation plan some possible scenarios we should consider during this planning process include the following so first uh we have 12 million more people coming to live and work in Texas by 2050 as of current projections so Texans will see more vehicles on our roads and potentially longer travel times as a result um so the demand for home delivery of goods can mean more trucks on our roadways and remote work Arrangements could impact future commuting patterns um second aging populations and younger Generations uh may want alternatives to driving third expanded after Transportation networks will improve mobility and connectivity options for Texans next emerging technology could improve safety therefore making after Transportation comfortable for more users um R communities and growing Suburban areas may result in the need for enhanced Mobility options to improve access to jobs goods and services um disruptions to Diversified Supply chains could require the need for more efficient and reliable movement of all modes of uh Freight such as water air on the road and by rail um so last and finally continued economic growth and shifts could place greater demands on future the future transportation system some of the reasons this plan is important so if you use any form of active transportation in the state this should be important to you um providing safe interconnected and well-maintained pedestrian bicycle and micromobility networks is essential for creating livable and sustainable communities uh improving residents quality of life and supporting the use of walking and biking as travel options after transportation choices can contribute to healthier residents reduce congestion and support economic we have a lot of stakeholders that we are we are working with um so tchat needs to consider all the parties involved and everyone impacted one of the purposes of this meeting is to is to engage this round of meetings rather is to engage the public and active Transportation users we'll also be meeting separately with nonprofit and advocacy groups um text that requires consideration for bicycle pedestrian accommodations on all construction and reconstruction projects uh pedestrian infrastructure like sidewalks curb ramps crosswalks are are a required consideration When developing infrastructure in the public RightWay in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act um So currently teot is also developing other planning documents in coordination with many of the stakeholders shown on the chart on the left so those efforts include uh select District bike PL plans that are going on a Statewide long range Transportation Plan update and a Statewide multimodal Transit plan so the active Transportation plan will be done in concert in coordination with those other plans so establishing goals and priorities are a key part of this planning process um texases established a list of priorities that are shown on the screen right now now um but what we're presenting the reason we're presenting to you today is we want to know what's what's the most important to you not normally in a fully iners um setting we would have boards and Exhibits set up um I went ahead and pasted the link to the online survey in the chat that you can access or if you scan the code earlier in the meeting um there's also a link for the survey on the project website or you can also just Google Texas Statewide after Transportation plan and and you'll find the website and you'll be able to go and fill out the survey on there but at this point I wanted to go ahead and open up uh discussion to ask if there are any particular priorities that you see on the screen that are important especially the El Paso M [Music] area are there any comments or or thoughts Pete what what we can do is you know we can circulate and or or redistribute again the presentation with the the code the link and all that and you all can can um you know submit comments or or do whatever because it this is really a you know something that that uh ideally is done in person with with a lot more time but I think that that you know we can we can do that if it's okay with you all sure works great yeah I think that work great and I encourage everyone to fill out the survey online that's what it's there for um that being said we did have a slide dedicated to a little bit more discussion um if you want to have that feel like that's that's important to have if not you could send that to us um to us and to Tex do um to kind of answer these questions um continue copy these slides but essentially four of the main things we really want to dig into and find out are number one are what are successful implementation projects that we should showcase and repeat so if you can think of this was a really good act of Transportation project whether that's for bicycles pedestrians or both and it's something that the community's proud of we would want to highlight that and figure out how to repeat that elsewhere not only throughout this in in your area but throughout the state um we also want to know where are some of the largest opportunities in your community to walk like get around a wheelchair um micro mobility and other we're interested to know maybe if you have an idea of what one act Transportation Network Improvement would have the biggest impact on your community whether that's a a project specifically or whether that's an educational campaign or or policy Solutions it it's pretty wide open there on that question and then the the last question is so what are the largest challenges that have prevented implementation of actor Transportation what are what are the either the physical barriers or or other constraints in the way of being able to to help people get where they need to go onized modes so if there any that do have comments we I'm happy to to take notes and and have that discussion if if you want to move forward I can provide a copy of this presentation so you can send a feedback after the meeting so as a reminder we have uh three ways to provide feedback we have the interactive map so you can actually go into on the website you can go into the map and click on uh specific geographical areas and make comments for specific needs um on State systems um you can also send a physical mail or email to Tex do uh and then you can also leave voicemail at the at the number on the screen so uh we just ask that all those comments are submitted by November 30th this year and thank you for your your time and the presentation today if there's there's any questions um for the I'm representing the consultant team that kimy horn if any questions sh us please let us know thank you all right thank you Pete thank you just let me say that with the AC of Transportation it's one of the areas where where the M will will put a little more not a little but more effort um I think historically you know we we haven't done a you know put sufficient resources to act transportation which is you know as you you heard it's the it's bike uh pedestrian facilities and making sure that uh that that makes you know becomes a more important part of our Network in general terms all right so moving on now to item number six is a New Mexico DOT carbon reduction strategy draft and we have an guant here presenting good morning chair and board members so I will be Pres presenting on this item uh New Mexico do sent us a presentation of their uh that that outlines their draft strategy uh this is uh completed to be in compliance with iig which requires states to submit a strategy like this uh by November um you saw Tech dots presented this past spring and so we're going to go over New Mexico if I could see [Music] so this slide explains uh what's being done and why uh so this is an iiga requirement to be completed by November 15 the strategy has been developed by the state of New Mexico uh and it's in draft form uh and within the strategy which is within the document that is in your backup uh it outlines how New Mexico will be complying or proposes to comply uh with the strategy required in the iiga uh which is listed in bullet form here next slide so these are the overall strategies that uh New Mexico proposes in order to meet this requirement they're going to be very similar to to what we had seen um so first of all they are proposing to reduce overall vehicle miles travel by enhancing uh facilities for other modes of transportation uh reducing the N the emission of vehicles on the roadway via uh actively encouraging uh not only alternate forms of transportation but also lower emission vehicles uh they also propos to uh reduce the emission of their dos operations and to uh explore and Implement uh carbon sequestration next [Music] slide so this is the overall organization of their strategy the draft that elaborates on all of these points is within the backup um so it goes over what they're doing and why it goes over uh what their uh existing data shows their Baseline is and then it discusses in detail each of the initiatives proposed on the previous slide um and then it ends with the process that we are this is this is a later stage of this process that they have undertaken in the preparation of this plan and um that's what I have to present and I'm happy to entertain any questions questions good you what and really meant is if you have any questions send them to Aaron all right um moving on to item number seven the RMS 2020 project status report and an will will present very quickly let before that let me just say that every month that we come and present these uh status reports this is one of the ways that uh that we keep track and May and inform the board of progress of of projects we do this we do the the quarterly uh report as well and um we had the lengthy discussion on item number two and these reports become routine they become very boring for you all because and boring is good because it means that everything is moving pretty much okay if you want an excitement well it's because a project uh is moving back and getting in trouble and all that which is obviously not something that that we don't want to do so with that ma' good morning again all right so if we could briefly show there so these are the projects that are in RMS 2020 that we are currently tracking map of them and then here's the report itself we don't have any uh any major new updates I think the last thing that we were informed would move outward was covered uh with the administrative Amendment moving uh noev wo tanks from 2024 to 2026 everything is pretty much but uh and again you know these are the the RMS 2020 projects that that were you know um approved by the policy board as priority back then um many of these have already been you know they're under construction some of them have been completed already and which is you know a good thing um many of of now that that uh we are also preparing the new tip a new Transportation Improvement program that would cover years 25 through 28 um many new projects are going to be coming up um you know we're toy with the idea of maybe updating the the RMS 2020 and call it I know the RMS 2024 25 whatever and uh but to make sure that the priority projects you know we're laser focused on making sure that these projects are are moving and um and so that you know we can spend the money so that we never get in trouble for for that you have any questions or thoughts thank you all right moving on to the last item the executive director's report um I have several topics here um nothing in specific other than on on the first one the international border crossings weit time again just to you know have wanted to have a little bit of a discussion on What's happen in the last month which is a lot uh we had we we started with the the bridge of the Americas CVP moving officers out of the bridge of the Americas to help process with um uh migrants having obviously a tremendous impact on on the movement of of trucks across the border um in addition to the state action of having DPS inspecting every single truck that created major major issues um so of course you know we we know the negative impacts of of that to to Commerce and trade and and so on right and I don't think it did very much in terms of of I don't think DPS found anything on on a truck not not a single migrant or or a single pill of whatever um it was just a come sort of aggressive in that uh he had gone from random and then did not discover anything and then goes to 100% % I guess one of the positive things is we were able to get it the first day we had 700 of trucks passed through torneo today which is probably more than in the history of torneo but the fact that we were able to to handle it um our observations just I mean I'm sure you know this but the observation was uh DPS taking their time um no urgency um you know walking back to the truck and you know having a smoke kind of thing and a lot of the news were recording that and so we know very aggressive kind of situation so the numbers now tornado have the numbers stayed up at tornado went down to 300 when the the inspection started and then now they're slowing down again about 200 200 so but we've never had that no that's good have a way going yeah so way it's good that they discovered Dono as as an option right you know what I keep hearing from from industry is that you know still is not their their preferred one because they they have to drive down cross and then go back up to to uh to El Paso or you know to do their transloading operations right but but I think the positive thing is that you know they they realize that it's a it's another option that's a good thing um the other comment regarding the state inspections oros as a question to you all is you know did they do any inspections in other than El Paso and Eagle Pass no um they were all focused on Eagle Pass and El Paso based according to Colonel McCraw DPS on migration flows and and migration numbers so to speak um in a hearing last week when he gave us a operational briefing I did ask how many migrants and how many how Contraband or drugs they collected from El Paso and the answer was none they don't look for that they look primarily for highway safety issues so truck lights tires uh that sort of thing and my question to him was so then why are we uh focusing on El Paso only for Highway Safety um isn't a duplicate of of what you know Federal Highway Safety and and US Customs and Border Protection provide and um no no clear answer there but I think we know what it is um I do think that we need to have better communication with Mexican officials um there was discussion about cooperation uh with other Governors and other states of Mexico um and very little communication with uh governor chihu um again I think that's also political uh on their side um but um I I had a conversation yesterday with our uh the consul and we're going to set up meetings to see if we can address that throughout this process I've been having Communications with business owners madas trucking companies uh we've had a lot of communication with the governor's office requesting that they go back to random that they've um you know tried to focus in in areas that uh that fall within their purview um you know as of this week they did stop those inspections um we did press the issue about the economy um but I imagine we will see more of this uh in the future so um I think we just need to continue to have those conversations um it was helpful to provide data to the governor's office on what that negative EC IC impact is on on the state of Texas and not just our region but um I think the more we can have conversations with the other side more information that we can arm ourselves in terms of how it negatively impacts economically I think um it's it's a harder decision for him I think one of the stunning stats that doesn't make sense is 47% of what crosses goes to Texas so the governor's you know limiting that cargo to to our state I could see you know the majority went somewhere else but uh that's a when I heard that statistic that is political that'll be yeah and and U but again the the importance of of the tools that we're developing and and we need to further develop uh to better understand how our our border crossings our our bridges and including Santa Teresa how they operate as a system is tremendously important um this taught us a lesson um again you know I'll keep it at that but uh but it's important for us to to to you know become a little more resilient and and and have a backup plan because again you know overnight it's the second time that that it happens that all of a sudden we get these these inspections U from the state and it creates you know chaos for for industry and you know the economic impact to to the state of Texas to us locally to Industry in general you know it's it's tremendous but but it's I think from from our end you know speaking you know for on behalf of Mo staff is you know we need to get a better understanding to develop more of a resiliency in in terms of our of our Crossings all right um moving on then to B which is a fiscal Year's uh 2025 2028 tip development update uh just briefly um as you know every two years we develop a new tip so we've been working with a staff of all the uh of our partners here with the the city the county the municipalities TCH do to put together the new tip and uh so we're we're working right now through the process um adding projects uh supplementing funding for existing projects projects and um you know as always you know there's more more need more projects and than money so we're we're going to start the process of U evaluating prioritizing and working with everybody to make sure that that you know we are fiscally constrained and um so we we hope according to the schedule and I don't remember that when we bring so we're bringing next month to you the the the draft list of projects the formal document will be will be prepared and and submitted for approval later on in the year but but obviously the the meat the key is you know the list of projects and and um and to ensure that that uh that we're fiscally constrained any comments or thoughts on that all right um item C the no office upgrades uh we're happy to say that we're almost done uh with with that uh the you know the physical work has been completed the moving walls and and the the result I think is is pretty nice we're using our space a lot you know better more efficiently than than we did before um as we speak they're mounting the monitors on the conference room so that's the final thing that uh that that we needed to to do hopefully we'll be able to host uh teac and executive committee meetings out there um fortunately the space most likely is not uh is not big enough to to hold tpv meetings but at least you know Tek and executive committee meetings will be done so as soon as we are done we'll we'll let you all know and hopefully you can come visit and and see the the new options all right and then finally d uh just to let you know that Harrison and I attended the ampo annual conference that's the the big uh no conferences this this year it was held in in in Cleveland uh good I mean great information uh great to see what other npos are doing we get some some ideas as always there are some uh sessions that are more interesting than others um we have our different preferences but uh but it was good it was really really good um these are obviously open to not not just to Mo uh people but uh uh hopefully next year we can plan a trip and and you know have more more um you know EK and tpv members attending the conferences so pretty good uh so with that that's that's all I have any questions or thoughts or writing shots all right thank you very much for