Yeah, >> there's some other things that are just curiously not. It's >> my first time in this. >> Just so you're aware. >> I was always used to going to the way the heck out there. >> Okay. >> It's kind of nice. >> Yeah, it's pretty good. Right now I noticed the columns here. See the scooper? I went ahead with your background that you're a little temp. You know, there's things that I see that sometimes you know should be real. get a lot done. So my favorite kind of [Music] >> I guess it just depends on Yeah. We all know where you put me. >> Just kidding. Yeah, they're just see the previous So like good demograph [Applause] Does that make sense? Can you uh proceed with a roll call? >> Yes. Uh good morning. Uh Harrison Ford, assistant director with El Paso NO and I'm going to go through roll call for this meeting of the transportation policy board beginning with chair Senator Cesar Blanco. Vice Chair, Mayor Javier Perea, >> Commissioner Jackie Butler, >> Mayor Rudy Cruz is uh I believe on virtually. Representative Chris Canales, >> Mayor Ramon Kano, >> Mayor Miguel Chakon, >> Representative Alejandra Chavez, >> Senator Joseph Cvantes, >> Erin Chavaria >> here, >> Anthony Daiser, >> Representative Art Fiero, >> present, >> Commissioner Gloria Gomez, Representative Mary Gonzalez, >> I Hernandez, >> Commissioner Iliano Hogin, >> Mayor Renard Johnson, Mayor Martine LMA, >> Dion Mack, >> Representative Joe Moody, Representative Eddie Morales, >> Mayor Danna Maria, Tony Navarez, >> Representative Claudia Ordas, >> Representative Vince Perez, >> Mayor Rachel Kintana, >> Mayor Andres Renteria, Judge Ricardo Sango, Representative Sarah Silva, and Thomas Trevino. So we have 16 members. So nobody leaves. >> All right. Quorum is established. Marisol, do we have any sign up for the comment? >> Yes, Mr. Rene Rodriguez for public comment. >> Um, do we want to wait for the item or do we want to go ahead and take >> It's a general. >> It's general. Okay. U Mr. Please, >> thank you for uh giving me this opportunity. Uh board members, um I used to be a board member and at that time, my name is Re Rodriguez. I sat with some of you here. Um the reason for me being here is because I put a project called the arterial one and Sakoro has been moving it around and my question is because I've been asked this question and I would like to know um is arterial one um had already um some initially there's um the first time it was presented it they already gave us a route that we needed to go to Sakoro took it upon themselves to say we don't want to do that. They did another study. What I want to know is could the city of Sakoro have they come to their census go back to the initial the very first one and go and approve that one? That's the only question I have because it's going to you're going to displace more people in the second one than the first one. So that's the only question I'm asking is if Sakora does vote in January, could they vote on the first one then the second? That's that's all I want. It's just a yes or a no. Thank you guys. >> Yeah, thank you for the comment. Um, we can't really discuss it at the board here, but we'll get with you after the meeting and we can discuss it or we can arrange a time separately when we can meet about it. >> Any other public comments? >> That's it. Okay, great. You can go and start with the agenda. >> All right. Um, so before we get started with the uh items, we do have one change to the agenda that we'd like the board to consider. This would be to delete items 2B, 2 C, and 2 D. We have a motion to approve. Motion to approve. We have a second. Uh all in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> All right. Thank you. So, we'll move on to item one, discussion and action to consider approval of the minutes of the September 19th, 2025 TPB meeting and the minutes should have been in your backup. Um, so if there are any changes, please let us know. >> Move to approve. >> Second. We have a motion to approve. We have a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item two, discussion and action to consider approval of an amendment to the amended regional mobility strategy 2050 metropolitan transportation plan and the RMS 2025 through 2028 transportation improvement program to a just a amend the Horizon City Sakoro bus circulator project to reduce CMAC funds from 923,8 784 to zero. and add the same amount of carbon reduction program funds for an unchanged total project cost of 923,784 in fiscal year 2026. And we have uh Andreas who will give a short presentation. >> Hi, good morning board members. My name is Andres Lucero. I'm a transportation analyst here at the MO. As Harrison mentioned, um today's amendment is going to be for the Horizon City Saporo bus circulator. Um we're going to be um just to give you a little background information. As you all heard in the trainings about our uh transportation improvement program which is our tip which is our four-year fiscally constrained plan and about our MTP also about our state transportation improvement program known as the STIP. So whenever we do a change on the tip we also do it on the STIP. So this item is to approve the amendment for the Horizon City Sakora bus circulator project in the MTP on the tip so we can include it in the November 2025 Texas Dip revision. And then as as Harrison also mentioned pretty much we're just replacing $923,784 [Music] in CMAC funds and putting them with CRP funds and the total project cost remains the same. During our TAC meeting on October 1st, 2025, TAC approved the Horizon City bus circulator project so it can be amended. >> That's it. >> That great members, any questions? >> Representative Med. So, so last month we also uh I guess there was the overp programming so we changed funds from CAMAC as well and so this is an additional um is there still that with the 25% reduction in CMAC um do you guys still anticipate that we need to transfer over more funds um from CMAC or is this it or where do we stand on that? So this is the other items that we deleted are also uh changes in funding because of the reduction in the CMAC funds. So there's other projects that uh need to be updated. Um what we brought to the board in uh August was kind of the full list of changes that needed to happen to account for that reduction in CMAC. Um so at that time the board kind of approved the strategy. Um and we're coming back with the individual items for their specific amendment authority now. >> So the total cuts I guess is roughly like 12 million or what's the amount that has to be? And I don't know the dollar amount off the top of my head, but the uh initial year CAMAC reduction is about 25% of our CMAC funding. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions? Chair move to approve. We have a motion to approve. We have Do we have second? >> We have a second. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Let the record show represent Gonzalez is present. All right. Item three is discussion and action to authorize the executive director to execute task order number eight with the University of Texas at El Paso for services related to multi-pollutant air quality assessment for an amount not to exceed $36,94. Uh so this is a uh in ways a continuation of work that uh the MO has been doing with uh UTP using uh TCEQ writer 7 funding uh to do research on air quality emissions in the region. Um this is also a new uh element of the same kind of work. So, we are hoping that we can get started with this task order um right at the beginning of November. Uh which is why we have it on the agenda today. Um the project will go longer than the funding that we're adding right now. So, we're going to come back uh early next year with an update. And the reason for that is because our new writer 7 funding we cannot start using until the new year, but we want to get the project started as soon as possible. So, uh that's why the the dollar amount that's on there now is the dollar amount that we're showing. Uh we have uh Dr. Ibata here who can give a short presentation on the uh details of the actual project. Good morning everyone. Uh I feel privileged to come here and address all of you. Uh I'm Dr. Ivara Mah. I'm presenting UTEP and the center for transportation and infrastructure systems. So basically what I want to uh convey to you the message is the need to complete uh this project uh in doing what we call a seasonal characterization. And why is this important? So you can I just slide please. >> May I ask you to just speak into the mic? >> Yes, of course. Uh is that better? Okay, perfect. Can we have the next slide? This is going to be very quick. So this is basically you know uh the need to complete one year of uh of measuring and monitoring the air quality at the ports of entry in uh in Bridge of the Americas and Santa Teresa. And we're looking at the exposure for particulate matter in the and both pedestrians and the the occupationally exposed personnel at the bridges of those ports of entry. Uh and the the importance that we have is that we don't have a one-year completion and that is very important to establish the seasonality and and this seasonality is very important especially in the winter months. Next slide please. So how do we how do we execute? Well, the the plans that we are doing here to execute is just to continue monitoring for the uh for the next uh for the next months. Then we will develop uh more uh modeling right modeling taken into account the seasonality of the events and not only just considering spring, summer and fall but also the winter. are uh at the end you will uh we will deliver complete full models workable models that can be used for policy uh that make taking policy decisions and the timeline is very simple is we start in November 1st and we will deliver by March 31st the next slide please why will this succeed but this is very simple we've been doing this our method has been proven we have shown that we can deliver and we have everything on place we're not uh trying to come up with anything We have everything all the methodologies established. What we need is just more data to build a more robust model. Next please. So decision before you is basically to make an investment investment in a in a project that will deliver a a quality information that will allow you to make decisions about you know uh emissions and uh related to slow moving traffic at the ports of entry. It's very simple right next slide please. So uh what do we can do this? Well, we know that we are committed to deliver. We already have proven that we can deliver. The timeline is very simple. Uh starting November 1st and ending on March 31st. In the meanwhile, we are actually do are planning to come up with uh well, we already have come up with another plan uh to supplement the the current research that we're doing. uh the project is already the team that has been established and the NPO has already worked with uh UTEP and with the uh uh CTIS and uh what we are basically telling is that if you have any questions uh for me I'll be gladly uh gladly address them. Uh it is it is a project that most of the funding is going to fund students. We have been deol developing a workforce. Warfix has already developed. We need need to start from scratch and everything is running smoothly. So this is just to probably keep momentum so we can finish looking at exposure to personnel and pedestrian and and of course we're going to deliver recommendations to mitigate I mean we not can probably not completely eliminate but how to mitigate it. >> Thank you chairman. If I read it correctly, the the stud is going to be limited to Bodha and I think to Santa Teresa, right? >> Yes, sir. At this moment, yes. >> And and how long how long does the study valid for? I mean, how long do we use is it how long is the is the study valid for that? We use the baseline that you all uh provide the deliverables. >> Well, the the validity of the data is well, we're going to collect for one year, but validity of the model, right, that we're going to deliver is it's it's a prediction model. So we can use it for for future years of course depending that the conditions more or less do not change much. >> And just my my question is probably more for for no staff. I mean with the changes uh to BOD and and the with the pedestrian traffic and the increased traffic at the port I guess I mean what's the rationale for studying BOD versus the Atleta port of entry because there's so many changes happening at that port. I mean it just it would just seem like that would be a more logical baseline for for air quality purposes rather than BOD. Uh this is this is the the first baseline. Our next step is actually to uh increase uh to other ports of entry >> and and so that would be like like next year or was that >> in in theory if we are successful? Yes. >> And and I guess how do you all account for the changes that are going to happen to VOD? I mean if there if there's going to be a fundamental change where there's not going to be any more truck traffic. >> Well uh well we're not measuring truck traffic. This is just air quality. air quality and but the other thing that I probably forgot to mention is we are taking on uh uh uh weather parameters right increased dust storms increased temperatures all those kinds of things so all this fits into the model >> thanks questions >> thank you Dr. Mr. Chair, I move to approve. >> We have a motion to approve. We have a second. All in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Item four, discussion and action to authorize the executive director to execute task order number two with HDR Engineering Incorporated for services related to the border highway connector phase 2 traffic impact and improvements feasibility study for an amount not to exceed 1,15,66127. So that's a big number obviously. Um, we set aside uh $2 million or program $2 million for uh the project uh in total. This uh task order is going to encompass a lot of the public outreach, a lot of the stakeholder outreach, um the data collection and uh existing conditions report. Um so the bulk of the front end of the project uh activities Any questions? >> You have a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion to approve. We have a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Item number five, discussion and action to consider approval of amendments to the EPMO bylaws. Um so we last amended the bylaws in May of 2024. Um, uh, you know, we we try not to go in and amend them too often if we can help it, but uh, every now and then it's good to take a look and, uh, uh, check and see if anything needs to change. One of the uh aspects that kind of spurred us to look at the uh bylaws this time was the composition of the board and the fact that we've had some difficulty this year in uh reaching quorum to actually hold meetings which uh you know obviously is a big concern for us. If we can't have a quorum then we can't get necessary business completed. Um so that was kind of the origin point. Um we're addressing that a little bit with these proposed changes. Um and then there were there are a few other things that we're proposing as well. So there is um a presentation. Give me just one motion. >> Yes, we need the presentation. Did she get through? >> So, the presentation will um essentially reproduce the bullet points that were on the summary sheet uh explaining the the changes um if you want to take a look at that while the presentation is coming up. But uh as I said, there are proposed changes to the composition of the transportation policy board, namely to uh remove the two uh state elected officials on the New Mexico side from the board. Um and to add South Central Regional Transit District uh as a board member. So that would reduce the board size from 30 to 29 and therefore reduce the quorum requirement from 16 to 15. So that helps us a little bit as little as as possible but even one reduction is better than than none. Um >> let's uh >> I'm sorry you finished with the attendance not the attendance but the uh membership. So the the other uh change related to the TPB, it's not a change to the board exactly, but we are adding language uh essentially inviting a representative from Soduades um from the uh the city government to attend board meetings as a non voting non-member. So essentially it's just a formal invite for them to attend on a regular basis. Has no effect on quorum or uh voting weight or anything like that. And we're proposing the same uh uh a similar position for the TAC but at a staff level um with Gonzalez. >> Thanks Senator. Did you talk to the New Mexico people just to make sure they're okay with this? >> Yes. um >> made significant outreach. Um >> I mean I'm not I'm not I'm not but I'm just curious like I would hate to like find out. Hey, you know >> you're right. Um it's something that uh NO staff has attempted to do um in the 11 years that that >> they've not been responsive >> responses. No, they haven't attended meetings. Um and so it just uh it makes sense to to move forward to decrease this is one of the largest NPOs in the state. Um so we want to make sure that we're being able to make form is important obviously to uh based on our training today. So to answer your question, yes, we've done the outreach. >> Thank you. >> Um let's jump forward to the next slide. Okay, so those are the the changes to the TPB membership that I already mentioned. So next slide. Uh this is regarding the TAC membership. Um we are proposing to add uh El Paso Area Transportation Services, the LGC, as a member to the TAC. So that will increase the membership there from 17 to 18. That also increases our quorum. Um but uh we don't think that's going to be an issue. We hope it's not going to be an issue. Um and it's uh it's important that they're included um in the at the technical level uh as well. Um and there's also uh you see here the reference to the non- voting non-member representative from so staff level uh from Suades. Next slide. And so these are the other amendments read here got glare over there. Um so the other major change it's not a major change but uh we are in a situation where the board membership as it stands currently uh can and uh often has for the last few months created a double quorum where there's a quorum of the county commissioner's court at TPB meetings. Um we've been handling that through uh basically additional announcements at the beginning of the TPB meetings um stating that uh this is also a county commissioner's court meeting but no action will be taken. There are no items on the agenda. Um so that hasn't been a problem. Uh the there was a concern brought up by uh uh our legal council about how we can functionally go into a executive session as a board when there's a quorum of another board um that is not privy to the uh the matters being discussed in the close session for the TPB. So we are adding language um about how to handle that situation um which essentially amounts to the whatever entity is creating that secondary quorum uh will need to not have a quorum in the closed session for the TPB. So, one member needs to leave the meeting, not be part of the closed session. And the uh amendments as um written up right now have that uh member not being part of the close session being determined by drawing lots. Essentially, we put everybody's name into a hat and pull out one who's not going to participate. And we would do that every time we went into a closed session. >> To be clear, not everyone's name, just the three members of the Yes. Mr. Chair, >> if I could just add a little bit to that. So, the reason everyone has this sheet is just um a request that the county is making that instead of doing it by lot uh where the names would just be picked out of a hat to allow the three of us to decide which two should participate. So, for example, if an item is going to be discussed that is in Commissioner Butler's precinct, then she should obviously be allowed to participate and not have to do the law. If for some reason we can't come to an agreement amongst ourselves, then we would do the law process. But that's what that's what this proposed language is on this sheet that everybody has just basically letting us the three of us determine which two of us should participate. Um yeah, the challenge with that commissioner is that um part of the language that is in what you propose is that the individual commissioner that repres that was in executive session prior to that be the uh the individual that's in the next executive session if that issue comes up again. >> Yes. >> What happens in the case of that commissioner is not present. >> Oh well then there isn't a forum issue. So then the other two could still be >> it's written in the bylaw specifically that that one commissioner remain on that the other >> maybe we just have to explain that a little bit better that specific situation >> that would yeah we would need the county attorney's office to clarify that um in writing. Um, in addition to that, um, it the challenge we're also having is that, um, Commissioner Butler's appointment is an appointment not necessarily representing the county, but the, um, the transit authority. Um, what we don't want to um, happen is that that individual, Commissioner Bud specifically, who's there here representing that LGC is not excluded from executive session. So, she has a right to to serve on executive session. So, then it comes to two people. Um, that would be you and and and and Judge Sango. >> So, this would basically allow the three of us to make that decision. >> Sure. Um, >> and if there is an an agreement, then it would be the whole system. >> We're happy to consider it. um I think in in the next one, but I think what we have before us currently is is the language that that we've >> So, there is one um aspect of the the county's proposed changes that um I want you all to consider, which is um that method puts a lot of uh um power in the that particular constituency just from the standoint point of uh um the potential for disrupting or holding up the meeting. I don't think that's going to be a problem with the individuals who uh would be making that deciding amongst themselves now. But when we change the bylaws, we have to think about any situation in the future when that might come up. we might be in a situation where uh there isn't a chord between the various members of that other uh the entity that is creating the other forum. Um and is that going to be disruptive to the TPB's meetings? Um it's just something that is a consideration that we have to think of. repres. >> Thank you, Senator. I think in changing bylaws, our goal should always be what is the best governance model. So, what is going to help us arrive at the best decisions for the people? And so, what I hear from the county is that there might be people who have the best information and they would be the best insight into that decision. I hear what you're saying, but if I'm, you know, I'm I'm Switzerland and I think what how is the best decision going to be decided? I think letting whatever entity has the quorum and right now it is the county but like you said it could be another scenario later letting the people who have the information the best information be at the table and so um I hear what you're saying I I guess my question is is there a sense of urgency to pass these bylaws this meeting or can we table it look at whatever you're asking for I think that's fair and come back next meeting and then do it >> challenge with that is that uh it is it could potentially hold. I'll give you an example. Uh the judge is not able to be here today because the county was uh not able to post today's agenda on time. Uh therefore, the judge has to be here. Um the judge expressed that he also has a voice on the NO and has should have the ability to be here uh also enter an executive session. So logistically um it's impeding our ability to move forward um which is a a unlike what most NPOS's do in the state and our concern is that if we add this second layer of quorum and we end up having to go into executive session and that executive session has added barriers that's under the control of a third party uh government that doesn't allow us to go into executive session that impedes our ability to to >> I'm not disagreeing that we should do bylaw changes. I I don't disagree with you. I think we're all in agreement we want to do bylaw changes. We agree with that. I think the question is what do those bylaw changes look like that create the best outcomes for the the region and if there's not like a jud a sense of urgency for it to be done this minute. >> There is there is a sense of urgency. Um and and we we've been working on this since August. Um we've been very accommodating um with the county. Um we've been working on this specific issue in in terms of process. Our general counsel offered this um as a as a solution. The county has had the county attorney's office has had ample time to review it several months. Um uh we came up with the lot uh process about a month ago. Um the county has had ample time. We received new edits yesterday uh in the evening uh presented today and that's why it's in in front of you because I we want to be transparent but the as the county is asking for more um uh uh more in part of the process here as you can see than was originally intended. Um so our concern is that if we're not able to come to an agreement that this body moves forward um with the idea that we have a responsibility federally and and and with state dollars as well. Um if we can't move forward then we're impeding our process. So, and just to add, um, the the urgency is the the executive going into executive session. And if we have both county commissioners and the judge here for our meeting, then we can't go into an executive session unless one of them leaves. So, we really need to have a process for determining how that works. >> We all agree with that. We're just asking for the opportunity to make that decision amongst ourselves first. If we can't come to an agreement, then it would be this this other process, the law process. But I guess I don't see how giving us that opportunity to make that decision amongst ourselves first is going to impede us from going into executive. >> And I u and I and I agree commissioner that the challenge is that right now you all may agree what what happens to the MO if the commissioners do not agree. >> Then it's the law process. So we're not suggesting replacing it with the law process. We're suggesting giving this the opportunity first before we move on to the >> Deborah is on. >> Yeah, just for this general counsel. >> Yes. >> Hi everyone. Um let me just jump in and and I'll say that um you know we've been we've had you know Senator Blanco said we've had extensive discussions with the county and those have been you know quite amicable to try to come up with a solution that will work and understanding all the concerns that have been expressed here I think the MO can live with the county's last draft except we have to stick in at least one word to that the this process of conferring by the county commissioners happens right away. In other words, if we put in the word immediately as a modifier. So, it says if the nonTPB quorum, so that would be in our current situation, the county commissioners, three members that are present. If the non-TPB quorum is unable to reach consensus immediately on which number will leave the TPB meeting, the decision will be made via the lot. I think and I and I think that the county attorneys are okay with that, you know, a time limit. And so I think that means basically y'all will understand what the issue is. You'll look at each other, figure out of, you know, who is going to step out of the meeting. Um, and that way there's not a um, and I understand the county attorneys is okay with that issue. I'm getting no issue from them um, being communicated to me. So, I think that would allow the MO not to be impeded where maybe there's just a debate and hey, we want to talk about this. Gee, guys, should you go in? Should I go in? And then the MO is sort of not able to function. If we have this immediately yelled to pick and then we can smoothly go into executive session, then I think we can live with this last round of changes from the county to which is which are just some kind of minor edits to address exactly commissioner what you just said. Let give us an opportunity to select amongst ourselves so that we can prioritize the matters that are most important to our constituents. Um so that's that I wanted to just share that with that change to the selected language I think the MO can live with this last edit. >> Uh Deborah regarding the termination standardization where it says um nonTPB quorum um that is new language that is introduced into the bylaws. Um is there a problem with that language? No, I I think that that is fine. I think what that is just trying to do is accommodate if it were to ever happen that any other like the city council for instance would constitute a quorum or any other entity. So that's you know it's it's it's not just limiting it to the potential for the county commissioners. It could on our current facts for instance just talk about county commissioners, county commissioners, you know, um but it's it's trying to be a little broader and just contemplate a future situation where there could be form of some other entity you know that is meeting as part of our uh MO at the same time. >> Uh Commissioner did you have any other questions? >> Um actually to your point that you made Senator about what happens if the one of the uh members of commissioner's court who was present and it's not present again. So maybe that would be fixed if we remove in the last sentence the word only. We remove that so that it just says the members of the TP who are allowed to attend blah blah blah shall be allowed to attend future executive sessions on the same matter except if if one is not present something like that just just to to your point that you >> okay uh Deborah did you get that >> yeah I think that's fine I I I think that the way that you had suggested it before commissioner was that um if they weren't present for instance if only two out of three came and it was only one of the two that were present were in the last one that there wouldn't be a core issue in the first place. That's true, but this language is directing who would be attending. So I think that that fix probably probably addresses it alto together. So in the event the TPB enters executive session on the same matter for multiple meetings, only the members of the TPB who were first allowed to enter shall be allowed. And so instead it would say the members of the CPD who were first allowed shall be allowed to enter on this matter. Um, I suppose it would be worthwhile to say in the event the TP ent executive session on the same matter from multiple meetings, the members of the TPB who were first allowed to enter on that same matter shall be allowed along with other members of the nonTPB quorum. So long as >> we're not we're not quite I think I don't think that's quite gonna do it. I think we need to tweak it a little further. >> Okay. I I think I think here's what I'll ask. I think we need the county attorney's office to be more responsive um quicker so that we can so we can address this u potentially in the next mo. Um, so I want that to be clear that we need that responsiveness from the county attorney's office uh with ample time to to to to provide that information. Um, so >> well, and might I suggest that this change is not a problem for the next meeting. So, um, that's for subsequent meetings, right? So we could even strike this last sentence all together and have next meeting finalized language for just this last week dealing with subsequent TPB meetings. If we struck that last sentence right now, this would >> provide protection for us at our next TPB meeting >> and we could add in language to deal with, okay, what happens if we go in on a second one because there's a there is a concern that needs to be addressed, but the commissioner's now raised another issue. What if different people show up? >> Okay. Well, um so that's on the table. uh this more immediate change to to to ensure that this doesn't affect us in the next uh session. But for the for the rest, I think we could come up with with more information. Uh represent Gades. >> Thank you. Uh we we may need some help from Mr. on this one as well. Um it's on that last sentence as well. If uh someone has participated in executive session in a prior meeting um that that group of two that is allowed in executive session that is already established and then one of those folks is not present. It's a day like today where we're at an exact quorum in the meeting. Are we then facing an issue where we have less than a quorum of the TPB in executive session? question. >> Yeah, that I mean that could happen. >> Well, isn't that what we're trying to resolve by allowing that third member who wasn't pre present previously to step in since there won't be a forum issue? I mean, that's exactly what we're trying to resolve with this last sentence. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's exactly why, right? So, we don't want it to just if one of the members who was previously present can't attend, we don't want it to affect quorum. So if the third member who wasn't previously able to attend can now attend, they kind of step in for the other. >> Okay. >> Well, and one way to fix that would be to say unless there would not be a quorum of the MO. >> I don't think it should just be limited to only if there's no quorum. I mean, even if there is a quorum, why wouldn't a third member be able to attend if there's only one other member in the meeting? If there isn't a quorum issue. Okay. Well, then it could say um and there is and there is and there are only two members of the nonTPB or and there is not a member of the nonTPB quorum present then. >> Move to table this item. >> Sorry, I still have more more comments. Um, and then if we're going to be talking about a time limit, I'd rather instead of immediately say something specific, um, whether that's 30 seconds or 60 seconds, uh, I just I worry about then a dispute about what immediately means. >> Absolutely. >> They're trying to work it out. They can have a reasonable amount of time and I think, you know, the the chair can probably then make the decision afterwards. you know, if the time has elapsed, then we'll draw lots. Um, >> and that's within a reasonable amount of time to be determined by the chair. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> And then the last thing is just I I don't know if we are adopting or not adopting anything today. I think you're moving the table, but >> table the item. >> Just to clarify, there's a there's a cut off sentence. I think it didn't all get copied in the suggested revisions. It just there's a there's a sentence that ends which may include without saying what it includes. >> What page is it? >> Uh, well, no, on the handout. Okay. >> Yeah, about twothirds of the way down on the suggested revisions from the county. I think it just didn't get copied. It's the the top one says which may include writing the names of each of the members and on and on, but the the second one doesn't. If we can correct that in the drafting before we look to adopt anything in a month. >> You got that Deborah, right? >> Great. Thank you. Um, anything else? Repres. >> Thank you, represent Bettis. >> Mr. Chairman, I mean, if I could be frank, I think, you know, this discussion is an example. It's just that this really complicates an already very complicated board. Um, I don't believe that there should be any other member agency that should be allowed to make a quorum of their governmental meeting. Um, it it raises all kinds of problems and I would strongly hope that we take this to a vote or have the MO at least consider this at the next meeting if this is tableds. But one I mean I think what what's example look look what's happened today is that this is going has the potential to create further quorum issues and that was the whole point of the bylaw change was to make it easier for the no to to make quorum but now we're going to be dependent on another governmental agency posting and and if they don't then we're going to have absences that's already going to make quorum more complicated. The other problem it raises is that because we're having two governmental bodies in in here, any member of commissioner's court then has a right to come in here and be a part of this meeting. They can't the county attorney can't deny uh attendance to any of the other members of commissioner's court. So you could potentially have the entire body of of commissioner's court here, which I also think is problematic. Then also there's nothing then stopping the city of El Paso from doing the same thing. So you can have a member of city council being the the transit representative or the capital improvements representative or uh the airport representative. Um so so this has I think the potential to create all kinds of problems. I think we do need to take it to a vote. Um you know prohibiting any member agency from from having a quorum and being sure they appoint other representatives so that it doesn't uh inhibit us from from making quorum having these issues with executive session. These are exactly the issues we're trying to resolve. Um and it's creating all other kinds of issues. So, I I hope we take that to a vote because it's we need to to to simplify this and and in all my time here, you know, we we've we've never had this as an issue. Um it's it's just never risen. But I think it's it's it's a slippery slope or other entities like the city in particular could could do the same thing. So, I think we really need to consider that next meeting. >> Thank you. Uh uh represent Chaveis. >> No. Yeah. I was Thank you, Chairman. Um, I was going to make the comment that um, this on the-fly policy bylaw making is probably not the best way to move forward and uh, we should just >> table it like you suggested. Um, so I second that to make sure that we are keeping in mind everybody's um, point of view and uh, be more intentional and mindful of of what we're trying to move forward. >> Sure. And and just to be clear, uh um it's not fly by we've been working with the county for several months on this and and quite frankly the NPO has been been extremely accommodating to the county. Um we've been very flexible for the county to receive these changes last night. uh um I think demonstrates that uh there's got to be as our NO training expressed this morning intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. I think we need a little more coordination and cooperation from from the county attorney's office. Um and and we've had these conversations I've had individual conversations with members of the commissioner's court and judges and they've been uh very productive. So, so, so credit to the commissioner's court uh on that as well. Um, any other comments or but thank you. >> No, I think there's a lot to consider that we've discussed today >> and I agree. I don't think you know uh going over having our attorneys try to make all these amendments right now as we go uh is is is complicating it. Commissioner Butler. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Chairman, thank you very much for your patience and cooperation. Um, I just wanted to address a couple of of things. One, our county attorney's office is constrained by the commissioner's court meeting agenda. So, when we received these bylaw changes last Tuesday, our next meeting wasn't posted until yesterday. And so, they by law had to wait until we met in commissioner's court to discuss. So, I want to make sure that that we understand the the timelines that they're constrained under and and so I apologize for for getting these revisions late, but that was the only opportunity we had to meet and discuss. >> Sure. I think that um points to Representative Bettis's concern about all the third party government requirements that impede our federal and state requirements to allocate these federal and state funds to projects. Um it really really complicates it. Um, and we're we're here because the county transit authority appointed a an elected commissioner. Um, which u creates this quorum situation. Um, and that's that was the the position of the transit authority. That's that's that's their decision. We'll respect that. Um, moving forward, I think this demonstrates how complicated that that gets. Um, so, um, I appreciate that and thank you for for explaining that. >> I I like I like to, um, think about this as growing pains. Um, which is a good thing. I think, um, our our transit system, as you'll hear later this morning, is um is becoming self-sufficient and and and rolling out of the county. And so that's that's really the reason why I'm here and the reason why we're having this discussion today. Um uh but I also think um you know just just just to be clear uh the the county attorney's office didn't fail to post a quorum. We were trying to we're we're we're learning too, right? We're trying to make as many accommodations as possible. The judge wasn't supposed to be here this morning. He had a conflict. Um, and so that's why the quorum wasn't posted because there were only two of us that were going to be here. Um, and so moving forward, we've already, you know, discussed that we'll post a quorum no matter who's going to be here or who won't be here to avoid this situation with the judge. Again, I think this is all um we can resolve all of these issues if we just talk and and understand that our purpose is to represent the region, right? The the training also said that it doesn't we're not limited by who can be here, who has a seat at the table. As long as we can resolve these minor issues, I think we'll be okay. And we all understand um you know the the um the difficulties of working within a government system. Um and and I think we're all on the same page that we want to make. >> Sure. Sure. just to note just Deborah if I may um just um I think and and I don't disagree with with a lot you're saying the challenge that we're facing and and and to note um in about a year from now the LGC will be its own entity uh reducing the number of elected commissioner uh members of the members of the commissioner's court that seat is belongs to that county transit author authority under federal regulations. Um, at that point, the county commissioner's court did not have a third seat on the commission on the MO. Uh, not according to our bylaws. Um, so I want this body to note that in the future if there is a move to add a third elected seat on the county, we're going to have to revisit this situation again and this these scenarios and and figure that out. But as it stands right now, you represent the transit authority in a year from now that that that will change. Um, that it could change. It could change depending on what who the transit authority decides to to appoint, but um it it's it's it's been complicated. >> Repres Gonzalez, >> um I want to stay start with the statement I said in the very beginning. I think bylaws are the structure for good governance and I really I really appreciate what you said, Commissioner Butler. I don't think having conversations about navigating changes is negative. I think that's a positive. And so for people who are saying like, "Oh, it's so complicated now." I think our job as elected officials is to address kind of these things complications and how is the best representation at the table? And so I'm really I'm really glad that we're having this conversation. I'm glad that we're doing it and we're having a process. I also very much believe in democracy and I think all of us do. That's why we're sitting here. And so if an entity chooses a person, I don't think it's my place to say entity no, you can't have that person. I think I think that's the way this works. And so I wouldn't begrudge the city of El Paso. I wouldn't tell the city the town of Selli to do what that they are independent entities and then have these seats at the table. And so I want to respect democracy in the process and then figure out how to make this work in the best way um for the people. And so I really I just want to um say I'm appreciative of the conversation um like Rep. Chavez said and I don't think this is a negative. I think this is actually a positive and I think our bylaws will be stronger for the future by having these incorporations. >> Sure. I I don't think anyone has expressed that this is a negative process. Um okay. Um anybody else? >> I just wanted to say that you know I appreciate the county attorneys um you know working through it. I think it is hard admittedly to contemplate all the variables when you're having another entity also convening in the context of the MBO and that very situation has been as has been expressed makes it complicated and makes us have to think through a lot of complicated iterations of attendance. And so that's just the situation. But we'll um work with the county attorneys as we have going forward to iron out some more of those iterations and account for them and hopefully get you all back something um as soon as possible uh on the bylaws so that we can adopt them at the very next meeting. And I appreciate everybody's patience with all this. >> We have a motion on the table to uh motion to table. Is there a second? >> Second. >> I had a second. >> Second. Uh, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion passes. >> Okay. Item six, discussion and action to consider approval of the calendar year 2026 transportation policy board meeting schedule. Um, so the schedule, the proposed dates were in the backup. Uh we did put an eye on all of the holidays and uh spring break and Easter and all the things that tend to create problems for us if we if we don't pay attention to them. So we tried to work around all of those. Um, uh, just a reminder that typically the TPB meetings are scheduled for the Friday after the executive committee meets, which is the Friday uh, one week later than when the TAC meets. There's no easy way of explaining it. Usually that falls on the third Friday of the month, but not always. It depends on uh when the month begins. So these are the dates uh and uh we would like to uh get them set in stone so that we can make the request to the city to reserve the dates and get the agreement going for this space for next year. >> Move to approve to approve. We have a second. All in favor say I. >> Any opposed passes. >> All right. We'll move on to reports and discussion. Item seven, presentation on El Paso Transportation Authority Services and status update. And online we have uh the director John Ando. >> Go ahead, John. >> Oh, Mr. Chair, if I if I could just um introduce Mr. Ando, just say a few words. >> Sure. >> Um so so thank you. Thank you um to the board for allowing ETA to come in and and and provide updates about what ETA has been doing over the last year. Um I know you received a presentation from Mr. Bales um last year at some point and um we've been incredibly busy at ETA and really um kicked ETA into overdrive in in June when we hired Mr. Ando. Um he brings you know 25 years of experience working with transit systems of every size across the country and especially now when we're in a period of transition at the county and with ETA we're really really um lucky to have him here. Um over the last few months he's really um streamlined a lot of administrative processes within ETA as we prepare to roll out of the county. um but he's also worked externally with our partners here at the table to make sure that everybody's included in in transit conversations. So um thank you Mr. Rando and thank you for the board for the opportunity. >> Thank you Mr. Rando. >> I think you're on mute. You're going to have to use sign language. Do we want to jump to >> the next item while jump >> while John's getting the technical details worked out? >> For the next TPB, >> I won't have to do this intro again. >> Intro. >> Well, let's uh let's move on to item eight. And if we get to the end of the agenda and we haven't figured it out, then we'll just do it next time. Um, so item eight, report and discussion on uh Tex's highway safety improvement program call for safety projects seeking candidate projects for fiscal year 2029. And we have uh Mr. Jose Madrid from the El Paso district. >> Good morning everybody. I'm Jose Madrid. I'm with Texat El Paso District. I want to thank you all for um giving us this platform to talk to you about the the highway safety improvement program. If we can get the slide decks, but um just thank for having us here. We already presented to the TAC. We're already meeting with some local entities to cover some details and we're always open to have more meetings with you all. So um to cover this year's for 2026 is call for highway safety improvement program. The first action is to see what our emphasis areas are. What is our region going through with with serious injuries and fatal crashes? So we can go to the second slide. I can show you all a breakdown what that looks like in our region. So um what we like to do is compare our data versus the states. So we wanted to know is there anything different within our region that is different from the state. See the patterns what we should be doing differently. And when we compare it, the blue bar shows the fatality emphasis areas that are in El Paso district. The red shows the state percentages. So we break them down by the type of crashes to kind of get the patterns what's going on within our city and our region. So on the speed, rather lane departure, we have impairment, pedestrians, we break it down. So as you can see from the yellow um squares, they show where we are higher than the state. So we focus on those. When it comes to scoping new projects, when it comes to safety, there are some where we are flip-flop where we are doing better this day, which is good, which is um behavioral, we're seeing a good day um stats where if it comes to seat belts, it's a good improvement, but we are seeing some for where significant higher for motorcycles and of course um intersections has been one that's kind of been um really significant as you can see with a big difference. And then speed, speed is big within our area. So, um, we have to get a feel for what's going on in the region while we're coming up with safety projects. Next slide. So, um, what's the purpose of this program? So, um, what it basically is is we want to significantly reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. That's the basic part of it. Um, what it is is a fally funded. It's state administered. So text um pretty much um manages the program and the funding. What we do is that we establish targets to make sure that we're meeting as a state to kind of report back to to to the feds and then um if we don't meet certain targets, we got to do some alternate planning and show how we're going to improve those targets. That's that's the gist of it. It's a federally funded state administer. Next slide, please. So um we have the different project types when it comes to our goals and how to get there. What I came to talk to you about is the offsystem parts. So um Texa does have on system funding for this program, but I want to talk to you about the off systems. This is any roadway that is not Texad. And what this program does, what we're looking for is we already have projects programmed from 2026 to 2028 thanks to previous participation. So really thankful for for that. We are seeking projects for fiscal year 2029. The amount that we are funding for that year that was allocated budgeted for our region was 766,000. The basic rule is no project can be under 20,000. That's a real basic rule. There are some work codes that are eligible for it which I can cover some quick examples. And the eligible crash years that we're looking at is 2022 to 2024. So that's what we're looking at to fund a fiscal year 29 project. Next slide please. So um some examples so you can give you an idea of what kind of projects come out of this program. We have um new traffic signals they come about. Lighting improvements. It could be um roundabouts have been a big a big influx which we're happy to see. Um we're starting to see some turn lanes. It could be something as simple as that. A little bit of payment for a turn lane. That's a safety improvement. Um there's been pedestrian over beacons which are hawk systems. Um pedestrian improvements is one of the ones that you're focusing on. So we're seeing more more of those types of projects. Um these are some examples I want to show highlight three of them that we've done in the past. The top one is is a city of El Paso project that was just raised medians channelizing curves. This intersection had a lot of crashes which I'll show you the the numbers and all we did was put some channelizations. We saw some good improvements. The bottom left picture is a county project that was widening as for a portion. We saw some run off the roads and we saw some improvements there. The bottom right is some improvements on Lancinastto which is the town of Horizon. So I want to highlight kind of some some numbers that we've seen through this program funded and how it's performing. So we already have enough data to to show the after. If we go to the next slide we can show you some of those numbers what they look like. In the left you'll see um we plotted all of the crashes for the Chinaization related to intersections only. So this is only a literally no at Linta. You see throughout the years we had um kind of a steady number above the tens and this one intersection is just median not signalized. Um you see we had a study from 2015 on the yellow dash bar indicates kind of where the project completed and we can see the after effects. Now the bottom shows 2025 where there's zero crashes. So throughout we're already at October and we still seeing zero crashes at this point intersection. relatively cheap when it comes to to to just funding and it's seen some really good results. So that's the city of Paso location. The middle one is the canaso lighting for the town of Horizon. You see kind of the same number as well when we just do dark condition crashes which you see those types and 2025 again zero crashes in the whole in 11 in 10 months. So good good results for that as well. The right side shows a widening of you see the improvements there too where we're going to get kind of bringing them down yearly and that's the goal out of every single improvement. So they're not that expensive in the work. Um that's what we want to do. Just always be reducing crashes and this program has been helping out these locations in Pacific. There's a lot more I can talk about. Um you want to meet individually we can show you the results for some of them have been completed for a while. Next slide please. So um what does it what does it entail? It's a packet pretty simple. We'll help out with this. Um we all want the interested we'll help you out with throughout this whole process. There's always required a quick submission form, location information, basic stuff um con conceptual, you do need itemized estimate which we can assist with as well. So all you want to know is what are you interested in and how can we help you? That's pretty much the basic gist when it comes to the packet. And last slide I want to give you all a timeline where we're at. The timeline for the call for projects. We already met to ship to know the new revisions and what's going to be funded. Um we're asking for the local governments to submit us your project ideas. Just a concept. What are you interested in? Where what are the limits more or less? What are you targeting? And then um we're asking for that to be submitted. It could just be a list format, Excel, however you want to put it in by October 24th. And if you want to meet with us individually, we'll have a workshop with you all to show you all what the problem areas are, some recommendations just based on the data itself and we can keep brainstorming. We're open for that for the next two three weeks so we can get to work with the packets. And then um the big deadline that I want to provide you all is we do need to wrap up the packets by December 5th. So those are the quick um deadlines that we have so that we can get these projects programmed and funded for that fiscal year 2029. So that's really a quick um dirty but kind of outline of what the project is. That's all I have to present to you all. You have any questions when it comes to this awareness for this program? >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we can jump to item nine and then uh we'll do that really quick and then if John is uh ready. Oh, it looks like he is. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm so sorry. I was operating off the internet and I should have just downloaded the app. >> So, I will do this as quickly as I was told to do this. Can you see my uh screen? >> Yes. >> All right. Well, I want to welcome everyone to the El Paso Transportation Authority. I'm just going to give you a summary of who we are and what we're up to. This is our mission statement. Do you see the mission statement slide? >> Yes, it is. >> All right. Um, and basically our goal is to provide safe, reliable, and accessible transportation connecting the rural communities of El Paso County to the city of El Paso. Um, the El Paso Area Transportation Services Local Government Corporation was created under the Texas Transportation Code section 431. It was created by El Paso County. It is presently staffed by El Paso County Transit Operations Department. The Rio Grande Council of Governments is our fiscal administrative agent. And Kemp Smith is providing our legal services. And our mission and goal is to provide public transportation services in El Paso County outside of the city limits of El Paso in a unified approach. Um, our history started back in 1994 with the completion of the transit plan and the ETA was officially formed in December of 2020 by El Paso County. Clinton Anthony joined EPAS and we rebranded the service as ETA in 2024 and then I was hired in 2025 as the first executive director. For our administration, we presently have 12 members on our board of directors. Three are from El Paso County. One is from Clint, Anthony, Vinton, Horizon City, and San Elazario. We do have an exeicio from El Paso, MO, Sun Metro, Sakoro, and WET. We have a staff of five of one is presently vacant at this time. We did form an access advisory committee of volunteer citizens. We do contract all of our services. Transdev operates the primary share of ETA services. Enterprise Mobility provides our van poolool program. All aboard America operates the New Mexico Park and Ride Express. We provide services seven days a week. Um, our PO fixed route service operates on six routes primarily every 90 to 150 minutes connecting all the cities outside of the city of El Paso and we connect to Sun Metro services at their transit centers. Our new on delay microtransit service is available in Clinton San Alazario. We do have paratransit service called access that operates within a 3/4 mile radius of our fixed routes and also takes people directly into El Paso for trips as part of an interlocal with Sun Metro. Our van poolool operates countywide and takes people to jobs throughout the county or outside of the county. Our New Mexico Park and Ride Express connects El Paso, Anthony, New Mex Anthony, Texas to Las Cusus, New Mexico. And all of our buses have bike racks, cameras, ramps or lifts, Wi-Fi, heating, and air conditioning. This kind of gives you an idea of our PO service. And this is the PO network of where you see our routes operating from. And primarily we terminate at Sun Metro Transit Centers. And we plan to add four future routes in the future. Access is our paratransit service and that's what our access van looks like. And our access operates within the 3/4 mile radius of our po routes as well as into the city of El Paso. Unlay is a new door-to-door service. Think of it like Uber. You can call us and within 15 call us within 15 minutes. In 30 minutes, we'll send a vehicle and we'll take you anywhere you want to go in San Alazario and Clint. We also take people into Sakoro. And we also take people to trips at the Mission Valley Transit Center and El Paso Community College Mission Dell campus, Delpo campus. This is our Valados van pool program where people can basically coordinate with Enterprise, get a van. We subsidize their trips at $500 per month per van. And it's a great way for people to commute to large employers throughout the county and beyond. And then our New Mexico Park and Ride Express, as I mentioned, goes to Anthony in Los Cusus, New Mexico, Monday through Friday. This kind of gives you just a summary of our systemwide performance. This past fiscal year, we carried 572,82 trips. Previous year we carried 559,26 trips. So we're on the growth of carrying more passenger trips on our transit system. And this gives you an idea on our statistics from FY24. Our budget last in fiscal year 24 was about 9.1 million. 54% of our revenues come from state, 6.9 from state, and 39% from local, county, and the municipal governments contributing to ETA. And it's a more summary of our statistics. We're in the move of adding more facilities throughout El Paso County. We're starting to install bus shelters throughout the county in all of our jurisdictions, replace all of our bus stop signage with new signage and get away from a flag stop system. And then we've also in conjunction with Tech Stock in the process of um planning and for and constructing a transit operations maintenance facility which would be in unincorporated El Paso County in on Windmir Avenue. We were we did submit a grant to the Federal Transit Administration for 15 million. So we are hopeful that we'll be able to get that grant and the county's contributing 1.5 million for land acquisition costs for this facility. We connect to multiple transit systems particularly Sun Metro Sakoro's new microtransit service south central regional transit district in El Paso and in Anthony. and then uh Roadrunner Transit in Las Cusus, New Mexico in addition to Greyhound, Amtrak and Flex Bus. We are getting involved with technology. If you want to see our routes in real time, you can download the Transit and Move It app. Soon you'll be able to pay your fair through the app, book Unlay routes, and then um you can also track our routes on Google and Apple Maps. Um we have a lot of upcoming projects. The big projects that we have in summary is adding passenger amenities, enhancing our services, entering into new contracts with our private providers, forming new partnerships with Sun Metro. We're on the process of separating from El Paso County, and our goal to do that is September 1 of 26. That's assuming that we will have federal transit administration funding uh from the urban area as well as rural transit district status from text dot adding four additional administrative positions. Continuing to build and form a relationship with Sakoro U transit operations and maintenance facility, CNG bus additions, possibly bike share partnership with the RMA and more technology to make transit easy to use in the rural areas. We've had a lot of accomplishments. This is a summary of our accomplishments that you can see in your board packet. But, uh, we've been working hard to build a true countywide public transit system over the past year and beyond. This is my contact information. If you have any questions about ETA, please reach out to me and I'm happy to uh, talk to you more about ETA. Thank you very much for allowing me to present. Happy to answer any questions if there are any. Members, >> any questions? Thank you, Minister Ando. Very exciting what's happening. >> Thanks for having me. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh item nine is the executive director's report. Um we've got three topics here. We can go through them really quick. Um I'm going to let Eduardo talk on A, which is the IBC strategic plan update. >> All right. Good morning everybody. Um yeah so for the IBC report uh or the IBC strategic plan uh we continue working with a consultant team on the existing conditions uh scenario that's uh that's you know it's a quite a bit of work but that's important because it's going to set the sort of like the baseline conditions for for the the other scenarios that that we that we develop you know to test different different options of uh building perhaps a new port of entry or or changing the operations of a of a port of entry to make them all trucks or all uh private vehicles and so on. The the other important thing is that uh we there is a meeting this coming Monday in Saduarees that is being organized by coder which is one of the economic development organizations in Huarees. Um I hope that many of you received invitations for this. Uh but it's a a workshop. They're calling it the second roundt uh workshop. Uh the first one was was held about two years ago in El Paso. Uh they coordinated that with the community foundation and um so you know this is sort of like an effort. We are obviously participating on that although they're the ones that are organizing the the event. So I hope that many of you will will be there. I hope to see you there on on Monday. Uh so with that, you know, that's that's all I have right now for the for the IBC. Um Harrison, you want to take the u the Border Plex safe mobility plan? >> Yes. Um so very quick update on the Borderlex Safe Mobility Plan. Uh we just completed our public comment period for the final uh document last week. Um so all that's left is to give it one more run through and uh um incorporate any comments that we received. We did not receive very many comments. So we're taking that as a sign that we did a good job. Um but you'll see it uh for adoption at the board meeting next month. And then the last item is the RMS 2052 MTP development update. Uh there's a lot going on with the development of the MTP. We have been working over the last few months um with sta at the staff level with uh all of the entities to uh get closer to finalizing our project list. Um and that's obviously one of the most important parts of the MTP. So, uh, expect to see that as well, um, at the board for approval next month. Um, in the meantime, we are reviewing the first draft chapters of the MTP and, uh, we have already begun the modeling, coding the, uh, the the biggest, the most important projects and the ones that we're most confident on where they're going to live in that project list. um so that we can get uh get the uh the model done uh as quickly as possible and start the emissions analysis um which is obviously also very important um for uh getting the MTP approved at the federal level. So these are the activities that we're doing right now and you'll see some more um things on the agenda next month. Okay, any questions? All right, we've lost quum, so um nothing new, right? Um >> so we'll see everyone at 9:00 a.m. November 21st. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you.