TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD

D  R  A  F  T

Minutes

October 27, 2006

 

1.     Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman John Cook called the Transportation Policy Board meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. at the El Paso MPO Offices, 10767Gateway Boulevard West, Suite 605, El Paso, Texas.  Members in attendance were:

Members Present

Titles

Members Present

Titles

Patrick Abeln

Director of Aviation

Eliot Shapleigh

Texas State Senator

Charles H. Berry, Jr.

District Engineer TXDOT-El Paso

Miguel Teran

County Commissioner, El Paso

Kevin Bunce

Interim Director, Mass Transit

Members Absent

Titles

Norma Chavez

Texas State Representative

Patricia Adauto

Deputy City Manager

John Cook

Mayor, City of El Paso

Alvin Dominguez

District Engineer-NMDOT

Eddie Holguin

City Representative, District #6

Art Franco

Mayor, Town of Anthony

Larry Medina

County Commissioner, El Paso

Patrick Haggerty

Texas State Representative

Walter L. Miller

Alderman, Town of Horizon

Trini Lopez

Mayor, City of Socorro

Presi Ortega, Jr.

City Representative, District #5

Cynthia Nava

State Senator, New Mexico

Joe C. Pickett

Texas State Representative

Beto O’Rourke                 

City Representative, District #8

Chente Quintanilla

Texas State Representative

Madeleine Praino

Mayor, Village of Vinton

Robert Rivera

County Engineer, El Paso

Dale Reinhardt

Mayor, Town of Clint

Jesus Segura

Mayor, City of Sunland Park

Dolores Saldaña-Caviness

Co. Commissioner, Doña Ana

 

 

 

 

Others Present

Others Present

Mike Rooney

Citizen

Nick Costanzo

EPWU

Terry Craig

EPISO

Tim White

Ft. Bliss

Yolanda Martinez

EPISO

Clark McChesney

Ft. Bliss

Marcela Gerardo

EPISO

Mark Crews

TXDOT

Kevin Courtney

EPISO

Joseph De La Rosa

NMDOT

Troy Hicks

BQC

Jill Breitinger

Rep. Pickett’s Office

Sister Julie Cutter

EPISO

Robert Grijalva

Rep. Quintanilla’s Office

Emily Kreisa

PB

Charlie Ward

Sierra Machinery

Blanca Del Valle

TXDOT

Nina Serna

Rep. Quintanilla’s Office

Jesse Acosta

County of El Paso

Rajat Rajbhandavi

TTI

Mark Longenbaugh

TXDOT

Rafael Aldrete

TTI

Charlie Dodge

HNTB

Raymond Telles

City Attorney

Darrin Willer

HNTB

Lupe Cuellar

City Attorney

Michael Vonasek

Corps of Engineers

Roy Gilyard

MPO

David Shafii

Ft. Bliss

Ricardo Dominguez

MPO

Mike Bormann

Corps of Engineers

Efren Meza

MPO

Troy Collins

Corps of Engineers

Sonia Perez

MPO

Rivel Morales

EPISO

Carlos Najera

MPO

Miriam Almaraz

EPISO

Gloria Deese

MPO

Maria Valdez

EPISO

Isela Perez

MPO

Manal Shehabi

GEPCC

Adolfo Coronado

MPO

Richard Dayoub

GEPCC

Christina Stokes

MPO

 

 

2.       Approval of Minutes for September 22, 2006.

A motion was made by Charles Berry to approve of the Minutes for September 22, 2006. Commissioner Teran         seconded the motion.   The motion carried.

Chair Cook acknowledged a request from EPISO to speak regarding agenda Item 8.

Ms. Terry Craig of EPISO (El Paso Interreligious Sponsoring Organization) approached the Board and introduced herself.  Ms. Craig advised that EPISO is an organization made up of institutions, schools and colonias that work to include all voices for the improvement of our community.  Ms. Craig further advised that EPISO does not yet have a position on toll roads, the RMA (Regional Mobility Authority), or any particular plan.  Through a series of house meetings in different parts of the community, families have expressed that the issue of toll roads is a very complicated one and they feel that they have not been given enough information on the subject.  They are concerned that those people who live in the far east must travel across town for low wage jobs and they may not be able to afford to pay for toll roads.  They are concerned that people with money have input and those without do not.  They are concerned that people in Austin and elsewhere are telling us what we must or must not do.  Ms. Craig asked that any decisions regarding toll roads be postponed at this time until the families in the communities are better educated or given more information on the subject.  Ms. Craig again advised that EPISO has not yet taken a position on toll roads but will be willing to hold any forums and invite anyone who would be interested in providing additional information to the families.

3.       Discussion and Action to Approve Executive Committee Recommendations:

a.        Establishing a Policy for the Allocation of Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBIP) Funds.

Commissioner Teran explained that the conclusion reached by the Executive Committee was to set aside 85% of the fund for significant transportation projects and 15% allocated to smaller projects in rural communities of the remaining balance of the CBIP fund amount, which is $46 million.  Commissioner Teran advised the funding amount for any project not completed or found ineligible after TPB approval would also be applied to the funding set aside for the rural community projects.

Chair Cook commented that a problem could be presented when some of the smaller communities could not provide the matching funds for projects and asked if there was a provision to return those funding amounts to the 85% portion of the CBIP fund.  Commissioner Teran advised that was not discussed and explained that the EC focused on allocating an amount of CBIP funding to smaller communities.  Commissioner Teran commented that in the case that funding from larger projects is available and is not applied then the issue would be addressed and voted upon at that time. 

Senator Eliot Shapleigh asked Mr. Roy Gilyard for an explanation of the use of the CBIP funding.  Mr. Gilyard explained that the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program is a federal program that was created under the new SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users) transportation bill and is the same funding used to fund the Border Improvement Plan a year ago and a community must be a border community in order to be eligible to use this fund.  The definition of a border community is a community that is located within 60 miles of the US/Mexico border.  Mr. Gilyard advised that TXDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) has been allocated $53.5 million of CBIP fund over a period of five years and is used for the purpose of the program is to improve the efficient movement of people and goods with emphasis through ports of entry but includes other roadways that may provide transportation to ports of entry and improve the movement of people and goods through these ports. 

Representative Joseph Pickett advised that the Executive Committee’s focus was a continuation of the previous discussion of the TPB regarding this funding and once this funding was dedicated to projects, it would not expire.  Mr. Gilyard added that the money for this program is still available after the end of the five-year Bill.

Chair Cook wanted to clarify that if the 15% (set aside for smaller communities) is not used, in the event the smaller communities could not match the fund, that amount would be considered for other projects and brought back to the Board at a later date.  Representative Pickett commented that the Project Selection Committee (PSC) is responsible for ensuring that all agencies are able to provide the matching funds when the PSC recommends projects for approval.

Commissioner Teran made a motion to adopt the CBIP policy and was seconded by Mr. Robert Rivera.  The motion carried.

 

b.       Regarding the Hiring of an Attorney to Represent the MPO

Chair Cook commented that the issue of hiring an MPO attorney only arises when there is a possible conflict but doesn’t feel that this is a wise financial decision.

Representative Presi Ortega asked for the financial consequences.  Mr. Roy Gilyard explained that the MPO currently pays the City of El Paso a little over $17,000.00 a year for legal services; outside legal counsel may cost between $200 to $250 per hour with an individual or firm.

Senator Shapleigh commented that the conflict issue is important and added that the lawyer for this Board must be responsible for the duties of this Board and not on behalf of the City, County or anyone else.  Senator Shapleigh suggested the Board might consider making a motion, at times of a perceived conflict, to assign an outside attorney for that one issue to represent the MPO’s interest.  He suggested that the concept of an interim attorney might be acceptable.

Commissioner Teran advised that this option was discussed by the EC and should be considered.  Representative Pickett commented that previously, when this issue was brought up, a request for professional proposals was made and this could be cost saving.  Representative Pickett preferred not to have an as-needed attorney for continuity and recommends a motion to direct the Executive Director to advertise for professional proposal for the Board’s consideration.  He also suggested that the Board look at three or four proposals and the legal firms make a presentation to the Board.

A motion was made by Representative Joseph Pickett to direct the Executive Director to present three professional contract proposals to represent the Board for consideration at its next TPB meeting and was seconded by Senator Eliot Shapleigh.  The motion carried.

Mr. Gilyard asked if the proposal was to include performing all MPO legal work and it was clarified by Representative Pickett that it should involve all MPO legal work which included working with the City’s attorneys as well as other agencies and the public.

 

Note: Mayor Jesus Segura arrived at 9:33 a.m. and Commissioner Larry Medina arrived at 9:39 a.m.

 

Chair Cook then moved forward to Item #10.

4.       Discussion and Action to Approve the Relocation of Project #P208B-15A  (Widening of McCombs St

        from 2- lanes to 4-lanes from the Patriot Freeway north of the Painted Dunes Golf Course to the EP Natural Gas Line) from the 2025 model network to the 2015 network in the next Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

 

Mr. Nick Costanzo of the El Paso Water Utilities presented this item and requested approval of the project.  Mr. Costanzo explained that the project involved widening McCombs to a 4-lane divided road. He commented that this is a $1 billion dollar project in Northeast El Paso with about 16,000 acres of land owned by the PSB (Public Service Board), through the City of El Paso, that is ready for development.  The PSB previously had a Northeast Master Plan for this area done and now has a consultant working on the detailed phasing of this plan in the northeast to meet the demands of the troops coming in to Ft. Bliss and related industries.

 

Mr. Costanzo referred to the 10-year Land Parcelization Plan map that contains 6,500 acres of land that will be the first phase of development, of which 3,300 acres will be developed and the rest would be open space.  There will be hike and bike trails throughout the 3,300 acres and connecting into the State park.  Mr. Costanzo advised that work was done by the school districts to identify the location of schools for this area.  Mr. Costanzo identified various housing market types that included senior housing, high end housing near the golf course and standard housing amounting to about 10,000 houses to be developed within the next 10 years.  The widening of McCombs road would be the first step in beginning the first phase of this plan.

 

Representative Pickett commented that on the map, Loop 375 extension was reflected and asked if this is what was being referred to as McCombs.  Mr. Costanzo responded it was not and then identified the correct location using the map.  Representative Pickett commented that this then could be part of the Northeast Parkway alignment, to which Mr. Costanzo responded no and then identified the Northeast Parkway on the map.  Representative Pickett then asked to show where it would pick up with the existing Loop 375 to which Mr. Berry advised that the location was outside the area of the map shown on the current slide.  The location was then identified and Representative Pickett commented that this extension was important to this development as well and for the widening of McCombs expansion to work, the Loop 375 extension would be needed for traffic flow of this Master Plan. Mr. Costanzo advised that Loop 375 was overlaid and incorporated into this Master Plan.  Representative Pickett advised that the extension alignment was prior to the Master Plan development and asked if the PSB would provide relief for the right-of-way acquisition for the Loop 375 extension because this was tied in now.  Mr. Costanzo advised that the PSB would work with TXDOT regarding the rights-of-way for the Loop 375 extension.  Representative Pickett commented that this information related to other plans the Board was evaluating on today’s TPB agenda and that this could be a way for part of the funding proposals if we could get some of this right-of-way dedicated.  Representative Pickett advised that this was one reason more time was needed to come to a consensus regarding the Southern Relief Route and the Northeast bypass.  It has become more important to see if we can get right-of-way donated by the City and PSB; this would help with the development costs.  Chair Cook asked for a legal opinion as to whether or not the City could make a donation of land as he believed there was a prohibition on donating City-owned land.  City Attorney Raymond Telles advised that there are certain prohibitions and there would have to be some sort of public purpose.  Chair Cook commented that this issue would be considered public purpose.  He further commented that this should be considered with regard to the other agenda items.

 

In closing, Mr. Costanzo advised that EPWU (El Paso Water Utilities) staff had met with TXDOT staff and the MPO staff, a presentation was made to the Technical Advisory Committee and the PSB was willing to pay for the construction of the widening of McCombs Road.

 

Senator Shapleigh asked about the green space indicated on the map in regards to arroyos, to which Mr. Costanzo advised that the consultant worked with the City staff and the open space community in identifying the natural flow paths of the area.  Senator Shapleigh asked if this was the 100 year flood plain and if it was being incorporated as permanent dedicated green space owned by the City of El Paso to which Mr. Costanzo responded it was and then identified on the map the location of dedicated land that would be part of the State park.  Senator Shapleigh asked if similar work is planned for the West side to which Mr. Costanzo advised that it is also planned.

 

Senator Shapleigh commented that this is a very important long-term solution to what we experienced with the flood in that area and was interested in how the green space planning was determined.  Mr. Costanzo advised that this was being worked on for about a year and prior to the recent flooding, but basically the idea was to allow for hiking and biking to the State park through this path, under McCombs Road, under Martin Luther King Road, through Painted Dunes Golf Course, under the overpass and to the 55 acre regional park in this green belt area (referring to a connection to the other side shown on the map). 

 

Mr. Berry then asked for clarification that in the future, the Loop 375 extension, as referred to on the map, be referred to as the Proposed Northeast Parkway.  Mr. Costanzo stated that the terminology change would be made.

 

Mr. Costanzo explained that currently there is work under way amending the comprehensive plan through December.  It will be presented to the CPC (City Plan Commission)and City Council and that the Land Study application had been submitted and comments were being taken now, including today. There will be amendments to the plan with hopes to have the plan approved by CPC in December.  The plan is to put this land out to bid in February with the bid awarded in April or May.

 

A Motion to approve was made by Representative Pickett and was seconded by Senator Shapleigh.  The motion carried.

5.     Discussion and Action To Approve, FY 2008, of the 2006-2010 Amended TIP, to use Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, for the Installation of “New” Dynamic Message Signs, from Mesa on IH-10 to Eastlake on IH-10, in the amount of $2,513,818. 

 

Mark Crews of TXDOT presented this item and requested approval.  He explained that this project was presented and approved previously by the Board but was later determined to be ineligible for the “upgrade” of the dynamic message signs and was advised it was required that they be “new” message signs to be eligible to meet the conformity and emissions analysis figures.

 

Representative Pickett asked Mr. Crews if this project involved replacing old signs or only adding new signs.  Mr. Charles Berry of TXDOT advised that this project would be adding new signs. 

 

Representative Pickett questioned the difference between new signs versus older signs and Mr. Berry was able to address this issue.  Mr. Berry explained that some of the dynamic message signs that are currently in place are about 15 years old and the technology for these signs has greatly changed within that time and the new signs are more visible with higher light intensity than some of the older signs.  The older signs couldn’t be replaced using CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) funds but would have to be replaced in accordance with TXDOT’s Preservation Program. 

 

Chair Cook wanted to clarify that this item that was approved by the Board previously consisted of the same detail and requested funding amount to which Mr. Crews stated the item was the same.

 

A Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Teran and was seconded by Mr. Charles Berry.  The motion carried.

6.     Discussion and Action On the Proposed FY 06-07 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Amendment to Program $54,403.00 of Additional FY07 Section 5303 funds received from the Federal Transit Administration.

 

Isela Perez, Accountant for the MPO gave a brief presentation of this item and requested approval.

 

A Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Teran and was seconded by Walter Miller.  The motion carried.

7.       Discussion and Action Regarding the Inner Loop Project.

Charles Berry, District Engineer of TXDOT for El Paso, made a presentation.  Mr. Berry advised that the information provided in the Board’s packets described the current status of the Inner Loop Project.  The Inner Loop was recently designated as State Highway Spur 601 and is a proposed limited access highway that will connect US Highway 54 with Loop 375, Purple Heart Highway.  It improves access to Ft. Bliss and Biggs Army Airfield as well as providing new access to the El Paso International Airport’s new commercial and industrial developments and the huge development that is going on at Ft. Bliss, now, otherwise known as East Biggs.  The Inner Loop has been in the El Paso MPO’s and TXDOT’s Long Range Plan for several years.  The construction costs for this project is about $176 million and sufficient funds have not yet been identified.  TXDOT has recently received two solicited proposals as a result of one unsolicited proposal that TXDOT received back in December of 2005.  In April of this year, TXDOT received two competing proposals for the development of that project through TXDOT’s Pass-Through Toll Program.  Through this program, TXDOT reimburses a public or a private entity over a period of time based on the actual traffic volumes that the highway experiences.  TXDOT is in the process of reviewing the two solicited proposals and because they are being proposed by a private entity, it has made the review very complex. Both private entities have proposed that interest costs be included in their repayment plan and typically this does not occur.  The typical process for a Pass-Through Toll proposal is that a local government makes a proposal to TXDOT for a financing plan and then the local government returns upon approval to proceed with acquisition of a contractor and design firm to build the facility or facilities.  In El Paso, the Pass-Through financing plan is an all-inclusive package that includes the financing plan, the design firm and the contractors that would completely deliver a turnkey type project.  This has made the process more complicated, however, it is believed that once it is completed, we will be further along in the process than when a government entity would make the proposal and it would have to go back and procure these design and engineering and construction services.

Chair Cook asked if TXDOT is in the process of trying to sort out the “apples” from the “oranges,” to which Mr. Berry advised that TXDOT is committed to trying to deliver this by the end of this calendar year with a decision on these proposals.  It is a tight schedule and there are a lot of reviews, as the two proposals were very different from each other. 

Representative Norma Chavez asked if the private entities could be identified and Mr. Berry stated that since it was public information, he advised that one entity was Abrams Construction, Incorporated (based out of Austin, Texas), and the other was Zachary Construction (based out of San Antonio, Texas).  Representative Chavez then asked what entity submitted the unsolicited proposal to which Mr. Berry advised it was Abrams Construction. 

Representative Chavez asked if an RFP (Request for Proposal) was done to which Mr. Berry advised that one had been done which resulted in the solicited proposals.  He further explained that the RFP was done due to the first unsolicited proposal submitted by Abrams Construction, who then submitted a second solicited proposal. The Texas Transportation Commission reviewed that unsolicited proposal in December 2005 and followed with a Request for Proposals in January or February of 2006; and responses were received in April.  Senator Shapleigh then asked if this proposal review would be done by December 31 (2006).  Mr. Berry commented that the District (TXDOT) is supporting an Austin operation that is in review of this; the El Paso District is not responsible directly for that review.   The review of these proposals is being held at the administration level and Mr. Amadeo Saenz, our Deputy Executive Director for Engineering Operations is personally taking charge of that and there are several division offices that are involved The El Paso District office is just one of those offices giving input to that review and they plan on completing the review by the end of the year. 

Senator Shapleigh then asked for the total cost of the project.  Mr. Berry gave two amounts; one figure was based on if we had the cash today, and if we were able to procure the right-of-way and get the design firms together and build that from end to end, from US 54 to Loop 375, it would be on the order of $250 million and that included the City of El Paso and Ft. Bliss responding with donations of a substantial amount of right-of-way, not counting the right-of-way already being donated for this.  Ft. Bliss had informed TXDOT that they really can’t commit to that until there is an approved environmental document but have been very helpful and anxious to get this project underway. 

Senator Shapleigh then asked if one of the three proposals, the one unsolicited and two solicited, gets this project, what is the projected termination date of this contract—when will this project be completed.  Mr. Berry advised that two entities have submitted different schedules for delivery of the project but the big benefit to this is that we would be able to deliver the project with what is called “Design-Build.”  The delivering contractor would be designing the work as they were building it whereas TXDOT could not do this but, instead,  must design, bid and then build.  The timelines are on the order of delivering, from end to end, in three to four years, traffic driving on the road.  The thought has been that the most important part that our region needs as a metropolitan area, in terms of transportation, would be that of the eastern part; from the work that is underway at the Biggs entrance, right now, all the way to Loop 375.  This would go underway first to construction, while they were doing the more complicated design and the more complicated right-of-way acquisition along the western portion between the Biggs entrance and US 54. 

Senator Shapleigh then asked if, in the financing package, there was protection to this community that none of this would become an active toll road.  Mr. Berry advised that neither of the two proposals had tolls as part of the delivery system; it is proposed as a non-tolled facility at this time. Once it is under way as a non-tolled highway, in order to convert it, we would have to go to the County Commissioners Court, and it would be called a “Conversion.”  In order to do this, the state law provides for a conversion to require a County Commissioners Court approval and referendum in support of a conversion.  Senator Shapleigh then asked regarding the financing package, as the law is understood, is there the ability, after “the ink is dry” and the project is let, to come back and ask for modifications on different aspects of their contract because they are ending up having to eat some of the cost of this that they didn’t anticipate.  Mr. Berry answered no, not with any unforeseen or unaddressed issues in the contract. 

 

Senator Shapleigh then asked for clarification on the repayment of debt whether it was thirty years or fifty years.  Mr. Berry didn’t know exactly but would estimate thirty years.  Senator Shapleigh then commented that when this package is financed, part of it is going to be at the present value of $250 million, and when it is put into concrete (approved and construction commenced) and built within three to four years, then it is repaid with some funding stream and the money would have to be borrowed up front.; so the cost of money is going to be one of the line items in this project.  Mr. Berry advised that this was correct.  Senator Shapleigh continued by asking if, under existing law, they have the ability to charge the cost of money into the costs of the project, to which Mr. Berry responded yes and that it was included in both of the proposals TXDOT received.  Mr. Berry advised that this is a $250 million project that, likely, over time, is going to cost on the order of $300 million and that this is a huge proposal for this region to consider. 

Senator Shapleigh then asked who at TXDOT is monitoring this and pushing this forward as an important project for Ft. Bliss to which Mr. Berry advised that it had the highest attention of the Commission (Texas Transportation Commission) and that the administration of TXDOT has been monitoring the progress and are aware that this project supports and complements possibly the largest economic opportunity in the state of Texas.  Mr. Berry advised that he mentioned to them that this could potentially be an even bigger project than others in the state, including Toyota manufacturing going to San Antonio. 

On behalf of the Board, Senator Shapleigh stated that the Board would like to see this project funded and on board before the end of the year because there are decisions that the Pentagon that are still pending based on whether or not this gets done.  He further asked that this be conveyed in the strongest possible terms that it would be even better to make this a Thanksgiving gift and not a Christmas present.  Chair John Cook asked that it (decision) be given to the Board by December 1, 2006.  Mr. Berry stated that he would convey the message personally and advised that he knows that TXDOT administration is aware and that a receipt of response from requests for information is expected in Austin, today. So it is ongoing and has a very high priority for completion with TXDOT.

Representative Pickett mentioned that as a former Chairman of the TPB, he received a letter from the Executive Director of TXDOT, Mr. Mike Behrens (Mr. Ricardo Dominguez was asked to look for this letter to present to the Board) in which Mr. Behrens would not help El Paso.  Representative Pickett commented that the report on the Inner Loop given by Mr. Berry for the last year has been that everything is fine and the unsolicited proposal was received by TXDOT in a 45-day period and then asked Mr. Berry if the second proposal was also received within the 45 days.  Mr. Berry advised that two proposals came in on the 45th day or possibly the 44th day.  Representative Pickett then asked if one of them is being reviewed now, to which Mr. Berry responded that both of them were being evaluated.  There was a question as to which proposals were currently being reviewed.  Mr. Berry clarified TXDOT received an unsolicited proposal from Abrams Construction, Incorporated and as a result of that, TXDOT went out for an RFP and through that RFP, TXDOT received two responses, one again from Abrams, Inc. and a second response. 

Representative Pickett commented that Mr. Berry earlier stated that this was above the District level and that the administration was holding it and also commented that this was a difficult situation because TXDOT would like to see the same design and development and construction all done at once; that is exactly what TXDOT wants.  He further added that if for no other project in the state of Texas, this is the project that the Commission should be behind 100%. Representative Pickett again referred to the letter he received that did not indicate support from TXDOT for this project. Mr. Berry recalled that the contents of that letter advised that it was more on the order of TXDOT  reviewing it as necessary to move on it more quickly. 

Representative Pickett commented that today’s presentation was very different than the presentation in July when Mr. Berry stated that everything with this project was fine.  Representative Pickett then began reading a letter from Mr. Behrens given to him by Mr. Dominguez, but realized this was not the letter which he was referring.  Representative Pickett stressed the importance of the Board knowing the status of this project and the necessity to find funding to move this project forward. There was some discussion as to how long ago the proposal had been received and how long the Board has waited on a decision from TXDOT to begin moving this project forward.   Mr. Berry explained that because the first proposal was submitted as unsolicited, it was resubmitted later as a solicited proposal with some differences than what was included the first time. It is not being considered with the two proposals being reviewed now. Representative Pickett asked why the Board was not notified that the first unsolicited bid was not being considered nor was told that an RFP went out.  He further commented that it appeared that three proposals were being considered to which Mr. Berry apologized for the confusion but there were initially three but because one was resubmitted, there were only two being reviewed. 

Representative Pickett felt that due to the postponement of RMA (Regional Mobility Authority) and toll road discussions that this project was placed on the “back-burner.”  Mr. Berry advised that this proposal from the private sector was the first received and we now have another one out there.  He further advised that TXDOT is “blazing new ground,” and have not done this before with any other entity and in addition to that, it is the largest that TXDOT has received to date.  It is the largest in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars with lots of pieces and parts such as the financing plan—how that is going to be designed and how those costs would be incorporated into the proposal; how it would be constructed; and potentially how it would be operated or maintained in the future.

Chair Cook commented that what Representative Pickett, Senator Shapleigh and the Chair are trying to present is that there is a level of frustration with the response the Board is receiving from TXDOT-Austin and that the Board would like TXDOT-Austin to know that the Board is getting impatient.  Mr. Berry advised that he would share this concern and commented that the MPO has been able to provide videotaping of the meetings that Mr. Berry has used to convey the Board’s concerns to the office in Austin in addition to the Board’s direct communication with them.

Chair Cook then asked for public comment.

Mr. Richard Dayoub, President of the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce, then approached the Board.   He commented on the Chair’s earlier comparison of this project to the San Antonio project in the importance and magnitude of the expansion of Ft. Bliss and believed it was a fair statement.  He explained that the impact on the economy of this community and region could be approximately $4 billion per year.  He advised that Ft. Bliss has already made an investment to this project with construction already started on the Far East Biggs Field section at an estimated construction-only cost of $2.6 billion.  Mr. Dayoub stressed the importance of needed infrastructure in the Ft. Bliss area and advised that the Transportation Committee and the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce Board (GEPCC) of Directors has designated the Inner Loop project as its number one project.  Mr. Dayoub also asked that Mr. Berry convey a message from the GEPCC that it is clear of the importance of this project and that it is clear that the cost of this project is huge and that the longer it takes to make this decision, the more expensive this project becomes and that it is imperative to make this announcement very soon.  Mr. Dayoub asked the Board to consider other funding alternatives to complete this project if TXDOT fails to expedite their action.  Mr. Dayoub’s final comment was to advise the Board those other communities in Texas and across the country that have military installations, including Ft. Hood, are waiting for action from El Paso and if there is none, will take advantage of this opportunity.

Representative Chavez commented that she was also aware of other communities waiting for the opportunity to act if El Paso is not successful in its construction of the Inner Loop and that El Paso should not take it for granted that these troops are coming into El Paso.  The Pentagon needs to know that the infrastructure is place in order to support this influx of troops.

Mr. Dayoub added that information he received from the civilian agent with the Secretary of the Army, Tom Thomas, confirmed that representatives of Ft. Hood were meeting with Pentagon officials to advise that they were ready and to deliver to the Pentagon misinformation regarding the conditions in El Paso relative to our preparedness for this influx.

Representative Chavez asked if the main concern with this project is that if it should be non-tolled, to which Mr. Dayoub advised that that was a big issue, but that the biggest issue is the timeliness of this project. It needs to be started and we are already falling behind.  Representative Chavez then asked Mr. Berry if the Commission (Texas Transportation Commission) is the determinant to which Mr. Berry responded that it was the Commission’s decision on accepting or not accepting either of the two proposals that we have.

Chair Cook then asked for a legal opinion regarding eliminating TXDOT and doing this as an RMA project; i.e., does an RMA have the authority to do a pass-through toll project to which City Attorney Raymond Telles responded yes.

Representative Pickett then advised that the project can be expedited even quicker today if the Board can reallocate funding and make this project a priority but Chair Cook.

Representative Pickett asked if Mr. Dayoub was familiar with the letter that was mentioned earlier regarding the Inner Loop. Mr. Dayoub advised that he did recall the letter and that in summary of the letter, the closing paragraph mentions that if the process TXDOT was going through wasn’t satisfactory to our community that they would then challenge us (El Paso) to do it ourselves or find some other alternate financing capacity; the inference was that they (TXDOT) were doing the best they could and if we were not satisfied with their timing and scheduling that we should consider other alternatives.  Representative Pickett agreed with Mr. Dayoub’s recollection of the letter.  There were some comments by Representative Pickett regarding expediting projects without using an RMA.  Representative Chavez commented all tools available should be looked at in order to expedite this project; there was some brief discussion regarding the use or non-use of an RMA.

Mr. Berry then asked to speak to reassure the Board and the public that the Inner Loop project and the discussion regarding an RMA are two independent issues.  The Inner Loop project is being considered for pass-through toll financing as a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) project that is of great importance to the state of Texas and an economic opportunity development for the state of Texas and for El Paso.  The RMA issues, the tolling issues, are separate issues and that is how TXDOT is considering them.  The Inner Loop proposals are being reviewed and added that if BRAC (realignment) was not happening, we (TXDOT) would not be considering the Inner Loop, especially with the size of this project. This is a BRAC project.  Chair Cook clarified that what Representative Pickett was suggesting is that we (the Board) take all the other projects such as the Southern Relief Route, for example, and fund the Inner Loop with that to which Mr. Berry responded it was possible.  Chair Cook also suggested that it could be considered for an RMA project to which Mr. Berry responded that that was possible as well.

Senator Shapleigh then asked for a legal opinion, with respect to this project and referring to agenda item #7, the Board has the ability to discuss and take action on this as presented.  Chair Cook agreed that according to Texas Open Meetings law, you have to have an item substantially posted to let the public know what you are going to do and doesn’t believe the public had any idea that the Board would be considering looking at shifting monies today but there would be nothing wrong with the Board, based on this discussion, posting for that type of action for the December 1st meeting.  This would basically let TXDOT know that the Board is prepared to take some type of action by December 1st, even if it means we are going to take other projects, which TXDOT has been supporting for some period of time, and move them back and move this project up because I believe this Board thinks that this is an important enough action to take.

Mr. Berry commented that a decision on December 1st on whether to totally go in a different direction gives him grave concerns that it may take even longer to accomplish.  We have the potential for accomplishing our mobility program as we have the abilities to deliver it in our funding capabilities here in El Paso and the Inner Loop. A premature decision, to go off and “we’ll build the Inner Loop,” could result just getting one of those (projects) and for the expense of just days or weeks.  Chair Cook advised that it was understood and believed this would send a strong message to TXDOT.

Chair Cook then acknowledged Colonel Tim White, Deputy Garrison Commander for Transformation of Ft. Bliss. Col. White first wanted to offer his thanks to Mayor Cook and the State for what is being done to help Ft. Bliss and the soldiers of Ft. Bliss.   Col. White expressed his concern regarding the importance of the completion of the Inner Loop that contributes to the synchronization and integration of everything within the expansion area, the $2.6 million of construction at East Biggs.  Col. White described what is involved with preparing for the significant increase of soldiers and their families to Ft. Bliss.  He advised that there would be an increase of approximately 12,000 to 13,000 soldiers and families living off of Ft. Bliss with an additional 5,000 single non-commissioned officers also living off Ft. Bliss which would be a total of about 17,000 to 18,000 soldiers that the economy would have  to absorb and these soldiers would have to commute into Ft. Bliss and Biggs.  Currently about 20,000 people work at Biggs and 7,000 live at Biggs with only one access control point (ACP), or gate, at Fred Wilson and Airport right now. He described a soldier’s normal day at work and explained the difficulty in reporting to work as scheduled due to only one open gate, which will create a tremendous traffic problem.  He stressed that the Inner Loop is absolutely significant to getting soldiers and government workers on to East Biggs and the importance of completing the Inner Loop project to alleviate this problem.

In viewing a map of the construction at East Biggs that Col. White identified as Phase I, Senator Shapleigh asked when the Inner Loop needed to be completed for the influx of population due to BRAC; was it FY 2009 or 2010.  Mr. Berry advised that it was FY2009 with the completion of seven miles, and about 2 miles of road, of Inner Loop (East side from Biggs to Loop 375) being the most critical.  Mr. Berry advised that the plan complements what Ft. Bliss needs in this area and is the easier part to deliver.

Senator Shapleigh asked Mr. Berry if Mr. Amadeo Saenz was aware of this Ft. Bliss construction and that this was being delay, to which Mr. Berry responded yes and that the construction was underway, however, it was the access that was being delayed.  Senator Shapleigh asked if it would be beneficial to invite Mr. Saenz to the December TPB meeting to which Mr. Berry stated he could if that was preferred by the Board and added that the administration is aware.

Col. White added that this project would impact the quality of life for the soldiers and their families in this area.

Mayor Segura commented that it appeared that all Board members agree that there is major significance for this regional project timeline for the best options.  He advised that the TPB needed to apply pressure on TXDOT in determining project priority.

Representative Pickett made a motion that if the Board does not hear from TXDOT by December 31, 2006 with an affirmative acceptance of this project, then at the January TPB meeting the Board will reprioritize to make this the number one transportation project in El Paso and find a way to fund it.  Representative Chente Quintanilla seconded the motion.  Senator Shapleigh then asked that Representative Pickett amend his motion to ask that Chair Cook send a tape of this meeting and a letter to the Commission (Texas Transportation Commission) with copies to all the key staff of the TTC about the timing aspect of this and lay out the Ft. Bliss timeline.  He added that second, we invite to the December meeting both Ric Williamson of the TTC (Texas Transportation Commission) and Amadeos Saenz of TXDOT to come here and hear this presentation and explain to the Board where the decision making process is.  The third, is to place on the December agenda the discussion and action that Joe is talking about so that the vote in front of them lays out exactly what we are going to do and added that this should give them (TXDOT) plenty of time to respond to your letter and come back and say it is either funded or here are the reasons why not.

Senator Shapleigh then commented that in December, there may be a posting issue with the way it is now, then it will give us a chance to make that choice to aggregate the money and make this the number one project in the region if TXDOT is not going to respond; so the motion as it is amended would be those three items.  Representative Pickett did not see a problem with the amendment with the exception of the date as earlier the Chair decided that were going to combine the November and December meetings and we are actually going to meet one more time on December 1, 2006 and that it was probably too early to give them the ultimatum.  As far as the date, Representative Pickett advised that if we haven’t heard affirmatively by December 31st, that we take action to find a way to fund it in January because of the holidays coming up and the Board is not meeting but one more time.  Senator Shapleigh commented that he felt it should still be posted as an agenda item so that there are no open meeting issues imbedded in our discussion for December with respect to prioritizing and constructing of the Inner Loop.  Representative Pickett then agreed and added that we could repost for the January meeting if we don’t hear by then.

Mr. Berry then commented that it is only prudent for the District to have a “Plan B” in the event if this one falls through and the District does have a Plan B for this.  He has asked at the highest levels of TXDOT if TXDOT needed to pursue Plan B and was reassured that it would not be necessary.  Mr. Berry advised that Plan B involved the reallocation of one project together with the funding already identified in order to deliver the most critical portion of the Inner Loop, which is the eastern portion, which was our initial plan before these things came out.  Chair Cook asked what funding would be moved, to which Mr. Berry advised that it would be a project to expand the interchange of Montana Avenue and Loop 375, the underpass, as it was not determined yet to be an effective project as traffic would be directed to the Lee Boulevard traffic signal.  Chair Cook asked for the amount of funding and Mr. Berry advised that it would be about $35 million.  Chair Cook mentioned the Artcraft Extension project in the amount of $11 million and Mr. Berry advised it was a project that could be considered because there is Category 2 money assigned so between those two and the funding we have available already, we could deliver the most critical portion of need.

Representative Pickett then amended his motion as stated by Senator Shapleigh to include placing this item on the agenda for both December 1st and the January meeting if necessary for discussion and action.

Mayor Jesus Segura would also like to see from TXDOT the alternative plans or Plan B and the timelines for these alternatives.  Mr. Berry advised that they would be made available to the Board.  He advised that TXDOT is reviewing the list of its mobility projects and assessing which are the most effective that need to be delivered.  For example, he would not recommend that the Board consider the deletion of the Horizon Interchange Expansion because it is such a huge need, however, regarding the traffic problems with the project on Montana, it would rush everyone to the Lee Boulevard traffic signal.  He further commented that if the Board was willing, it could consider re-prioritizing some of the lower priorities to add to what the region is contributing.

Chair Cook requested that the motion be read back to the Board and it was stated that an item for discussion and action regarding the Inner Loop project would be placed on the December and January Board meeting agendas and that copies of this TPB meeting and a letter from the Chairman would be sent to all key staff of the TTC as well as to Ric Williamson of the TTC and Amadeo Saenz of TXDOT with an invitation to attend the December meeting.

Representative Pickett clarified the motion for Discussion and Action in December and/or January to reprioritize, if necessary, the construction for the Inner Loop. We need to make sure that the Board knows and the public is aware that we may be taking action on moving money from lower priority project to higher priority projects, so it needs to be discussion and action on possibly reprioritizing funding.

Mr. Berry asked if the motion would mean that the discussion and action could consider adding to the funding what is available locally to encourage other funding from the Commission to fund this Inner Loop project, which is a possibility as he understood it.  Representative Pickett advised that it would and would allow us to consider using CBIP (Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program) funds as well.

A Motion was made by  Representative Pickett  to place an item on the agenda for the December 1, 2006 and/or January 26, 2007 TPB Meetings for Discussion and Action regarding the Inner Loop project to Prioritize the construction for the Inner Loop Project, as the single most important TPB project, if necessary and to possibly re-prioritize funding from other MPO funded projects, to apply to  the Inner Loop; and that the Chairman of the TPB will send a video tape of this TPB meeting and a letter about the timing aspect of this project regarding the Ft. Bliss timeline to all key staff of the TTC; and Ric Williamson of the TTC and Amadeo Saenz of TXDOT will be invited to attend the December TPB meeting. Senator Shapleigh seconded the motion.   Mr. Charles Berry abstained from the vote; the motion carried.

Note: Mr. Patrick Abeln left at 10:47 a.m. and Senator Eliot Shapleigh left at 10:48 a.m.

8.       Discussion and Action Regarding the Recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee to the TPB on the Comparative Report on the Southern Relief Route and Alternative Plans:

a.  Report on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Recommendation

        b.  MPO Staff Alternative Projects to the Southern Relief Route

Chair Cook recommended that action on item be postponed to the December 1, 2006 meeting date but would like to see the presentation.

Mr. Berry advised that he would make an executive summary presentation to the Board that would consist of about ten slides and would reflect as a status report and allow for questions.  TXDOT would not call for action on this item due to the Chairman’s direction. 

Mr. Berry explained that the Southern Relief Route (SRR) was presented and approved by the TPB in May but was rescinded in July with the direction to evaluate an alternative plan over the next 120 days which will expire approximately in December.  An update was presented to the TPB in September and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), in October, was presented with most of the same information included in today’s TPB packet comparing the SRR and Alternate Plan A to see which project would provide the most congestion relief to Interstate Highway 10 (I-10), the best by-pass to I-10 and the Policy Board would decide the funding strategy, now at a later date.  Mr. Berry advised that the TAC was presented with the similarities between these two plans as a lot of these projects correspond between the MPO staff’s Alternate Plan A and the SRR of Phase I.  They are essentially the same route and very similar to what they would provide but not exactly so.  For example, Project 7, which is the work on I-10, varies to some degree as the MPO plan provides for widening I-10 from Mesa to Executive Center; the TXDOT plan provides for the expansion of the Interstate so that it could interchange better with US Highway 85 but it does include additional lanes also.  The rest of the plan is very similar. 

Mr. Berry advised that the Board was told last September that the Alternate Plan costs as they were listed in the proposal were out of date, they were planning level estimates that came from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and we updated those costs to the current estimated cost that we have today so that the total would be approximately $440 million as compared to the $466 million proposal on the SRR with essentially the same segments; they do not perform the same functions but they are fairly similar.  The Northeast Parkway was included in the Alternate Plan A and the Border Highway Extension East with subsequent connections back to Interstate 10 at Clint Road and other locations are also essentially the same; so these two extensions could be proposed by either plan in the same fashion.  Mr. Berry commented that although the proposals come up with different cost estimates, we recommend focus on the differences between Alternate Plan and the SRR proposal and our TAC recommended the same.  They are saying the bulk of each proposal is in provision of a route along the southern line with Loop 375 and since both of them appear to provide similar benefits, the Policy Board should decide between the two. 

Mr. Berry then reviewed the slide of proposed funding of the SRR and its various phases of development.  The Northeast Parkway was part of this funding proposal, the cost estimate for a four-lane divided highway is $226 million but only had $73 million of that amount in our coffers and ready for use.  That portion was money being made available to us through the Texas Mobility Fund (TMF) and we recommend in this evaluation that we combine these resources of funds into our highest priority of work for this route so that we would have available about $224 million.  There is another $12 million that is available in other funding categories and we reported to you that there was about $170 million value associated with being able to toll that route.  The toll revenue bonding value was previously estimated at about $190 million but because this has been thoroughly evaluated by TXDOT staff along with MPO staff, it was determined that the $180 million cost estimate included some portions of I-10 that were not intended to be tolled, so it was adjusted to $170 million.

Chair Cook then asked if the toll study was given to the MPO to which Mr. Berry advised that it was being worked on and that information would be given to Ricardo Dominguez of the MPO.

Representative Pickett asked if that included the projected cars and amounts per automobile and Mr. Berry said it did.  Representative Pickett then asked if it would include costs per hour per mile and Mr. Berry responded it would at 14 cents per passenger vehicle per mile rate and added that the report would be presented as a cost per mile per passenger vehicle.  Chair Cook directed Ricardo Dominguez to ensure that this information is provided as backup for the December 1st TPB meeting.

In reference to the 14 cents per mile per passenger vehicle, Mayor Segura asked if this was for construction cost only or was it also considered for administrative costs.  Mr. Berry responded yes, for the toll cost for the project and when we look at the project we look at the project cost in terms of what it takes to design it, to build it, and to maintain lanes and operate the toll system.  In addition and because the proposal is a toll, we estimate that the cost of maintaining that road, if it were just a regular old highway, it would be about $89 million over the life cycle of the project.  Representative Pickett mentioned new construction standards and also commented on previous discussion regarding maintenance costs.

Mr. Berry then reviewed the funding proposal and advised that the proposal was refined and uses $73 million that were available from the Mobility Fund although there is about $108 million that has been allocated for the region; it is only being proposed to use $73 million of that against the SRR proposal. Representative Pickett then questioned the amount of $108 million and asked if it would increase since the Mobility Fund has an increased capacity of $5.3 billion and TXDOT has authority for $4 billion.  Mr. Berry advised that previously he had expanded it before from the initial amount of $81 million and was increased to the $108 million but neither he nor the District had been advised to plan for more than $108 million. 

Mr. Berry continued with his report and advised that project that they are going to take to contract next in February or March is for the I-10/Horizon Interchange Expansion.  Mr. Berry would like to present this to the Board at a later date as this is an awesome proposal.

The last project on the list, mentioned earlier, is the Artcraft Road Extension is another project that would remain but could be reprioritized by the Board.

There were some concerns with Alternate Plans A and C  where the majority of the construction expansion was on the ground in West El Paso along Paisano Drive that shows (referring to a photo) the very limited right-of-way that is available between Rio Grande River and the BNSF Railroad of about 150 feet that neither plan could allow for expansion.

Chair Cook asked if neither Plan A or C could allow for an expansion in this area, how would the SRR allow for it.  Mr. Berry advised that as previously proposed, the SRR would “stack” the toll way proposal part of the project on top of the four-lanes for west Paisano to continue to remain as a non-tolled project.  In order to save costs, both A and C alternatives were conceiving that they could fit everything on the ground; it fit in some locations along the ground but there were some bottlenecks where we just don’t have enough land available for a six-lane freeway and a couple of frontage roads on each side.  Chair Cook asked if it would be possible to move the rail to which Mr. Berry mentioned that at one point on the Westside near UTEP (University of Texas at El Paso) between the mountain behind the Sun Bowl and the International Boundary, TXDOT staff was asked to look at some aerial photographs to estimate where the “pinch-point” is and there is about 900 feet of space that may sound like a lot but it is not and it is too difficult to expand at that location.  Mr. Berry also advised that the location is also the BNSF Railroad’s primary connection to Mexico; so it would involve relocating two Class-One railroads in order to try and make that space available.

Mr. Berry then advised that the SRR was found to be more financially feasible, it provides the most capacity improvement, it has less right-of-way impact, less right-of-way acquisition delays than the other proposals and it covers life cycle costs for the project and it could potentially supplement other projects in the future such as the Border Highway Extension East and the delivery could be by the year 2012.

The Alternate Plan A had a larger funding gap and the TXDOT and MPO staffs met yesterday and TXDOT was presented with another option and will be the subject of Plan D and more time is needed to evaluate.

Representative Chente Quintanilla asked about the possibility of the Border Highway Extension East being considered when the bonds were retired to which Mr. Berry it could possibly be even sooner as this was just one of the ways that TXDOT could help to deliver the Border Highway Extension East.

Commissioner Teran asked if there was any way to at least get the alignment of the Border Highway Extension East and Mr. Berry advised that is being worked on now and gave a brief status.

Mayor Segura asked about right-of-way issues and the 14 cents per vehicle mentioned earlier and Mr. Berry explained that the estimated toll rate we were using to value what the $170 million bond value would be is 14 cents per vehicle per mile in toll.  Mayor Segura commented that if there are limitations in regards to road easement when you are talking about expanding that component, within your figures how you figured alternative component.  Mr. Berry advised that slide was intended to show you that Alternative Plan A has a wider footprint than what is available and that the SRR can fit on that alignment.

        b.  MPO Staff Alternative Projects to the Southern Relief Route

Mr. Ricardo Dominguez of the MPO made this presentation.  He explained that the MPO presented an alternative plan to the SRR at the July TPB meeting and there have been some revisions since that time.  Mr. Berry mentioned that the MPO and TXDOT staffs met several times previously and as recently as yesterday to work on improving the MPO’s plan and should have some answers ready by the next TPB meeting on December 1st.

The original purpose of the MPO’s plan was to fund more than one project.  We are proposing to fund three regionally significant projects.  Alternative Plan A will cost about $360 million and in comparison to the $466 million for the SRR, there is $106 million remaining. What the MPO plan then proposes is that we then use that money in combination with other funding sources.  Mr. Dominguez advised that Mr. Berry described Alternative Plan A sufficiently and commented that both the SRR and the Alternative Plan A will help relieve traffic from Sunland Park.  The MPO has met with Commissioner Teran regarding the Border Highway East and also asked TXDOT staff if CBIP funds could be used if the County purchases the right-of-way and have the County build the roads at County standards as opposed to State or Federal standards and the answer was yes.  So the $36.9 million may be too high but Mr. Dominguez will be meeting with Mr. Rivera to get a better estimate.  It has been agreed, through the analysis conducted by TXDOT, and we realize that Border area and valley area need some help and the Border Extension East will do that.  Not only is it going to relieve those streets but will also improve Socorro Road so that the tourist and incoming traffic would allow it to grow commercially.

Mr. Dominguez advised that the numbers for the Northeast Parkway will need improvement but the benefits of the MPO plan is to build both the Northeast Parkway and the Border Highway West.  This gives us the ability to then go south if there are traffic problems and then the ability to cross over if there are traffic problems in the southern area (referring to a map on the slide).  Mr. Alvin Dominguez, New Mexico District Engineer, at previous meeting mentioned that he was advising the drivers in traffic on Interstate Highway 10 to use O’Hare Road, Anthony Gap Road, so the proposal for the Northeast Parkway is to take the interchange of Interstate Highway 10 just north of Anthony and go along the mountain and through the northeast PSB land and then up to Loop 375.  The importance of the Northeast Parkway, in relation to the Inner Loop, gives another alternative for troops to travel to White Sands and McGregor Range.  Representative Pickett then asked Mr. Dominguez to identify on the map where the PSB plan to widen McCombs and where McCombs would cross the Northeast Parkway.  This would benefit the residents in the area as well as Ft. Bliss.  Mr. Dominguez then advised that there would be a revised plan regarding the funding proposal presented at the next meeting.  Mr. Berry wanted to caution everyone not to rely on the numbers presented at this time as it was established that there were some overlap in the numbers.

Representative Pickett asked the Chair to request from TXDOT an updated Mobility Fund amount should we use tolls, pass-through financing or anything else so that we might have better numbers on all plans since it is possible the amount may have increased.  Mr. Berry advised that a formal request was not necessary and he would provide the information to the Board through Mr. Roy Gilyard who can distribute the information to each member.

This item was postponed to the December 1, 2006 meeting.

At this time, Mayor Segura then expressed his appreciation to TXDOT, the City of El Paso, NMDOT and the El Paso MPO for all their help with the Sunland Park Extension project.

Mr. Mike Rooney, citizen, asked to approach the Board.  Mr. Rooney wanted to thank Representative Pickett for presenting an alternative option for consideration and also thanked those that asked that this alternative option be examined along with the initial proposal.  Mr. Rooney made comments regarding Ft. Bliss and project options and related cost impacts of each option.  He also presented an article that was an update to the Katrina rebuilding effort involving cost examination process.  Mr. Rooney supports the completion of the Inner Loop.

Note: Representative Eddie Holguin and Representative Presi Ortega left at 11:10 a.m., Commissioner Larry Medina left at 11:13 a.m. and Representative Chente Quintanilla left at 11:24 a.m.

9.     Status Report on the Updates to the 2030 and the 2035 MTPs for Safe, Accountable Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) Compliance,

Mr. Ricardo Dominguez of the MPO staff presented this item.  Mr. Dominguez explained that the MPO normally conducts and develops one long-range plan and advised the Board that within the next 12 months the MPO staff will be coordinating three MTPs (Metropolitan Transportation Plans) for different purposes.  One plan will be for administrative purposes only; the second plan is the normal coordination of adding and moving projects along; and the third plan is an entirely new plan that involves using the new tools that the MPO has been given. 

 

There was no further discussion.

 

No Action Required.

 

10.  Next Meeting: Chair Cook called for cancellation of the November 17, 2006 meeting and the reschedule of the December 15, 2006 meeting to December 1, 2006. 

 

All TPB members present agreed with the change.

 

At this time, Chair Cook asked for any additional public comment prior to adjournment.  There was none.

 

11.  Adjournment.

 

A motion to adjourn was made by Representative Chavez and seconded by Walter Miller.  The motion carried.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

 

                                                                               

Christina Stokes, Recording Secretary

Transportation Policy Board for the

El Paso Urban Transportation Study