Johnny. Good morning. >> Good morning everyone. >> Good morning everybody. Can can you please uh take your seats and Marisol are we okay? Good morning everybody. For those of you participating on on video, I think we are getting ready to to start the meeting. Let me just uh double check. want to do roll call. >> We're ready. >> You want to call the meeting to order? >> We're ready. >> Well, good morning everyone. Welcome to this regular meeting of the El Paso MPO. Today is March 20th, 2026. It is 9:09 a.m. This session is now in order. We can please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner, if you can lead us, please. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Remind those who are attending virtually, we we do need to have them on screen on camera in order for their attendance to count. Is that correct? >> Yes. All right, I can have the roll call, please. >> All right. Um, Chair Kavier Pere, uh, Vice Chair, Commissioner Oolin, >> Morning, President >> Senator Cesar Blanco, >> Representative Josh Pedo, uh, John Ando, >> Mayor Ramono, Joseph Cervantes, uh, Mayor Miguel Chakon, >> Erin Chavaria, >> Representative Alejandra Chavez, Mayor Rudy Cruz, Anthony Deaiser, Representative R. Pierro, >> Commissioner Gloria, >> present. >> Representative Mary Gonzalez, >> present. >> Eva Hernandez, >> Mayor Gabrielin, >> present. You Mayor Rena Johnson, Mayor Martin Lurma, Mayor LMA, if you can unmute yourself. All right. Uh, Representative Joe Moody, Representative Eddie Morales, um, Tony Navarees, Representative Claudia Ordas, >> Representative Vince Perez, Mayor Rachel Kintana >> here, >> Mayor Andrea, >> Judge Ricardo, Representative Sarah Silva and Tom. >> All right. So, we do have >> We need audio confirmation of Mayor LMA >> present. >> There you go. >> Here we go. >> You have >> We do have Corum. >> We also have Mr. online. >> I'm sorry. So, uh just for the record, uh Representative Aso is here as well, present. And >> I'm sorry if I missed you, city manager Dion Max. Thank you. All right, so we do have phone. >> Fantastic. Go uh next to open comments. >> No open comment. >> No open comment. We'll go on to um there's a request to move item uh 10 uh to be the first item on the agenda for today. Any objection by the board? Hearing none. Item number 10, consider approval of amendments to the amended RMS 23 MTP and RMS 202528. >> Do I need to read the whole thing or >> All right. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this item is is really >> it is straightforward. It is to to uh amend the the tip to provide more funding for the rideway phase of the border highway connector. So, uh, you know, staff recommends approval. And for all of these items, we we do have, uh, presentations, but, uh, so, you know, we're ready to to give you more information, but if not, uh, you know, we recommend approval. >> Entertain a motion to approve item number 10. >> I would entertain a motion. Motion. >> Second. >> Motion has been made. This motion has been seconded. >> Any discussion? >> Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor say I. extensions. Motion carries unanimously. Item 10 has been approved. >> All right. Can we move to item number nine as well? >> Objection by the board. >> Hearing none, we'll do item number nine. >> So item nine is consider approval of amendments to the amended regional mobility strategy RMS 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and RMS 2025 2028 transportation improvement program TIP to program the following projects. A Nebby Anthony project for fiscal year 2026 TSJ 500261 using 1,226,250 of CAT 10 Navy funds in fiscal year 2026 and B Navy Horizon project fiscal year 2026 CSJ 500267 using $936,000 $250 of category 10 Nebby funds in fiscal year 2026. Again, we're ready with a presentation. >> At this moment, I entertain a motion to approve item number nine. >> I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion has been seconded. We need a presentation. >> Seeing hearing none, all those in favor say I. >> I extensions. Motion carries unanimously. Item number nine has been approved. All right. >> Any other requests? >> Uh, yes. If we could move to again take all the action items because I'm afraid that we may lose quorum. So, the apologies for the moving around in the agenda here. Um, go to item number five. >> Any objection to addressing item five at this time? >> No. Hear no objection. >> All right. Item five is consider authorizing the executive director to approve the statement of work between El Paso MO and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCQ for use of Texas writer 7 state and local air quality planning grant funding ozone for work associated with air quality research and modeling at international border crossings. Again um you know this is part of the the the writer 7 that we've been talking about. This is a a continuous grant that we have been receiving funds to do air quality stuff. So on on this one uh we brought you the contract that was uh that was executed between the no and TCQ and then the next step is to approve the scope of work which is what we brought to you. It's everything's in in your uh in your package. Again, we have presentations, but uh happy to answer any questions or Claudia Bay, who's our expert here, is also here to answer any questions. At >> this moment, I would entertain a motion to approve item number five. >> Motion. >> I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Motion has been seconded. Discussion by the board. >> So, Mr. Chair, for items six and seven, >> second hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> Nameions. Motion carries unanimously. Item five has been approved. >> Thank you. Again, for items six and seven, uh we're requesting to table these items for next meeting. >> Any objections to postponing items six and seven to the next board meeting this moment. Um well, see no objection. >> Motion to table. >> The motion to table. Well, >> second. >> I'm going to use motion to postpone. Table slightly different. Motion to postpone. >> Motion has been seconded. Motion has the main motion has been seconded uh to postpone items six and seven to the next frame of the board meeting. Uh all those in favor say I. >> I say nay. >> All right. Motion carries unanimously. Item 67 have been postponed to the next regular board meeting. >> All right. Then moving on with item number eight. Consider authorizing the executive director to execute task order number seven with WSP, Inc. for support in the implementation activities identified in the approved orderlex safe mobility plan in an amount not to exceed $199,85956. Again, this is um sort of like the the followup to the safety action plan that we completed um last year. Uh if you remember we we uh uh told you that we created a a new committee called the vision zero uh committee which is going to help us guide the uh the the next steps in terms of implementing safety uh projects or actions uh within the region. All of this based on the safety action plan. So this is the final step getting the getting the scope of work approved so that the consultants can help us um with that phase of the work. Again, we have Ann here with the presentation if happy to give you more details >> this morning. I would entertain a motion to approve item number eight. >> I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion has been seconded. Discussion by the board. Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor say I. I'll >> say nay. Motion carries unanimously. Item number eight has been approved. All right. So then now item number 11, consider authorizing the executive director to sign the first amendment to interlocal agreement for local match international border crossing systemwide analysis to extend the termination date of the agreement from May 31, 2026 to July 31, 2027 with each of the following entities. A city of El Paso. B, El Paso County, C, Camino Rail Regional Mobility Authority, and D, New Mexico Department of Transportation. So, just to um briefly on this, uh, as you all know, we have we're currently working on the what we call the IBC strategic plan with a grant that this board approved, $2 million, uh, which carries a nonfederal, uh, match of $43,000. That match was divided three ways between the city of El Paso, uh, El Paso County, and New Mexico DOT. Um, the reason we have a fourth, uh, agreement there is because of the portion for or the the yes, the portion from El Paso County, uh, we they requested to split it between using uh, economic development funds, I believe, and the other part using vehicle registration fees that are managed through the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority. So that's why we have four agreements. All four agreements are almost identical. And the the the issue here is that the termination date on all four is May 31 of 2026 in in a couple of months because there was a lot of delays and finalizing the agreements, the the advanced funding agreement with Texad and getting the the final authority to initiate the work uh from the Federal Highway Administration. There was a lag. So we we need to extend these agreements. It's a no cost uh uh there's you know no changes in terms of the dollar amounts. The only thing that we need is a little more time to complete this. So the proposed new termination date is July of 2027 which should give us plenty of of time to um to complete the study. So happy to answer any questions on that. At this moment a motion to approve item number 11. I >> have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion has been seconded. Uh discussion by the board. >> And hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> All post say nay. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. Item 11 has been >> All right. Item number 12. Mr. here. Uh, consider revisions to the El Paso MO attendance policy requiring in-person attendance by TPD members at TPD meetings. So, on on this item, um, we we felt it was necessary to bring it up to to uh to the board's attention. Um, there's been a little bit of a, you know, discussion whether we should conduct the meetings uh in person or allow for virtual participation. Um there were this board adopted a policy back in June of 2022. This is right after uh uh after obviously the pandemic where the governor suspended all the the Texas Open Meeting Acts uh features that that required inerson participation. So when we came back and in 2021 to do these in inerson meetings, the board passed a resolution to reaffirm that in order to count for to be present TPB members or to to account for uh being you know participating in the meetings um they needed to be in person in in the room to participate. So that was a policy in place. Um, as you know, when when um when we we had the new council come in with Deborah, uh she noted the fact that there is an exception in the open meetings act in the Texas Open Meetings Act that allows for virtual participation if this government entity uh covers more than two counties. In our case, we cover three, which are Donana County, Otto County, and El Paso County. So it is allowed right per the open meetings act. However, the the local governments have the ability to to you know maybe do something a little bit more more uh more restrictive. So the policy is consistent with the open meetings act. However, we thought it was a good idea to bring it back to to the board to have more discussion if we if this board wishes to continue with a policy, which is to meet in person in order for you to count um and not be considered absent or to modify the policy or or you know resend the policy, whatever. So, we we brought it up here for for discussion. If there is something else that the that the board would like to to think about it, we can table this. But it it it is clear that the policy that was passed in 22 is in place. Now, uh one more thing, the the policy also states and allows the chair to suspend the policy, right? gives the chair the the authority, the ability to do that, which is what we did for this meeting because again, there could have been a little bit of a of confusion there. And for those that that were already counting on participating by video, we we didn't want to um you know, create a situation where they were counted absent because of this mis miscommunication or or uh you know, not having it this perfectly clear. So again, Mr. That's the the purpose of breaking it this year. >> Any discussion by the board? >> Um, is the policy reflected in the bylaws? the the bylaws are specific to um what counts as a as an excused absence and not excused absence inperson participation I I don't think I don't believe is specifically um specific in the bylaw >> is the policy reflected public >> available is it available to the public I I That's what I'm getting at is is is it posted somewhere? Whether we decide to stick with the policy or scrap the policy, I just want to make sure that the public is aware of the policy that we're operating under. Um just for for transparency. >> Yeah, it it I believe it is in in our in our website. Um but again, it it's something that of course, you know, maybe needs a little more attention, right? So because again um it was a little bit of a of confusion not having that perfectly clear >> on I do want to say um I'm sorry >> I do want to say that I think we should amend the policy to remove that provision of having the chair having to approve it. Uh just being the fact that the dynamic of this board is is so vast. uh this just creates another piece of workload that has to go into having a meeting. If we have it from the very beginning that you can't attend virtually be on camera, I think that just releases one one less check mark that we have to take care of it before conducting every meeting. That's >> just just to take a step back and uh I guess can what what problem were we solving when we implemented the new policy? Well, that there was at the time because we were coming back from from the the pandemic um we were having quorum issues, >> right? >> We still have quum issues. >> We Well, exactly. We still have quorum issues and uh and again it's it's you know one of the the the initiatives that we had to amend the bylaws but we haven't gotten to that point but but at the time we were having quorum issues to to meet and and there was a lot of discussion about maybe you know why not why can't we participate virtually and all that and and at the time that was why the board passed felt necessary to pass this this resolution to make it clear that it's you have to be in person to be counted. Just to follow up, how how many times has this board failed to meet quorum uh in this last year? >> There was >> last two years I guess since the policy was implemented. >> I sorry I have a little bit of an explanation. At that point we were not aware that since we were three um that we could have virtual um participation but now when miss when the legal um came and told us that since it's three of us that >> three counties >> the three counties that we are allowed to do virtual meetings. So that's where it's conflicting with >> um I guess go back to the Thank you for that. Appreciate that. Um so just going back to the question, how many times have we failed to meet quorum under the the policy, >> right? >> Not not TOMA, but under the policy. >> So we've only uh not met quorum once, >> right? That was last year's >> last uh April or May some something like that. Remember it was a meeting that uh Eduardo was uh um participating remotely. >> Yeah. >> And uh we were one short here for 20 minutes. >> So So once in the last four years since the policy was implemented, how many >> uh meetings did not meet quorum prior to the policy? I don't remember any in since I've been around, but of course, you know, the in 2020, you know, with because of the pandemic, we we had a lot of meetings that were virtual and um and coming out of the pandemic when when the governor reinstated the open meetings act, the provisions in September of 21, remember that we were, you know, we're struggling So, you know, as as the uh previous chair, I mean, it was >> we'd have to wait half an hour, 45 minutes every quorum. All that to say is we have missed one NO meeting because of since the policy change. I guess my question is what problem are we trying to fix if if we are a meeting forum? Yes, it's inconvenient to those that show up on time and to the public that's waiting. Um, but I guess what what are we trying to fix? >> Well, the the immediate problem was to make sure that that we that everybody understand board members and the public that uh we have that policy and but at the same time that the open meetings act allows for for virtual. So the the intent of bringing this is to make sure that that uh you know for clarification there is that policy or that we can you know the board can choose to keep it in place as is which again requires inerson participation to count as present >> or modified as staff um you know we we recommend keeping the policy because again we we like people board members to be here in person. And I believe that the discussion is always healthier when we do it in person. Um, at the same time, I understand that many of of the board members, you know, it's a it's a long drive from the Far East or coming in from New Mexico and and so on. So, um, but that's why it's not a it's not an easy answer, but we recommend as staff uh to keep the policy meet in person. I I I do want to add to that argument is that for for me for example I do I don't have a large staff that maybe some other cities might have or other entities. Um so I do have to travel sometimes for example when legislation is going on I don't have a lobbyist I go do that for the city uh in Santa Fe and having this access in January, February, March um allows me to be able to do my responsibilities up in Santa Fe and also attend here. Um and that won't count my absences. Um uh after missing so many having so many absences uh and our ability to cast a vote on on my end that would be that would this would help remedies that particular um for the city of Sen Park. >> Mr. Chairman, >> uh Commissioner. Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. Um I I'd also like to say look look at this meeting for example. Um, you know, I had already let them know ahead of time that I was going to be able to make this meeting due to a personal um, lab work that I have to go do. Um, and I still got a call yesterday to say, "Please, could you be on so we can have quorum?" So, without this capability, like right now with the individuals that are on, we wouldn't have quorum. And then all of you who end up showing up there would have wasted your time and your energy to be there. So, I I think that we need to leave it as is. Unless those of you don't mind having when you show up. So >> problem Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Go ahead. Uh, mayor. >> Uh, yes. I I just wanted to echo um, you know, the staffing for the smaller municipalities. I'm the mayor for the city of Anthony and um in our um former government we uh operate under mayor council. Um so this affords me the um the availability to attend the meetings and stuff like that. But if we were to operate of having to operate in person um that would be a big challenge um um to myself especially uh and to um individuals from um smaller forms of government. Right now I'm working on staffing. It's my first term and um you know those of us that have been here for more than one term um know the um first term um struggles of staffing you know so I also want to um um urge you know that um this availability allows um for my municipality to participate but if we were to um move not to have a virtual um I don't think that we would be um uh participating as much as um we would um want Thank you, mayor. >> So, can we take this to the executive committee and then maybe come back with an idea? >> So far, >> that works. >> Well, look, can we jump to the next item? So, >> again, the the action is to no action today, but to action today. >> Okay, perfect. All right. So then I think we can go back to um item number one back to the original order. Item number one is consider approval of the minutes of the February 2020 2026 EPB meeting. >> Let's move on to a motion to approve item number one. >> I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Motion has been seconded. Discussion by the board. >> See hearing none. All those in favor say I. All those say nayensions. Motion carries unanimously. Item number one has been approved. Item number two. >> Item number two is review the executive director's annual performance assessment for year 2025 including the executive director's self-performant assessment for for year 2025. >> You want to take that one? And and >> I believe everyone received the information the summary. Uh is there a need to go into close session on this one? It's just a matter of accepting the the the review. >> Entertain a motion to accept the executive director's review. So moved. Have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. Motion has been seconded. Um all those in favor say I. >> I. All post say nay. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. Item two has been approved or accepted. >> All right. Item number three is consider action on the executive director's employment agreement. Same thing. >> The same thing on this one. uh I should have received in advance. The only change on there uh was for um instead of a two-year term, it'll be a three-year term uh and then with one two one-year extensions. Is that correct? >> I believe it's just a >> three years. Okay. My apologies. Just a three-year term. The original contract that we had with the was a two-year term with the one-year extensions. And then we're also proposing with recommendation from an executive committee with a 3% pay increase for the We can go into close session. Discuss that to approve. >> Motion the floor made to approve. Is there a second? >> Motion has been seconded. Um we have a roll call. No, not a roll call. >> All those in favor say I. All >> say nay. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. Item number four. >> Right. Uh item four is consider renewal of the legal services agreement between El Paso NO and Kemp Smith LLP. This is just a one-year extension on this contract. It's already been in place. Uh, no changes to the contract. Mr. >> Um, do I need to extend abstain because we use Ken Smith for the El Paso Transportation Authority? >> I wouldn't I wouldn't think so because you're not personally uh you don't have any personal conflict of interest with it. >> I do not. So I I don't I don't I don't think you you have to that's a discretion that that you have to take. >> Yes, sir. >> Is it the same attorney? >> I guess it is the same attorney. >> Is it the same attorney? Is it Is it Deborah Djo? >> No. Nicholas. >> Okay. >> Oh, it's Oh, it is you, Nicholas. >> Yes, sir. >> I would suggest that he abstain. I mean, not not that I I mean, not that we foresee any any conflict, but I think it would be best just because I do represent uh the I'm sorry, uh defense. >> Is that not a conflict? >> Can we get a legal opinion? >> Let me only confir on this one. I mean just for this exact situation, we actually got a second attorney to represent us when it comes to El Paso MOS. >> Okay. >> Should there be any issues that arise where they that where EPAS is adverse to the MO? >> We don't foresee that, but I mean that's that that's the barrier that we put in place just in case. >> Okay. I think maybe we we have that documented. >> Absolutely. >> I'll leave it to your discretion. I think I'll just want to create any >> at this moment. I intend a motion to approve item number four. I move. >> I have a motion on the floor. Any second. >> Second. >> Motion has been seconded. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose say nay. And I do have one second. >> All right. >> So I believe that completes all the action items. >> Uh so we were on a mission. Go to reports and discussion m item 13. >> All right. So item 13 is report on fiscal year 2027 UTP funding projections and fiscal constraint. Uh we have here a presentation from uh an Gante. Oh that's right. Okay. All right. So I'm going to start I'm key it off here. Um, as you know, the the uh unified transportation program is a a document that TEAT puts together to provide us a sort of like a guide for the for funding for the next 10 years. So, currently TEAT is working on on the fiscal year 27 UTP in draft form which will be approved by the commission. It's anticipated approval in August, but it gives us a pretty good idea of what the funding is. Um, but I think it's important to put everything the funding situation into perspective. And uh, can you pull it up? Um, Andreas, um, I borrowed a presentation that was put together by one of our colleagues from Grayson County, which is, uh, just north of the Dallas area. And um and well while well they put it up. It it gives a historical perspective on funding looking at at uh a few years back the the the value the dollar amounts of the UTP and um and it's really interesting when when you see the uh the impact of inflation in other words when you put the the dollar amounts in the UTP again at the state level the the big number when you put it into into context in real terms with um accounting for inflation even though the dollar amount goes up but in real terms it's really uh coming down. So next slide please. So again the historically starting in 2016 you know the the you in in nominal terms the trend has been up right. So we had a a really big spike in 2019 2020 and then in 2022 23 24 the combination of IGA coming in at the federal level uh combined with really healthy state uh u revenue coming from propositions one and seven. So it was really good. We were really happy in 23 and 24 25 26 came down a little bit but still it's you know it's not too shabby right you know we're in in the ballpark of a about a hundred billion dollars uh for the 10 years at the state level next slide at the same time look at the at the population for the state of Texas you know it's been growing pretty steadily right you know we're getting a a lot more people into the state of Texas. Next slide. Right. So when you when you put together the the uh the UTP values, right? And then the red line is population increase. Again, this is in in nominal terms. It looks okay. Well, you know, we have more money, you know, population grows. Next slide. But when you put it in the in accounting for inflation, you know, we are getting less money, right? Accounting again for inflation, especially in the in the last four or five years with such high inflation overall, but also inflation specifically in in in the highway construction business. So the trend is not really good, right? So next slide. And again, you put it the two together, the the bars show the values in in in constant terms going down, population going up. So I guess the concern here is that uh that you know we keep growing there's a lot more demand for transportation in general terms, but in real terms the dollar amounts that that we have available are coming down. So, uh, again, you know, there's been a lot of, uh, a lot of hyperbole with the the increase in the in the UTP in in the last few years as it was going up in dollar amounts, but again, inflation has been pretty pretty steady and and you see the impact there. Next slide. >> That's it. >> I think that that was it. Any any thoughts or comments on that? before we get into our details here. No, no, the the presentation said uh Grayson County Mo is that is that what is that in reference to or >> so again I borrowed this from from them they they put together they uh which again it's not a very difficult exercise to do but they had it already and uh but I I thought it was a a great uh very simple way to show that uh that yeah I mean we we need to continue fighting for more funding for transportation especially now that We are in the process well, Congress is looking at the reauthorization for on the federal side, right? The IIGJ expires at the end of this fiscal year and uh and the new bill that is being discussed right now in Congress um you know hopefully will will give us a healthy amount of of money. this again at the federal level and there's a lot of discussions that uh that you know we will bring to you uh in the next couple of years to put it into perspective and again you know if you all I'm sure that all of you are are familiar with with those discussions I know that uh there was a discussion that this this week mayor you were was at the conference that you attended with all the uh was it the league of cities or >> I didn't go to that one in particular but >> okay right So you know there's discussion again the AMPO which is the national association of NPOS's is also putting a position paper ASHTO which is the other the state departments of transportation as well and there's healthy discussions right healthy uh not everybody is 100% uh um you know in in in in agreement of what the bill should be right there's the issues that discuss urban transportation versus rural um you know emphas is on on highway construction versus a more multimodal transit and other things. So, so it's a it's a very complicated but healthy discussion that's going on right now. So, just wanted to bring that to your attention. So, can we have the next part? Good morning, uh, chair and board members and Gayante, El Paso MO. Um, I'm going to be going over, uh, the specifics of the 2027 UTP in comparison to what we were assuming for our 10-year projection in 2026. um and the impact that that that's going to have on our project list. Uh next slide, please. All right. So, relative to uh fiscal year 2026, our projections did go down a bit. Uh we lost category 10 CRP entirely for fiscal years 2027 and 2028. We were assuming uh based on previous year's assumption that that was going to be $3 million per year to fund uh congestion reducing type projects very similar to what the CMAC category allows in terms of of uh projects programmed. Um, more impactful is the fact that we will also be losing um about $3 million per year in category 7. That's our most flexible uh category. That's the one where we can program the projects that widen or uh expand or increase capacity on roadways. So, um, we lose $12 million, which is slightly offset by a one-time, uh, distribution of funds through the TIFIA program, which is where, uh, entities that take out uh, uh, SIB loans. It's the money that that they pay back and it gets and a portion of that gets distributed to MT MPs. We're not assuming that that's going to be an annual thing. We're we're we're assuming that's going to be a one-time thing that we got $3 million of that and that helps to partially offset the losses of our category 7 funding. That brings our total loss for the tip years to $89 million. But for the entirety of the 10-year projection that's covered by the UTP, our loss is is is above $30 million for the entirety of that timeline. Um, for perspective, we were getting about 25$26 million a year in category 7. So that's essentially losing um more than an entire year of funding in these new projections versus what we used to create the project list last year with the 2026 funds. In category five, we actually went up very very slightly. Like uh I think we gain about $15,000 uh for the entirety of the tip years. But what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to use category 5 to make ourselves whole on the $6 million of programming that we lost for category 10 CRP. So we have created a strategy where by simply moving certain projects back each year uh of the UTP years, we are able to still afford to fund everything to remain in fiscal constraint, not have to defund any projects, not have to diminish the funding to any projects, but simply every year we're going to be pushing a couple of things back to the next year in order to keep ourselves full and keep ourselves being able to program all of the projects that uh that we had committed to. So, this is this shows category five. We're not necessarily going to dwell on it too much, but it just it shows the impact. We um you know, it's it's it's virtually identical, and we can't really do that much more with $15,000 versus before, but it's nice to have. Next slide, please. This is where we kind of took the big hit. This is on category 7 STP. This is where we lose uh about $3 million a year slightly offset. So we are uh total loss of about $9 million during the tip years. Uh 30 million again during the entire UTP. Next slide please. And then uh we had about $6 million. We had programmed that about down to the dollar and uh all gone. So that is why we have to amend projects that were programmed in category 5 as well to absorb what was programmed under category 10. Next slide, please. All right. So I'm not really going to necessarily uh read you all of these slides. These are in your backup. But this talks about um where on each of the slides for the uh UTP years. This shows uh based upon what we had programmed when we use the new anticipated funding levels. It says what the deficit would have been, what projects we are going to move and the positive balance that that creates. Um and it's it's it's basically a project or two moving each year. uh one or two one or two cat fives, one or two cat sevens through the entirety of the UTP years. Um we also through the positive balances we created and this is something that we did uh uh do with an ad hoc committee comprised of uh TAC members. We were able to program uh the hero uh uh the text hero program for fiscal years 29 and and 30 um at about $2 million per year. So we were able to do that with the help of the ad hoc committee that that we convened after TAC um in order to ensure that uh the strategy that staff had come up with was acceptable from a a project standpoint and acceptable to uh entity priorities. Um so if anybody wants we can look at the specific years and what's moving but if not that's in your backup as is a chart kind of showing the yearbyear and of you know for each category uh for what we were assuming in 2026 which was a bit more optimistic versus what we're now assuming in 2027 based on the draft numbers. >> Yeah absolutely. All right, next slide. So 2027 we're fine based off of K. Where we start to see issues is in in fiscal year 2028 where we would have been overprogrammed uh by $5 million of category 7 and all of category 8. So we are uh talking about so the strategy now is to uh move the Montwood and Sunfire roundabout to 2029. >> We'll continue. We just lost quarum so we can't really do dialogue. >> Oh, this is okay. >> We'll just continue on with the report. >> Yeah, this is a report item. Um, and we would be moving uh uh TRS phase one to 2029 as well. And we also this is this is also showing the funding that we are that is distributed through the TIFIA program. This is showing uh how that's going to be distributed. Uh we had uh the hero program from text dot fully funded with CAT 10. So it's going to get $2 million of that and then the uh uh remaining balance is going to go towards uh uh by a drain and uh and we're also moving uh a UTAP transit project to category 5 2020. Let's next slide please. So we would be uh postponing the uh um McRay shared use path to 2030 and uh we would be uh the uh Montwood uh round and Sunfire roundabout that had been postponed from 2028 would would be present in this year. We also had a sponsor request to move Paul Harvey Park Trail up from 2030 to 2029, which we're able to accommodate uh through this strategy uh the Tiara Estee Project uh from 2028 and then programming uh hero and then this uh nets us a positive balance of >> 15 uh,000. So kind of kind of small um but positive. All right, 2030. Let's go to the next slide please. So Paul Harvey as discussed on the previous slide it got advanced uh and then moving uh out we would be postponing uh uh Edgemeir and John Hayes roundabout uh as well as uh Bob Hope uh those would be moving into 2031 and then uh from 2029 we gain the McRay shared use path. You can look at 2031. 2031 gains Edgeir Don Hayes roundabout and Bob Hope. Now we can look at 2032. No proposed changes. And then uh that remains the case and then the next year where we actually need to see changes in order to make ourselves whole is 2035. And this we had a basically we were a whole year short of funding. So uh we are proposing to move the Texas Avenue complete streets back one year to 2036 uh and take that $23 million deficit and give us a positive balance of8 million. And so that is that those are the extent of the proposed changes. So essentially for these projects proposed it's the difference between a May letting and an October letting and uh that is how we are going we are proposing to keep ourselves whole >> and I think you wanted to say something about the regional prioritization right all right well we can't have discussion right on this okay well again just to ratify what what an said the you know every year with a new UTP you know we come up with with uh we're provided you know different uh dollar amounts what we're definitely trying to do always is the in the in the first in the tip years keep those projects whole because those are the ones that are being you know are almost ready for construction or getting ready for construction the the ones that are in the outer years where there hasn't been a lot of activity year, a lot of project development activities and so on. There's still room to, you know, move them around to to adjust because we do have to to be fiscally constrained by by year. And again, these are categories five and seven, which are the two the two um federal c big federal categories that the MO really has control right? um the dollar amounts that come in for categories 5, seven and nine for that matter which is the the TASA those are the dollar amounts that are that are provided by the federal government to the MO right directly the other categories like uh two four and and 12 are really truly a combination of state and and federal funding. Um, so there's a little bit more more flexibility there, but Texad has chosen to keep the the federal categories five and seven at the levels that are provided by the federal government directly without supplementing them or it'd be great if we could get a little more for CAT 7 because that's a category that we can use off system, right? the other two cate the other categories uh 2 4 12 and um pretty much are the the big ones can only be used for on system projects for text up projects. That's why we've we've uh we've been you know deliberately trying to to not put category 7 for example on texttop projects so that we can keep that precious cat 7 for the for the local government projects. There's a couple of exceptions there, but um but that's been sort of like the the u if not policy, but it's been what we've tried tried to do and it's worked out pretty well, I guess. Anyway, so uh we we can have any discussion on that. Um all right, so then moving on to item 14, which is the update on analysis of the travel demand model for the Armis 2052 MTP. Um, I'm going to tee it off here and then I'm going to uh pass the presentation to Lauren Taylor from WSP which is our consultant in uh that that is uh helping us with developing this work. So for the 2022 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the MTP is is one of the the core documents and I would argue that it's the the most important document that that the MO produces. It's our long range plan that includes uh that is developed based on population and employment projections. You know, how is this region going to grow? Um we we must have at least 20 years into the future. So our horizon year this time is 202 so that by the time this this plan is approved and then we have four years of of working on it, we'll always be uh looking at more than 20 years into the future. So, um, with that, I'm going to turn it over to you, Lauren, if you're there. I don't know if you're controlling the screen or >> we we can't hear you, Lauren. >> You can hear me now. >> Oh, yeah. Turn it up and Okay, >> great. Good morning. So, hopefully you can hear me. It's not a meeting without a few technical issues, but um thank you for teeing that off. So, as Eduardo mentioned, I'm here today to help really discuss where we're at with the MTP. Um so as you can see on the milestone schedule right now we're in the process of drafting uh the document that it can be available um for public and obviously this board's consumption today. What I specifically want to talk about are projects as well as how those projects within the MTP that have been identified are performing. Here you can see that as it stands today uh the MTP's fiscally constrained project list represents about $6.7 billion dollar worth of funds and that's import encompassing about 151 roadway and 23 transit projects very large investment into the future and in the coming slides I'll be able to discuss what that investment looks like. Um I think related to the discussion that both Eduardo and just had about the need for fiscal constraint and funding uh you know never being enough is what you need. Uh we did want to note that there are 19 projects that have been identified as important to the region um but could not be fiscally constrained. All right. So going into future conditions. So what you see on the screen here is an analysis of how uh 2022 base year is performing amongst various metrics and then how that compares to a scenario where no improvements are completed in 2015 horizon year where uh and then what the projects uh that have been included in NTP to 2052 do so from a vehicle miles travel perspective or VMT what you're seeing for the base year of 2022 versus the no build scenario is that uh there's an increase and I think that speaks to population growth as well as just development and and employment growth that's happening in the region and that's under the no build scenario. Under the build scenario, we also are seeing an increase in that vehicle uh miles traveled at about 3% and again this is just acknowledging the fact that is growing and so that means that more people are traveling. Um that same 3% change just in a per capita perspective for VMT, you also see 3% if you compare the no build to the build scenario. And again, I'll emphasize that no build means that that $6.7 billion worth of investment um in future 202 is not occurring and billing that that is being implemented. Um I will note that what you'll see is that if you do nothing from a speed perspective, so comparing that maybe to equivalent of congestion is that in 2022 speed is is 41 miles per hour. Um if you definitely increased the speed and again using that as a coralate um to congestion and so by building projects in 202 and investment um you are seeing a betterment of uh speed in 202 again I'll note that just due to uh employment and population growth uh there is a difference between today or 2022 and Um what we >> Lauren let me let me um interrupt here just to make sure that that you all understand you know the the scenarios that we're showing here. Okay. So 2022 is our base year and those are the conditions that we had in 2022, right? So 202 no build means that we we grow the population, we grow employment, but we build nothing, right? So I mean obviously it's not a realistic scenario, but it it gives us a a point of reference. Then you compare it to the 2022 build which is when we implement the $6.7 billion of projects what is what is the effect I mean that's that's the MTP right and of course the last column is the changes but what is very significant here is that when you look at at the measures like VMT VMT is vehicle miles of travel right so if you add up all of the distances that every vehicle travels. That's the regional BMT, right? So, we go from 19 in 2022 with a build condition to almost 22 miles. What this means is that every vehicle in the region is going to travel three more miles every day. Every vehicle. Which means that we need to provide more transportation, right? So this is really you know the the core really of the the issues that we see um for for the region going into the future. It's an indication of the sprawling pattern that we have in the region right we are not growing that quickly populationwise right percentage wise but we are expanding. So that's not a really good thing for us in in you know speaking as a transportation person right because now we we need to provide more highways more you know more public transportation there's more demand right so even after $6 billion look at also the for example the average speed right so the average speed goes from 41 miles per hour to 39 so it's it's going down right so we're not improving it right that means that even with all the project that we're that we're building, there's going to be more congestion, right? So, at the regional level, it's not a really, you know, great thing. Um, so again, it's it's a it's a call for for action, I think, right? As a region, we need to figure out how to control that that sprawling pattern, right? where we continue building, you know, more especially, you know, single family units in the outskirts, right? And and people keep working in in the same place. So now I'm generalizing, right? But uh but now, you know, you live farther out, but you work in the same place. So that explains the three additional miles that you have to travel to to do your your everyday life activities, right? So, it's one thing that that we we've been uh talking about here, and it's not just a phenomenon here in El Paso, right? It's throughout Texas especially, but in other parts of the country as well, that there's really no no strong connection between land use decision making and transportation decision making. You know, we here at the MO, we don't control land use decisions, right? You know, we don't. So development happens right driven by you know market forces developers go out and and and develop and uh and then you know there is congestion because there's not enough transportation in in in those new areas and here we are now we see a lot of congestion at the far east side of the county right the the east lake interchange for city interchanges with I10 because of growth on both sides of I 10 Right. Um anyway, so so that's I think one of the the most important things that we want to bring up and and it's not that that we like it, right? You know, we well for myself, I don't like it, but these are the trends that we need to to plan for, right? Um well, as you will see later on in the presentation, there are some ideas that that we have here that we can collectively, you know, consider going into this. >> So go ahead. Sorry. >> No, thanks Eduardo. I think that that does tea up what we're seeing here as as far as metrics concerned and I mean you know as part of this just not to belabor the point but we did also look at transit so share to see if that could be improved and with the no build scenario I think it's just worth noting that wrership goes down as far as a mode that's being utilized but with the transit specific investments in 2022 we do see a maintenance of of what that mode share looks And then we've also just provided some information about emissions as well. Um I do want to maybe move to what was telling about talking about with the relationship between land use and transportation. So, as part of what we were reviewing for the MTP is what does a vision of the future look like where member or municipalities um do consider land use as they're thinking about transportation as well as what does it look like to have a a major investment in in transit. So, um what you're seeing on the screen here is what we've called a visionary alternative future scenario. So what this looks at is that there's no roadway projects that are included as part of this. Um but what are included are five new bus rapid transit or BRT corridors as well as um the existing four corridor RTS corridors being converted to bus rapid transit or BRT. And so for those that might not know what BRT is, what that looks like is express transit uh that allows people to go far and fast. ated often bus lanes with the technologies like signal priority to ensure that those buses are not sitting same congestion as let's say a single occupancy vehicle related to the land use component what this new scenario scenario also looks at is really concentrating development along these uh these transit corridors as well as stations that might exist. So it's it's saying what do we look like if if we're not just sprawling in our development but really try to focus densification and specifically so looking at more multifamily homes mixed what does that look like if we focus development in in those specific locations also note that as part of this visionary scenario uh to make transit a more attractive and viable option for individuals uh instead of assume a reduced pair of 60 cents. I'll pause before I go through some of the employment and population uh visionary and versus our build and and base here and see anything you wanted to add there. Well, again, this is a scenario. We called it visionary. Um, when we initially started discussing it internally with no staff, I called it La La Land scenario because it it is really, you know, it's it's a completely 100% aspirational, right? So, on on the demand side, you know, concentrating population and employment along certain corridors so that we can increase density, right? when you have more density, transit works a lot better, right? So, if we combine higher density with BRT lines as as you see there, and that's not a proposal or anything. This is just like an example of what we what could happen, right, under this scenario. Um, of course, you know, five minute headways, you know, you have one BRT articulated bus every five minutes. I mean, that's great, right? Um, and you know, having reduce fairs and all that. So all of these favorable conditions, right? Um what happens, right? So we go oh first >> I just wanted to add that when when we say that it's necessary to densify it's not that we force densification but we allow through upzoning of this areas this this black and red dots we allow some upon that means allowing higher higher density um development what we we introduced that information and this you know this headways and this uh service into a land use model. So we it's not that we made made up what you're going to see right now. So it's allowing the forces of the market understanding what's you know what what's offered uh you know supply and demand of of of land plus the uh willingness of businesses to relocate to this type of of uh uh transit oriental development. That's what the land use model does for us. So we're not making this up. We're using very sophisticated software to to estimate where population in this case households and employment will could allocate if we allow this upzoning and we allow this type of uh transportation projects. Just wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you. And so I think that's a good segue to to see what that household and employment information would look like. So what you're looking at here is a dot density map where in blue one dot represents 50 households and the red dots represent employment. So 50 jobs in that location. So this is now the base again 2022 um household. So what you can see is um some of that sprawling development that that we already know exists and major roadways. There's concentration of like households and and jobs. Now when we compare that to to the build scenario, so again just to reiterate, build in this instance means the the six billion plus worth of investments that have been identified for the MTP. Um those do darker blue and red dots are showing new households and employment. And so earlier as Eduardo was talking about VMT right and the additional miles traveled per person um in the build scenario that's due to the sprawl and part that you're seeing here. So this part is not in the business of uh dictating land use right. So this is what we see if if there's not that uh consideration land use and transportation. Now when you compare that to the visionary scenario, you see that the concentration of household and and jobs is really more focused. And if I were to bring back up the map of the visionary scenario where there's the BRT routes as well as the station locations, you can really see that that growth is is being concentrated along those corridors. that this modeling effort, this is from our it's showing that an investment in transit with no other improvements to the roadway would allow for for um more concentration which could mean less vehicle miles traveled for instance. >> So with that um just going back to the metrics that we were showing earlier. So kind of getting into what I started talking about. So let's talk about VMT. What you're seeing with the vision visionary scenario that we've added on here is that 2022 um just looking at the per capita VMT again we're at about 19 miles and then in the visionary scenario you do see an increase in vehicle miles traveled but by no means as great as let's say the no build scenario. So even with investments strictly in transit um and that concentration of development along those transit locations what you're seeing there is that lack of sprawl really helps reduce the amount of travel that folks would have to in the future as in comparison to the no build and build scenarios. Um I won't go through each of the metrics. I guess Eduardo Salvador if there are any that you guys want to specifically point out. I think that would be a good time for you guys to share this. >> Yes. I just I would just say that of course this is just one scenario. It's not the official one. We just wanted to test what would happen. But it's I mean it's it's very interesting to see that the yellow it's sort of like a no build plus transit just that plus up zoning it's quite competitive look at the uh look at the mode share I don't know if sun metric is here but uh just the mode share jumps from less than 1% to more than 10%. that helps us actually reduce that's the one with the least emissions of all of the of all of the uh uh other scenarios. Look uh 6.3 right now with the bill 2.4 actually the the the the visionary 2.2. So uh and I was just the the map that you saw BRT is about 85 miles of BRT. That's about an investment around don't quote me but it's going to be around 5 million uh $500 million. So, it's at least food for thought if this is not the the I mean, and this it's not the official one, but perhaps we need to think hard and and and and rethink again what we want to uh El Paso to look into the future. >> So, so what does this and we've got a few different other metrics here. Again, I won't go through each of these just due to time as well, but what you're seeing is an improvement uh for congestion, a delay in and freight uh corridors, major freight corridors, and then that share that we talked about with the visionary here, you're definitely seeing an improvement. Um but even with ability, you also are are seeing an improvement in in congestion as well as uh delay. Um this is just intended to show service. I know it might be a little bit small in the room, but just reiterating the fact that that the improvements identified as part of the MTP um do make a difference in level of service or what this looks like as the comparison of free flow traffic versus complete traffic jam. So from A to F here. Um so you are seeing an improvement there. Um so what are key takeaways that we want to leave for you. Um, those improvements as part of the MTP are making a difference in regional mobility. Uh, there's still some challenges, but we are seeing that the investment is going to be worth it. Um, and that if you do not do anything right, if if there's no changes made, um, that's that's going to be a problem. Um but what we're also seeing especially when we're looking at the aspirational or visionary scenario is that really the idea of both land use and transportation being considered together is incredibly important and funding. The the discussion before this one was related to the UTP and funding not keeping up with population, but all of those are really necessary to ensure that the regional transportation system is performing uh well for for Aasians and and regions. Um, I think another important note here is just that as part of the MTP project selection process, it really needed and required a balance between project types as well as where are the projects being met. So, not all the projects are at a capacity. Some allow for a state of good repair. Um, looking at operational improvements as well as pavement cur program has been mentioned as well. Um, but balancing that truly with what what funds are available Um, we also are seeing that if you are providing improvements and investments uh for the project that we're seeing here, that really does allow for more access to to transit and other multimodal options. I think another thing it's easier to see if people were to go back to the slide, but major freight corridors and I don't think I need to tell people in this room, but the the I 10s of the region, for instance, really the delay that's happening along those corridors is outpacing general congestion levels. And so there may need to be additional um review and consideration of those corridors just to ensure that that freight and good movements are are being addressed and working through the region appropriately. >> Um with that what are the next steps? So again, we've just presented here the results of the travel demand model um for both the projects that have been identified and selected as well as this aspirational and visionary scenario. What we'll also be doing is right now finalizing the draft MTP as well as uh the transportation conformity report. Once those are are ready for I'll be coming back to both TPATH and the the board um just to get you all able to circulate those to the public. And with that approval, we'll be conducting a public meeting as well as an open house and a comment period that allows for the public and obviously folks in the room to provide feedback on what that 24 um year horizon looks like. with that uh any questions or I guess ending remarks from Eduardo. >> I'm sorry. So we we can't have any discussion or questions but um I think it was important for you to hear this today even though uh we can't have discussions because next month we're going to bring you uh for action the the uh the final draft documents of the MTP the conformity documents and so on so that we can begin the 30-day public comment period. So, you know, we thought that it was important for you all to see at least, you know, the basics of of what this MTP is doing, but uh in preparation for the request uh next month for you all to give us a green light to start the public comment period because again, you know, we are on a timeline. We're on a schedule and uh and um you know, the at the end of the day, what we need to have is a conformity approval by November. and the way that the discussions and approvals are going on right now with the Federal Highway Administration and FTA because of all the with this new administration is taking forever to get anything done. So, we we do not want to delay this anymore to provide as much time as we can to meet that November uh 22 I'm sorry, November 26 uh deadline. >> All right. Um, so >> the presentation given was a little different from what we have on the backup. Could we get that? >> Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, that was even tweaked uh today at 3 in the morning. Lauren? >> Yes. >> All right. Um, okay. So then let let's move on to the other items. Uh we have the no item 15 the quarterly reports administrative amendments report project completion report project readiness report and the RMS 2020 projects report all of these are on your uh on your backup again we can't have any discussion anyway so uh let us know if you have any questions or thoughts on this but uh but I think everything looks pretty much under under control there's nothing major that that we need to uh to address and then finally ly the executive director's report item 16. Just very briefly uh two items that are related with our uh international border crossings strategic plan. So in February uh we had a a good meeting in Sudatuarees that was organized by Koder which is one of the economic development uh organizations in in in Huarees and uh we had they invited me to make a presentation. We had about 70 people out there mostly uh people from well it was a good combination from the uh chambers Kanako Canasintra uh people from the uh trucking industry from the mackilas index uh southwest mackilas etc. So this was really good. We got really good input um as far as ideas so that we can make our strategic plan better. So that was a very successful meeting and then um the B national bridges and border crossing group we call BBBXG uh the plenary meeting is happening next month April 8th and 9th in in Washington DC. BBBXG is organized. It's put together by the two federal governments. Uh the US Department of State and Secretaria are the ones the agencies that take the lead on these and and the BBBXG looks at more more focused on projects on the border right whether it's you know new crossings or expansions or whatever. And um so I will be attending that um you know internally we've had a discussion that it would be a good idea to present where we are on our strategic plan to show that you know what we are planning or what we're intending to do here in this region. Uh typically all of the border regions along the US Mexico border attend the plenary session. Mayor Ba you've been there I think or your staff right. So uh it's an important meeting. So, uh, I'll be there and I'll let you know what happens, uh, next month. So, with that, uh, I guess we're we're done. >> Thanks all. Appreciate it.