e you don't so funny I was like okay she goes she goes you seat so that we can get the meeting started for those that are joining us uh via the the WebEx uh we're going to get started to we're going to start the meeting now don't know what all right good morning everybody uh please uh take your seats uh we need to to get the the meeting started Mr chair I think we're gonna have to hide the donuts or or put them here on the on the table all right so I think we we can start the meeting Mr chair okay pledge of aliance alance to the flag of the United States of America the for it stands one nation God indivisible with liy and jce all right so let's start with roll call starting with uh the chair judge Sano morning here mayor liser he's here um Senator Blanco excuse me just did he sound a little sleepy andou new congratulate [Applause] for all right uh represent reprentative Chris Canales mayor Ramon Cano Senator Joseph cantes representative Rudy Cruz Aon chavaria representative Mary Gonzalez representative Cassandra Hernandez EV Hernandez commissioner Elan representative Willie Madrid aler Walter Miller representative Joe Moody representative Eddie Morales mo mo mayor Diana Muro representative cloudia oras representative L Ortega Norma palaos here mayor ja Pera mayor Rachel kintana present mayor is is Rees s Rodriguez representative is Salo Ellen SM here mayor Anthony Turner theas trino and city manager Carrie Weston here here we have you mayor all right so we do have early all right um did anybody sign up for open comment no public comment no public comment all right so we want to start with the discussion and action items item number one is to consider approval of the minutes of the November 17 2023 TPB meeting second in [Applause] favor all right item number two is consider approval of amendments to the regional Mobility strategy RMS 250 Metropolitan Transportation plan and RMS 2023 2026 Transportation Improvement program to a deprogram the Dy Street pedestrian improvements construction project using category five CAC funds in fiscal year 2025 B program The Cay Morocco sidewalk improvements construction project using trans a Alternatives program large Urban T funds in fiscal year 2024 C program the PE phas fad drain hike and bike trail yra to Midway project using category five tmac funds in fiscal year 2026 D program the p face Sun Valley Gateway North to Kenworthy project using category 7 stpm funds in fiscal year 2026 e program the P phase Sunland Park hike and Bike Share use path project using Category 5 CAC funds in fiscal year 2025 F program the PE phase Buffalo Soldier Street improvements project using category seven stpm funds in Miss FCO year 2025 uh G amend the Dilly Road and the Lake Street construction project to change project name project description project limits and reduce C 7 stpm funds in fiscal year 2025 H amand the Carolina Street improvements project to move from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2030 and the program from RMS 2023 2026 tip I amend the Buffalo Soldiers Street improvements project to remove Pease increase category 7 stpm funds move from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2027 and de program from the RMS 2023 2026 tip I know that's a mouthful um an ganta here has a presentation um um you know after that presentation hopefully uh well if you have any questions we'll answer them and and then we hopefully we can take all of these um as as a whole or if you choose we can take them individually but [Applause] yeah good morning chair board members so as Eduardo just stated this is uh an item that contains several proposed amendments to the tip in the MTP um most of these items are related to the uh 25 uh and or 2025 and 2026 projects from the 2025 through 2028 uh uh tip project list that was approved last month um one of these is a New Mexico project as a result of a project call so this presentation is going to go over the Amendments uh to our tip and then uh and we're going to discuss what what's changing about about the various amendments all right so here is a list of what's changing grouped by how they're changing so for tex. guidance uh we are adding PE phases to projects generally two years prior to when the construction phase is going to begin so for projects that are going to have PE phases in 2025 and 2026 there's going to be an amendment to create that phase and then there's going to be a corresponding Amendment to the construction phase of the project to remove that phase and the associated funding from the project so it still pencils the same but it's divided into PE during the years when that uh work is going to happen and then Construction in the original programmed year and then as as for Dilly and delake uh there's a lot that's changing about this project that arises from the fact that uh that both streets could not be uh functional classified only one could and that is delake so dele is being removed from the project and Associated funding that would have been that would have gone towards constructing Dilly is being removed from the project um and so we're changing the name we're changing the scope we're changing the limits all of those things associated with that change um diary Street pedestrian improvements was originally programmed for 2025 but if it is actually a grouped project that is uh being funded through highway safety funds which is not uh category five or category seven that that we uh uh choose and and track uh and then we also had uh amendments to projects concerning just the overall cost when we went over the project list which each with each of the entities just which of the projects of theirs were moving forward we requested updated information to those projects so it would be current um so several of them did experience rises in costs and then this is the one that's uh within the the tip years the uh 20125 2026 years that the change in cost Rose to the level of a formal Amendment which is more than a 50% increase in its Federal share of funding and then also we've got year we've got Buffalo Soldier moving from 2026 to 2027 we also have Carolina moving from 2026 to 2030 and that was uh for reasons of fiscal constraint uh there was a uh a swap that occurred in the city of El Paso projects so the uh Sunland Park uh hike and bike project was originally slated for 2030 um it was a less expensive project that because of the nature of the project there was more flexibility in what funding could be used for it so that one moved ahead instead to 2026 and Carolina uh which had a a a pretty a pretty good cost increase just given uh mostly inflation and and more finalized information had a had a larger a fairly substantial increase in cost so that one's moving out to 2030 so I think those are those are them so if we could move on to the next slide wide this covers just because these are all moving forward together is the same item because these are what we're going to include in our next formal update to the step and we can we do that approximately quarterly uh in alignment with uh with Texas and New Mexico timelines for making these amendments and so this Kay Morocco project is not related to the 2025 through 2028 tip project it's in 2024 um but it is occurring within the same time window and it's going to be part of our information that's moving forward as part of our update to the to the step and so this project is the result of a project call that occurred uh this past spring and it's for uh Transportation alternative projects in New Mexico this is going to be a sidewalk connecting an existing neighborhood in Sunland Arc to a Transit stop next slide so here is the recommendation language this is an abbreviated version of the language that's in the agenda item and so staff is recommending approval to all these amendments this will allow for consistency between our current 2023 to 2026 step and the overlapping portion of the 20 25 2028 step as well as program the New Mexico project that was awarded funds as a result of that project call um this concludes my presentation I'm happy to entertain any questions and then otherwise it's just up to the board whether to pursue the motion together or separate questions any comments together do we have to make separate if you don't want to favor motion pass all right thank you uh Mr chair uh item number three um we are asking to delete the the item from the agenda we we need further coordination to to present this so those in favor thank you all right item number four consider authorizing the executive director to execute task ORD number one with a maximum funding amount of $61,800 Paso M multimodal web tool so with this uh task order we are pretty much um going to finalize the the database that that we've been working with UTP for for a while this is the database that that will you house all of the the projects that are part of our of our program as you all know or many of you all know it all starts with a prf a project request form that uh you know back in the day we started with a with an email then it became a a PDF uh form and then it moved to a a uh now we're we're doing everything electronically so that is very helpful in the sense that it it reduces the the amount for human error and and you know it's just a lot more practical so once that prf goes into the system now the information for the project is already there right so that's that's a a good thing um and and once it's in the database now we can start processing and moving the the projects as needed whether they they move from fiscal year we move them into the tip for funding or whatever it is right so we are uh right now in we're still using the the old system for the tip but I think we're we're very close and I'm looking at the tip team at n and and others we're very close to to uh migrating from the the database that that we use today to this new system for the tip and and uh and then move forward to use that same database for the long range land proof for the MTP so we're we're excited about that so I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have any just move to approve second those in favor post motion T all right item number five is consider authorizing the executive director to ex Ute task order number two with a maximum funding amount of $78,500 pursuant to the interlocal cooperation agreement between the El Paso no and UTP UTP will provide assistance in travel demand modeling air quality Conformity and public involvement activities and other activities included in the El Paso M's unified planning work program so again this is a a renewal of a task order that we've had for for several years um is it's been uh a a blessing for us to to be able to have access to to very qualified people in the area of air quality especially in in Conformity so uh uh the reason for starting this work authorization is that as you all know our Master agreement with with UTP and the one with TTI that we brought to you last month the old agreement expires on December 31st um so now that we have the new Master agreement that starts January 1 now we're we're issuing these task orders um with a a start date of of January 1 so again this this is not not new it's just a continuation of of the work that uh that we've done in the past to approve there's a question over here oh I'm sorry repres that's okay um I just have a I guess a philosophy type of question for all of the Transporters um number one the T review these and what is the criteria to determine you know the approval process for these agreements number two is there value in some of these uh agreements is it something that we can do inhouse or is it something that you need a Consultants to do for you um and then you know I'm just trying to get a sense because I see a lot of these agreements come forward but I don't I don't really I can't see like what the return on investment is and if it's providing any administrative relief for you okay um so I mean the the short answer is yes you know that's why we're we're doing this um so it it depends also you know different task orders are for for different uh different Scopes right um the one that we're considering right now number five is is very specifically to have access to to Personnel that has the skills that are not very easy to to find elsewhere um and you know it's it's on dou demand modeling and but more specifically on the on the air quality uh items all this Conformity stuff that is so messy and complicated so uh we've been we've been very successful in in going through UTF to have access to people that are that are qualified so that expertise is very very specific and and you know we definitely would like to to bring that uh that expertise in house it's something that we need to have in house but not easy to to acquire okay and and what is the criteria to determine whether or not Tac oh um I don't think there's a criteria typically these task orders uh haven't been the you know they don't go to Pac but uh but yeah I mean certainly we can do that we can start I'm used to hearing Tac like recommends approval and and I haven't heard you know tac's input I know they're in advisory in nature and some components um but they're more technical staff and we lean on them um just as a friendly uh recommendation absolutely some of these things are administrative in nature um some of these things Tac can can really give you some more insight in BO um but separate from that I mean these are about to these Agreements are about to end so I think they gota they got to be approved right I support to yeah but we'll take that that recommendation to to heart and um and yeah take it to to teac and perhaps as an alternative maybe they go Executive committe also that's would be another R exte an executive committe that's an Al an alternative to to T okay we have motion a second move to approve not move to approve moot those in favor I those opposed pass all right item number six is uh consider authorizing the executive director to execute task order number three with a maximum funding amount of $45,500 pursuant to the interlocal cooperation agreement between the El Paso noo and UTP for international border crossing traffic and Emissions analysis again this one is is the continuation again because the the current one expired in December 31st this one is very specifically for uh getting having access to Personnel that has been trained in in travel demand modeling and micro simulation as you if you recall we've been working under with the tcq grant the writer 7 Grant um to and part of the part of the the work with with that Grant has been to to develop the mic simulation and Emissions analysis specifically to the ports of Entry to our International Crossings um so you know we this task order is our agreement with UTEP to have access to the people that are that have that skill but we recover the funding or we have recovered part of that funding through the grant right now um we are looking at the possibility of extending or getting additional money from tcq to do more work on this on this item but you know we need to be covered we need to to get have access to to the the UTP uh Personnel that that is doing this again the $445,000 is a is a Max doesn't mean that we're going to spend every penny of it um but but that that's a purpose for for this uh work authorization or task order I have a question um how long has the been partnering with with UTP on these type of of assistance on on stuff that needs to be done here on having access to to Personnel please Sonia sorry um we I I think many years I mean way before my time for for that having access to Personnel that we haven't been able to bring on board as staff more than 20 more than more than 20 years so it's allowed us to to have access to people that that we cannot bring into for for that and and that's related to the situation that we are on tgard number two of item five with other I'm sorry so with regard to these analysis is it a specific Department that you are partnering with in order to assist in the in in various projects with with UTP yes most of the work and I should say probably all of them but um but most of it is with the the Department of Civil Engineering with the center for what's the name of the intelligent Transportation research or something um but but very specifically with that so the the the per the UTEP Personnel is is part of that uh of that group at UTEP that's under the umbrella of the civil engineering department and that's who we we uh you know we work with work on time what are the you know we did some research on like Detroit you know Pittsburgh uh communities that move forward and one of the key factors is the relationship between the university and things of this nature because just the resources that exist ability to have students working on it and it's hard to compete to have something like that so just right and and and that's a great Point judge um but but to your point reporta I mean it also depends on other specific task orders right for example this um modeling that uh that we you know we were very you know lucky to have a a UTEP student actually who just completed her her Masters and it's now pursuing a PhD with with UTP she's become an expert in the micro simulation of you know using the tools to micro simulate The Crossings right the international crossings that is going to be very you know just key in once we initiate the study the Strategic plan that we've been talking about and hopefully we can we're going to kick it off uh you know in hopefully in February um as soon as we get our consultant on board and and getting all the administrative work uh in place but but that I think it's a great resource to have available and to be able to work together with them because I mean you've got students you got people that kind of specialize in different areas so I think it's nice that we have that available absolutely and and again from uh from the no perspective you know what we need to do need to have is a wide variety of resources to to draw the the best right you know we don't do this as a favor to UTP or I mean we do it because they they provide value right I mean it's always you know it's not not perfect all the time as as we all know right nothing is perfect but but yeah that's why we we hired that that General planning consultant um because they provide a set of skills that are very important that but again on that's why we have the agreement with utet that we you know we contract with them as needed the same with TTI with the Texas Transportation Institute so we want to have you know a wide variety of options right to to choose from and and get the best value for the work that that we're doing what's the potential of students staying when they work on projects as we know as Norman knows that when they work on projects the likelihood of them staying in El Paso increases tremendously verses that they haven't integrated into the community so right got so many great Dimensions too right and and again in in this particular case you know we would love to have that that person you know stay in El Paso and work for the no once they complete the be charging a lot more that's true right all right so so that's item [Music] number all right now we're moving to item number seven consider authorizing the executive director to execute task order number one with a maximum funding amount of $25,000 pursuant to the interlocal cooperation agreement between the El Paso M and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute TTI to provide training to the no Transportation policy board and transportation project advisory committee okay so now it's tti's turn um the the the scope or the the objective of this task order is to have TTI available to prepare the training for like we had today um as needed you know again $25,000 is uh is an amount that would cover all the way through um I think this Tas quar ends in August of 2025 so it's a a year and a half or so and again it's as needed like for example in in today's case you saw that that the TX that was was U um you know accepted the invitation to come so you know we didn't need to spend any money on that training for for TTI in the past even though we've had these these uh task cords with TTI for this purpose in the past um we were able to tap into a a contract with tech to provide those Services through TTI in other words TTI provided the training but they they they uh Tex that covered the the cost of those trainings under a separate contract so it was a a benefit for us and and again you know we appreciate that so we have this as as a backup doesn't mean that that we're going to you know necessarily spend all the money and I think at the backup we provided some information on the prior task orders where the expenditures were have been you know pretty minimal what do we have flexibility to make things relevant or maybe some uh you know feedback from the board to make sure that there's some relevancy and challenge with to includeing the training is there some process to be able to do that absolutely absolutely I mean you know we we try to make these trainings I mean remember that these trainings are to help you as board members and teac members to fulfill the requirement for continuous education right so so what we're doing here um is you know going above and beyond more than what was done in the past to provide these trainings so that you know just by attending you you're able to cover the the requirement yeah from The Continuous education policy um but of course you know we try to make make these these topics as relevant and and interesting for for the board members um sometimes you know they tend to be sometimes you know some have been a little more more technical or too Technical and but we try to you know not you know get get uh too much into the weeds of the technicalities and all that but more it's like why is this important you know why is it why are we doing this and why it's relevant for you all as policy makers to to get this understanding how many trainings do we get for the 25,000 um what's the question how many trainings do we receive 5,000 I mean it depends but but basically you know each training if if we have to cover the travel for example somebody from uh Texas A&M to to come in you know airfare and uh and um maybe one night of a hotel plus a time it takes for them to prepare these presentations we're doing I don't know it's ballpark about maybe, 1500 per for training so this covers Us you know well beyond so it does cover the travel the 25,000 includes travel in Earth yeah and in some cases also um you know TTI has been able to to cover it you know on their own right I mean as part of another Grant or another project that they have where um you know public involvement or public information presentations and all that are are part of it so so again you know this is this is you know covers Us you know very well through it but it chances are we're not going to spend uh you know all of it Mo to approve Mr chair second those in favor motion passes chairman I just wanted to um say I got a request from representative Canales who's trying to get admitted into the meeting um I don't know if he has a number of questions but he's asking for a pause so we can see if we can bring him in because he's he's pending in the lobby and he can't get in so I don't know if you can request him he's in now oh you read it okay thank you micone thank you questions I guess you have any questions or no I wasn't sure if he did so but he was asking thank you all right um where are we okay item number eight uh consider authorizing the executive director to sign a S self-certification letter for the portion of the no planning area in the state of New Mexico Harrison pl we we'll have a a brief presentation good morning chair and board members uh Harrison FL with El Paso MPL so uh New Mexico um the some fhwa folks uh representing or covering the New Mexico um uh state state of New Mexico um requested um uh about a month ago uh that uh we produce a self-certification letter specifically covering uh the New Mexico portion of the mo planning area um in the past we have used a version of this letter that has a signature from the tex. district engineer and references Texas only um so this is covering our bases um making sure that we are uh uh making that statement um and uh responsible to both states that uh are included within our uh planning area so uh we are requesting um authorization to sign that once we do we will um make sure it's included in our documents uh same as the the one covering Texas uh in our MTP and tip and other documents to the uninitiated what are we certifying that we can do this is um uh a statement that uh uh we are um checking our own uh uh that that we are following the federal uh regulations and federal planning processes um and that uh uh we are doing our own internal review of that but of course we have the state Do's review as well um and fhwa does a review but it's uh it's like a um like a release for fhw in a way yeah so uh we're certifying that um we are uh in accord ordance with all of the applicable requirements and all of these us code sections and we're obeying the process so does that certification take takes some sort of internal process do you go through a checklist uh yearly quarterly I mean is there a process to self-certification or you just basically say we've done the best we can is there an audit how how does that work so I think the the way that we're following we tracking this is through our qaqc process but then we do have a federal certification audit every four years um and anything that we're deficient on we hear about it through that and we uh make improvements to our processes thank you to approve Mr chair those in favor all right so item number nine is consider a approval of amendment to the fiscal year 2024 2025 unified planning work program upw to a Revis subtask 5.4 international border crossing systemwide improvements analysis to include UTP under subtask and B revised document formatting and update to include infrastructure investment and jobs act references again Harrison with a brief presentation so this uh request is for our first amendment to our current uh unified planning work program as a reminder the work program is uh federally federally required uh federally approved uh program showing all of the activities that the mo uh participates in and how much money is budgeted uh for each task um uh and uh uh all of the different funds that are being used so the current upw was uh approved by this body in uh June of this year and then we received full Federal approval in September so it's been effective um since start of the fiscal year um we are looking to amend make some very small amendments um the primary driver for this amendment is a language change for subtask 5.4 so you can you move down two slides yeah uh and the only change to the subtask is um we're adding utap to uh ensure that they are permitted to assist us uh the way it was originally drafted is just to say that a consultant will be may be used to assist with the subtask um but we're adding UTEP in there and this is related to uh the task orders you just approved um while we're going in and making this amendment we are addressing a couple of uh things that fhwa and tex. requested that we do Upon Our First Amendment for the upw one is to update the entire document into the current Tech St template for uh upw documents um so if you look at them side by side they're going to look a little bit different but the content is the same uh and the other uh change is to the purpose section which is kind of at the beginning of the document um fhwa felt that uh uh we could make it clear and uh make it more clear that um we are following ija um requirements and that those are the ones in effect so a lot of the language is the same we've just reordered it so that iig is at top and the most important and it kind of goes back in in time to previous uh um funding um legislation and the requirements from those after that so uh these are again pretty minor changes and a couple of them were specifically requested from uh fhwa and TCH so uh we would request that uh you approve the amendments to the upw so that we can submit them forward to Tex fhwa for their approval second favor oppos motion passes thank you and judge if I may um related to to this item I wanted to introduce uh bridgid bridg uh I'm standing by the way so Bridget is is our our new uh liaison with uh with Tech's Transportation Planning and programming uh division so uh you know she hopefully you you'll see her here you know quite often here in El Paso we're excited to have her so a lot of the planning stuff that that we do here with teot you know goes through Bridget to um to you know for processing so we're very excited to to have her here and this is her first uh policy board meeting here in in person because she's been following you know online several several of our meetings so welcome Bridget thank you all right so um moving on to item number 10 consider authorizing the executive director to submit a letter of support to US Secretary of State Anthony blinkin for keeping section 6711 of the National Defense authorization act ndaa which aims to expedite the presidential permitting process for international border crossings in the US Mexico border so um this the idea of this letter came um came up at the last btech meeting that we held in in Austin um I think it was in October and and really it you know the whole idea is to ask for for support to to keep this section on on this um on this act so that the the the process to um approv presidential permits either for new border crossings or for expanding existing Crossings to expedite the process um so I think it's it's a no-brainer what what uh what came out of bch since bech is only an advisory committee right you know we you know the the committee itself cannot uh submit a letter like that but it was it was suggested that all the members you know like the mo and and you know individual local governments can also submit letters of support for that I think it's a it's a great idea for us it's a no-brainer um to make sure that that these processes are expedited and and done you know on a on an efficient way um as you know presidential permits have have a traditionally taking a long time to to um to get approval so I think it's a it's a great opportunity to submit the letter I I I looked at the backup and it's on behalf of the VTEC was it supposed to be on behalf of no um yeah so so that that was a a draft that was submitted to us so you know we just need to to adjust it okay so I just want to make sure you're suggesting is in our individual municipalities to submit a letter of interest or in our individual capacity well I yeah I mean for example the city would be I think a a great uh you know sending a letter because you guys own the bridges right and so anything that that improves the or gives you the better chance of improving you know if you're thinking about expanding sosan and if a if a presidential permit is needed for that expansion I mean it depends on the scope of the project right but I think it's a you know it's a good thing to to have that uh show that support for Expediting that that process thank you Mr chair a second those in favor oppos motion pass thank you all right moving to 11 consider authorizing the executive director to sign a partnership agreement for the use of the center for civic empowerment on the 17th floor of the blue flame building in order to hold Mo Transportation policy board meetings in the space and Harrison will be presenting uh so as we did last year uh we need to sign an agreement a use agreement for this space uh to use it for policy board meetings in 2024 we already have all of the meeting dates reserved uh it's just a matter of signing the agreement um I'll let you all know that we do not actually have the agreement we have not been provided that by the city yet what is in the backup is last year's agreement we expect it's going to be substantially the same document um but we we've been trying to get that from the city um and for whatever reason we haven't been able to get it and we don't have it available in the backup today we do need an action um because otherwise we don't have that sign before the next meeting um we can't have it here um and we can if that doesn't happen we can scramble and figure out an alternative but uh it would be much preferred if we could uh continue as usual in the space here so the recommended motion would be uh well the motion is for you uh to authorize the executive director to sign the agreement um what we will make sure that once we receive the agreement it runs through uh s for review if there are substantial changes then we won't sign it before bringing it back for the board's review um and we'll just have to figure out what to do with the January meeting you want to comment on that please um yes CH uh so basically just what Harrison said uh we are in a situation where we need approval to sign uh this agreement so we can hold a meeting the next meeting here we haven't received it um so if you approve that the the executive director signed signed the the agreement as as is being requested when it comes to me as legal I I'll review it just like we did last year uh and if if it's substantially similar to what you approved last year then we you know we won't bring it back to you we'll just sign it and maybe you know show it to you at the next meeting um if if I is legal feel like well here the terms are very different or have changed and we should not sign this without first obtaining your approval then then that's what we'll do and sentive I just could somebody give us a summary of what the terms currently are so I think we can um it's it's the the one from last year is in the backup and so I'm just trying to pull that up well I know that the last year the one hang up or hiccup up that we had to resolve before signing it was uh making sure we had liability insurance uh in the name of the MPL but we did do that and it's been renewed for 2024 uh already so other than that I think it's pretty straightforward um use agreement um there's language in there about uh um you know responsibility if damage is is done and so so chair you know just talking about the important Provisions it it's free to the no for use it's you know that there's no compensation paid to the city so you that's an important term um It's usually the duration is for calendar year um we are uh We've indemnify the city you know we hold it harmless you know for actions of our own to the extent permitted by law uh those are terms that we discussed last year um it was much broader in nature when it was first presented to us by the city um it was kind of worded as if the city were leasing or renting the space to a private entity but you know we we discussed it with them you know we're we're a governmental entity as well and so they immediately agreed to revise the indemnification language uh which is the indemnification language that is in the present agreement so I'll check to make sure that that stays the same um and overall it's it's a very fair agreement to to to the NPO um was we had no issues I do recall having the the insurance issues where we asked him to to lower the amount of uh the the the type or the amount of coverage that they were asking us to to carry because we're a governmental entity and you know we're we're we're capped our liability is capped so there's no reason to have insurance above the cap um and we we've the reason it was important for us to tell you this is we were mindful of the fact that at the last meeting you told us that you wanted to have the agreement you know as part of the back of the the final drafts uh but our our uh understanding is that City uh department and legal are still reviewing it before circulating it to us for review um but that's where we're at Senator repr I was just gonna ask how long has the city of Al Paso had this agreement to review so we sent the the 2024 meeting dates to the city right after the board approved them which was in the October meeting um and uh there's a form we send the form in uh they reserve the dates and then they start working on the agreement so late October early November yeah I mean I don't understand why it's taking this long and I'm I'm I'm very critical of of that and I and I appreciate the transparency there it seems pretty perun and administrative in nature roles and responsibility I'll make a motion to approve and I'm G to try to get city manager second those in favor pass one important thing that the agreement says is that we cannot have a wild parties here think that's what's holding it up that's the all right so that concludes the action items moving on to reports and discussion uh item 12 debrief on 2023 text. patient alternative excuse me sorry though I think you're skipping the supplemental item that was it to afterward po session sented on Monday or something yeah s separ apologies for that so uh the next item was um posted as a supplemental item to the to the agenda as a separate uh document but it was posted in time you know to meet the 72h hour um uh requirement um so it's item 111 is the discuss and take appropriate action regarding the Linda waren versus El Paso Metropolitan planning organization at Al cost number 2023 dcv 3558 um just let me give you a little background on this we we received notification of this of this suit uh late uh Monday night so you know we decided to to post it on the agenda um so for discussion and potential moving into potentially moving into executive session if that's what we all choose to do um so again you know that's that's a reason why this was posted last minute because you we found out about this in uh Monday night I was actually in in Austin um when I received this on Monday night so um I know Mr chair if it's or said here if you make a recommendation also to move to Executive session or we need to motion passes ex session all right so for executive session we need for everybody to clear the the room hopefully this will be brief yeah um we can ask after start Mr chair I have a question yes re Canales you have a question yes I'm not familiar and our bylaws and then I know there there are some other folks still on the WebEx who yeah you got remove people correct [Music] um yeah um e e e e e e e e e okay motion to come out of executive favor motion passes so so now that we're out of executive chair I i' just like to uh recommend that the motion be that the uh the TPB authorizes legal council to file an answer on behalf of the no and also be authorized to take all actions necessary to defend the Mr chair second those in favor oppos motion passes all right thank you all right so now moving on to reports and discussion um item number 12 is debrief on 2023 tx. Transportation Alternatives call for projects and we have Adriana um Rodriguez from Texas good morning chair board my name is sadria Rodriguez and I'm a planner at the Department of Transportation I'm here to share with you some exciting news uh this call for projects happens every two years um we had 17 applicants and and I want to thank each and everyone we receive Your sponsorship letters uh which we attach with along with the application um six projects were awarded two outside the n boundaries for within the county of El Paso was uh was awarded to the city of El Paso was awarded one and the City of Soro was awarded one so we have been working uh with the local governments on these applications we want to ensure that we continue to push these projects along and prepare for the future for the next Call of projects um that will take place in 2025 I'm not sure if anybody has any questions thank you so much for your time thank you very much you all right so now moving on to item number 13 Amendment to the RMS 2050 MTP and 2023 2026 tip and development of a new Transportation Conformity report so this is just to to give you uh um the the board a heads up that we are initiating the the process to amend our our plan and as you know anytime that we amend the long range plan we we need to do a new Conformity analysis and Report which is the you know it takes a while to to do these things um so here on the screen you have the the the tentative of schedule for us to to do the all these activities um so we we do the the first step is to have a pre-analysis consensus plan meeting with the consultative partners we which we actually had yesterday so this is a meeting where we tell the consultative partners what it is that we intend to do what are the changes in the model and you know what basically what we're trying to do right and then very specifically on the air quality side you know which are the inputs to the to the emissions model who's going to do it and and and all that I mean it's it's part of the the the technical side and it it gets pretty pretty pretty intense right so that meeting we had yesterday there's no no action it's just letting them know and uh and we hope to get approval on our cons on plan well not approval but consensus on the on the plan from the partners which include Federal Highway EPA uh Texas commission on Environmental Quality uh tech. New Mexico DOT uh New Mexico environmental Department Etc you know it's the it's a pretty large group right so um so there you see the the the schedule we wanted have all the modeling which is we do so we control that so hopefully we'll we'll get that done pretty pretty quickly um then TTI does the emissions modeling um for us under a contract with tex. tpmp and um and then we prepare the Conformity report which is basically saying you know this is what we did and these are the results and the the bottom line is to show that that the emissions resulting from these changes that we're doing are still below the the budgets which are the the budgets are the maximum emissions that are allowed right throughout throughout the life of the plan so in this case it's uh you know we don't expect to have any issues with with with the the emissions modeling because again the changes to the plan are are relatively um well not that that sub substantive and we'll get into the changes and um so we intend to provide all of the information to the partners uh in the the March time frame so we'll we'll come here first obviously to the board and ask for approval to to submit this and then we're hoping that the review and approval process will take about four months from March to July um again we don't control that um sometimes the consultative partners get very logged down with other non- attainment regions Houston Dallas Fort Worth and and now San Antonio but uh but you know that's why we want to do the work as quickly as possible to give them you know the the enough time to review uh there are some important deadlines that uh that need to be met for for the projects are going to be uh in in the amendment um so we'll get into that Sonia do we have the the slide with the projects with the projects so when we get that um the the changes to the plan that that we are um that we're planning to do do the first one is with the state of New Mexico um I think you you've heard in the past that they received a an award from one of the federal programs for about $40 million um but the the way that that the application was submitted and what the what New Mexico do now intends to do is not consistent with the way that we modeled it the way that it's in our model right now so it has to match right so there's an inconsistency in the number of lanes and and and in one of the the the the the termin or the connection to uh mcnut on the on the Eastern limit so that project is this one right so in addition to having the federal funds the the legislature also uh authorized another 40 million roughly so it's an important project and you know for us for the region it's it's important so uh but unfortunately when we we were putting together the the RMS 2050 um back in 2020 um you know the idea or the concept of the project was only two lanes so now we need to expand it to to four lanes so that's one the second project is the um the connection to Mesa park as you know this this project has been in the books for for a while so it would be to connect the Messa park on the West Side to I 10 um there's an overpass right now that that uh that was built by Under the text. Goten project that was completed uh two three years ago um and but the intent of that overpass was to make the connection to Messa street right that project so it's important because it provides connectivity between it 10 and Messa street now the way that the that the project was conceived originally was to connect it 10 to Mesa via Mesa park the change that that the city is proposing and you know we think it's it's a great idea is instead of connecting it 10 to to to Messa via Messa Park is connected to the extension of Montes which has been built um you know by by the as part of the development and that connection to monu has been you know it gets us closer to it 10 so I think it's it's a really good idea for for that you know from our from our end so that that change is also going to be reflected in in this uh in this amendment then the the rest of the um amendments oh well before I go there this one which is the Mont Montana Avenue uh Improvement projects that that project uh was in in is modeled as being completed in the 2022 Network and so we need to because it's still under construction it's not open we need to push the opening year into 2032 so it's a relatively simple change but necessary change are we gonna have a similar issue with with what I'm sorry with the pelicano project I I don't believe so because pelicano is in the 2032 Network I believe so you know there's okay now if it's not open to traffic in 2032 we're in trouble what right okay and then finally the the projects along I 10 um including downtown 10 and and the other projects along I 10 that are sort of like the the companion projects the uh the modeling change is to um delete the Adaptive Lane uh that that's part of the description of these projects and and thas and Raul you know just to chime in if if you want but uh the way that we have it in the model today is that these projects would add two lanes in each direction throughout it 10 throughout all the segments that you see there in yellow right the the plan is to in instead of adding two lanes the result will be to only add one lane right so we drop the reference to Adaptive Lane because you know for modeling purposes we don't know what an Adaptive Lane is right so so the the the capacity element here is that throughout um the the projects along I 10 is that instead of adding two lanes we would be adding only one lane so of course you know that's a capacity issue so so needs to to be modeled and it's going to be part of these amendments as well so in a nutshell those are the what we what we intend to do with these amendments obviously downtown 10 is is part of these amendments as well so downtown 10 is is a project that is more on a on a schedule the other projects are are still in the outer years but I think it's important to to be consistent and and and uh you know revise the model as well so um that's uh pretty much it if you have any questions or I thought the Adaptive Lane was conceptually for mass transit a bus lane or a HOV High occupancy vehicle Lane that not what it was conceived to be and do you want yeah it was kind of ambiguous it was it was never really defined uh is it an HOV lane is it an Adaptive Lane is it an automated vehicle Lane uh and but you know you didn't have continuous capacity on that I mean so it's de for fast bus right yeah right so we're just gonna drop so this will be a general purpose L right oh it's still gonna be there no it'll be so it'll be four lanes rather than five but it's the the the lane that we're adding is general purpose so so you're still going to add a lane to it but it'll be a general purpose so for modeling since we don't know I mean the the Adaptive Lane concept sounds good flexible because it could be many things could be a truck link could be a Transit link could be an HOV lane could be many things right but since we don't know what it is it has implications on modeling right so so what we did in the original RMS is that we modeled it as a general purpose link because you know we don't have any any information otherwise uh for modeling purposes it changes if you if if you intend to do it like an HOV lane right but since we don't know what it is then we we model them as general purpose lanes and that's the way that that you know we're going to keep them right but the change is that instead of adding two general purpose Lanes as we have in the model right now we're only going to add one general purpose L is that because of money because the model I thought Salvador presented not long ago that the model showed clearly that we're going to be congested you know in the next 50 years well we we ran the the model and we did that sensitivity analysis actually a couple days ago with with Sonia there uh to show the the impact of of uh comparing adding two lanes as we have right now to adding only one lane so the the the impact is not that severe I mean we don't have any level of service F in 2050 which is obviously the the outer year um as a result of that we may have a little bit more yellow which in 2050 but it's nothing to really you know worry I mean of concern at this point we we'll ultimate I mean we'll we'll have the footprint and there if if we ever needed to add we won't have to move our walls realistic and again the the um the change was really driven by by downtown 10 segment to where there's a lot more Engineering in there but for consistency throughout the throughout the quarter we're adding all of the projects that that had a reference to the Adaptive Lane in in the plan all right so this is just a report and and of course as we uh complete the work and before we go to public involvement which is obviously an important part of the the process we'll come to the board to to uh get your you the green light for that and then after public involvement uh we'll come back to the board and Tek or um to you know get the green light to continue the the process before submitting the the the Conformity report for review as we said in in the March time frame all right so that concludes that report so if we move on to item 14 the cly reports a mo administrative amendments Report with Ang gante good morning again chair and and board so this is the quarterly amendments report this is presented to this body and also Tac um approximately every uh March June September and December this report discusses all of the administrative amendments that were made to the tip STI and MTP during the preceding quarter so this quarter covers activity made between September one and November 30th um it's in the uh the backup in your presentation and I'm happy to go through the slides if folks want to but if you feel that you've already had enough meeting um uh we can skip yeah all right um then we have Item B and see which are the project completion report and the project Readiness Report with Gabby Lopez but same thing um the information is in your backup um we can go through a brief presentation or if you prefer we can move on there are any of them red that's always the question right and I don't believe we have anything in Red so so one oh Abby do you want to go through the one medium alert and then two with low alert medium is if you can go over those Gabby skip to those yes of course yes so the the first project with the medium alert um if you go to slide number is North Harington reconstruction um the medium alert is due to environmental documents and being after the dat we do know that the project already met so we believe that the environmental document dat is just just needs to be updated by the sponsoring an and that the utilities will continue throughout the project um and then the the low alerts that we have the first one is sh 178 operational improvements ourcraft project this one also has a low alert due to the only two months prior to that date but t let us know that most of the utilities will not can we stop you there until we get the volume up because yes of course is it better now there we go go ahead okay yes it's on slide number 10 um the first medium North darington reconstruction due to environmental documents and the utilities estimated completion date um we believe that the environmental document date is just needs to be updated by the sponsoring entity since uh the project they already L and the utilities U might continue throughout the life of the the project um the other two projects that have low alert the first one is the one on screen um oh sorry um sh 178 operational improvements Artcraft and this one is due to the utilities being only two months prior to La date but the sponsor text. let us know that most of the utilities will continue throughout this uh the construction phase and the last project with the low alert is Shan Hagerty Drive extension and this one's due to the RightWay estimated completion date um being at 30% within five months to L and usually at this point in time we want the project to be at least at 60% progress within the six months of let dat those are the three projects withs all right thank you Gabby any questions or comments on on those projects all right thank you Gabby all right finally the last item is the executive director's report um the first one uh the Texas Freight advisory committee meeting that was held a couple weeks ago we have a new uh board member representing the El Paso that's Miriam katowski that many of you know uh she's been involved in the in the uh transportation business uh with her own as an owner of of a company but she is now joined forces with techma uh so she is very very involved and very knowledgeable in in you know all the issues related to El Paso so I think it'll be a great addition to to that committee uh secondly the Texas nop's uh Tempo meeting that was held a couple weeks ago as well um some of the highlights there one one important thing that that was discussed at the meeting is the fact that we have a new Mo in the state of Texas um it it's still pending I think signature from certification from the the governor but you know it's pretty much a done deal so Eagle Pass is now an no so the family grows from 23 to 24 mpos in the state of Texas um that may have some implications in the sense that with more mpos now the the planning funds that are distributed by Federal Highway and FTA to all the mpos in the state that may change right so if the the size of the of the cake remains a well now we have more slices right um so we need to figure out and and and Bridge it obviously with uh with Tex is you know we'll be part of those discussions as well in in U figuring out what the impact is going to be to the mpos uh it may be that because Texas is growing and we have more npos the the size of the allocation from the federal government to Texas gross so even though the the Texas pie we cut it into more slices but it might may not be a uh a great impact to us but I'm looking at you Bridget we don't we don't know you that yet all of that is under review right now and yes you're absolutely right the the pie Remains the Same the slices uh have increased but I know that there are opportunities for uh additional funding to for consideration so we're hoping that we will be able to to go and skate but I know that not everyone will escape that but we're optimistic that we can try and find a better medium for everybody right so one of the things that did happen at Tempo at the meeting was uh a discussion on this and um the the need to create a group that's going to be looking at at the formula on on how these funds are distributed um there is forance to give you an idea there's a situation with a very very small mpos that uh that receive you know just a minimal allocation right so that that minimum allocation is so small that it really is is a real burden I you you need a an executive director and many of these npos cannot afford even one employee and they still have to meet all the requirements they need to have a long range plan they need to have a tip etc etc so so one of the considerations is for the small npos to increase that minimum um allocation um so like in in any other uh formula uh change there may be some winners there may be some losers and and we'll see related to that um at that meeting uh the the El Paso Mo was was elected to be part of the executive committee of tempo um so I will be participating in in in the executive committee which will play a role specifically in in you know participating in the in this formula uh redistribution um of of funds so I'll keep you posted on that but of course you know we wanted to to be there part of that committee to make sure that that uh that you know we're not one of the the losers um the Texas Transportation committee meeting it happened uh this past Tuesday because it's a month of December it was it was uh held a lot earlier in the month on a Tuesday um I was there providing comments um uh regarding our priority projects and some of the exciting things that are happening here in the in the El Paso region rep Ortega and Senator Blanco also had staff members there providing comments um I don't know if you guys want to have any thoughts on that or well I guess the the only thought was the the feedback and what I heard with regard to the meeting is that uh there was quite a bit of of local elected representation from from the V valy and I think in the future it would be smart for this community to also have uh local elected officials uh commenting with regard to the priorities and the the needs of this community uh because I understand that there was quite a a show of force by by uh local elected officials from the valley right and to that point uh yeah there was a an an item on the agenda for the commission meeting specific to to the valley it was to bring the the second costway connecting uh badri Island into the state highway system so that's a major major milestone for for that project um but but you're right I mean they had the County judge for Cameron County they had um the current board uh I'm sorry the chair of the policy Board of the Rio Grand the valley no they had a bunch of uh elected officials there um the director of the RMA uh Pete seula and and several others so so yeah I mean you're absolutely you've heard me say that several times that that we we need to show I mean it's important for the no director to be there but I think they they need to see um other faces as well that be it Senator no I just think um to reiterate I think we need to be there present at the table right I think our community can do a better job to right and it's not just elected officials you know we need also um you know the private sector industry uh users of the of the transportation system and and so on so anyways um and then finally uh just a quick note on the Santa support of Entry modernization study by by GSA uh we attended a meeting a couple weeks ago um similar to The Bridge of the Americas GSA is conducting a Fe visibility study to look at potential improvements of the port of entry for Santa Teresa the difference is that there is no funding for for Santa Teresa for those improvements uh which we all know that for the bridge of the Americas there's already big funding uh identified for the improvements um but again the the the same comments that uh that uh from the mpo staff were that we need to look at all of these Crossings in our region as a system right instead of just looking at at each Crossing individually and and you know very very Silo view of um and that's why again the the urgency for us to to start that uh the Strategic plan that we've been talking about here for for a while and and try to provide more information on how these Crossings um because not all of them are bridges but all these Crossings uh really could complement each other right really looking at them as a system from Santa Teresa all the way to Toro and and um and look at different Alternatives like different options like you know what if you know what if we do close down the bridge of the Americas for for commercial trucks and you know what happens you know we still have Sosa we have Sates and we have Toro right so anyway so that that's just a a note to let you all know that sesa um Court of Entry is undergoing that that study for now and and it's important for all of us to par mississipp right you know for the the city the county on the Texas side as well so that that's it if you have any thoughts questions happy to try to answer okay well the last thing is I just want to wish everybody a happy and safe holiday season and and uh we'll see you um hopefully here in this room in January good so Merry Christmas it's not in the do we need a motion to [Applause] ad