Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Go for a walk. I get it.

What do you mean? It's all right. Yeah. English. the same way.

I'm sitting Yeah. Okay.

All right. theoretically based on something like either surface area. You tell me. I'm literally here to

Oh, the whole thing. money. There's no calling that.

All right, are we ready? All right, good morning everybody. Apologies here for some of the technical issues with uh it. Uh we were informed that uh that the streaming uh we were not streaming um at the very beginning of the meeting. So to avoid any procedural issues, we're going to restart the meeting and go really quickly.

Um so we'll call the meeting to order. It's uh 9:59 um on November 21st. And uh Ed, can you proceed with roll call? Sure. All right. Chair Sarb Blanco here, Vice Chair Javier Pereah

here, Commissioner Jackie Butler, Mayor Rudy Cruz, Representative Chris Canales, Mayor Ramono, Mayor Miguel Chakon, Representative Alejandra Chavez, Senator S I'm sorry, Senator Joseph Cvantes, Aaron Chavaria,

Anthony Daiser, Representative Artiero, Commissioner Gloria Representative Mary Gonzalez, Irnandez, Commissioner Elanin, Mayor Bernard Johnson, Mayor Martin LMA, Dion Mack, Representative Joe Moody, Representative Eddie Morales, Mayor Danna Muro, Tony Navarez, Representative Claudia Ordas, Representative Vince Perez,

present online. Mayor Rachel Kintana, Mayor Andrea, Judge Sango, Representative Sarah Silva, and Thomas. So, we do have quorum. We have quorum. Uh we do have public folks signed up for public comment. However, we're going to take those public comments. Uh

we'll take public comment at individual items. Okay. Uh moving on to discussion and action. You want to do the budget of allegiance again? Yeah. Yeah. this discussion action under item one. Oh, you want to do Yeah, we'll do the pledge again. Pledge

allegiance to the flag United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Stated, we do have folks signed up for public comment. We'll take those uh comments uh per item. Uh moving on to discussion and action. All right. Item one is consider approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2025 TPB meeting. Motion

approved. Second. Second. We have a motion. Uh we have a second and a second. Uh any opposed? All in favor? Passes. Item two is consider approval of the preliminary project list for the regional mobility strategy RMS 2052 metropolitan transportation plan and the RMS 2027 2030 transportation improvement program. Here with a brief presentation is an Gante.

All righty. Good morning. Anyante for the record. So the uh we're here today to approve the project list for the upcoming metropolitan transportation plan. This is our long range document. All of the the projects that are going to get funded with federal money uh must be in this plan. And this plan gets modeled for uh its impacts on congestion and air quality and that is a federal requirement. We do this once every four years. So this is the opportunity for uh plans to get added and subtracted and this is kind of this forms the basis of pretty much all of the transportation things that we do. This process that we're going through right now. Um let's see. We can probably skip ahead to uh the project call results, but briefly uh we've we're partway through our our development schedule of this plan. The preliminary steps included uh different uh iterations and methods of public outreach. Plus also last year we brought the uh the vision and the goals to this body for their approval to use in project selection and the development of the plan. Um we have been working on the putting this project list together, creating geographic information for each of the proposed projects. Uh scoring, ranking and and making sure that money was available for everything that made it into the plan. Uh the remaining tasks include actually doing the transportation modeling, writing the plan document, public comment, adoption and federal review. Uh there was a slide there's a slide on the goals of the plan. Uh we have uh things like safety, integrating land use, uh uh making sure that uh our transportation uh system is uh comprehensively accessible, expand

expands connectivity and uh enhances resiliency and maintains infrastructure. In order to develop this list, we embarked upon a project call process in which we took several steps in uh getting lists of projects from each of the uh entities within our MO region for the projects they wanted to include. We were ultimately based on anticipated funds available uh able to uh include 78% of the projects for 68% of the money that was initially requested. We had almost $7 billion in requests and we had have about 5.3 billion dollars in anticipated funding for the region. Uh most of that are is in funds exclusively available to text dot and 20% yesish is uh in categories that are available to local uh government entities. Um, in the Texas portion of the MTP plan, we have about 11% contingency, which is considered prudent given the way inflation has been rising and also given the uh unpredictable nature of uh of of funding right now. Um, as you may recall, we've had a a a series of amendments necessary to uh keep ourselves in fiscal constraint considering that we saw a reduction of of funding of 25% for our congestion mitigation funding within our tip years with a 50% reduction beyond our tip years. So, we think that, you know, given given that context, it's prudent to leave a little bit aside for unanticipated uh rises in costs faster than we calculated inflation. And also uh just it's feas it's it's foreseeable that we could see a somewhat unpredictable funding picture. So 11% contingency is included in that plan. So about 80% of the projects uh are text dot with text exclusive funds and about 20% of the projects are local projects with funds

available to local entities. Next slide please. This is a map. This shows where the produ where the proposed projects are are uh going to be located throughout our no region. This is available in your backup. And then we're going to go briefly section by section. We're going to start with Texas highway, then Texas transit, then New Mexico, which encompasses uh highway and transit. So we have 119 projects almost $5 billion programmed uh 80% tech 20% local entities and we're going to look at a couple of pie charts that that this shows how that money is proposed to be distributed. Next slide please. So this is if we're looking just at number of projects this is who gets how much. Uh so the larger chunks we've got city of El Paso and Tex dot having the most with uh with good chunks by uh by Sakoto the county horizon city and then also we have a few for San Elisio project amad uh one combined city and county project one for UTEP one for Vinton and one for Anthony. Next slide is going to look at at the uh total funding breakdown for everybody and then we're going to see one more that just looks at if we take text dot out of there and just look at the local entities. All righty. So biggest slice of the pie text projects with text do money. This makes sense. Freeways are more expensive than local streets. And then uh you can see in the uh other roughly quarter of the pie the share that everybody else gets. And then next we're going to look at just the local entities uh who gets how much.

Next slide please. So this is a breakdown if we take text dot out of it and we just show the distribution of the local funds to the various local entities. About half of that goes to the city of El Paso and uh county gets a little more than a quarter and then everybody else gets uh is uh in the remaining quarter. Next slide please. So for Texas Transit, we are assuming over the uh entire life of the program uh about 600 million, most of that being in formula funds that go directly to our transit providers uh for them to to to program and about $61 million over the life of the program. Is this uh the 5310 program which the MO uh administers. This provides uh uh services directly to uh seniors uh disabled uh individuals and veterans. This is mostly we do a project call every other year or so. And so this is reflecting we get uh you know just the amount over the uh 20 plus years covered by this plan. And then in New Mexico, we have about 845 million in funding available. Uh projected to spend about 809 million of that with about a 5% contingency. Uh most of that is going to NMDOT for seven projects. And then for local entities, this covers the uh uh the spread of the remaining share. Uh we have Anthony and Sunland Park. uh Anthony, New Mexico is getting uh almost 40 million for three projects and Sunland Park is getting about 218 million for five projects. But if we take a the port of entry that's proposed

uh for the New Mexico region out of there, then that the the remaining projects comprise about 43 almost 44 million. Next slide, please. So that is just an overhead view of the uh hund and some odd projects that are programmed over the next uh 20 plus years for our program uh in this project list that we're presenting to you for approval today. So, we also uh in addition to having a requirement to have our metropolitan transportation plan, we also have a requirement that we have a 4-year fiscally constrained uh short-term planning document. So, most of the time when we bring items before you, this is what we're amending. we're amending, you know, funding or timing or programming new things into the project that or the the the the list that covers uh the next four years. And the state mandates the time year period. We do this on on a on a cycle with all of the other NPOs in Texas. We're currently midway through the 25 to 28 cycle, but this year we need to work on the 27 to 2030 cycle. So the project list that covers years 27 to 30 in the MTP is also the project list that's going to become the basis of the 20 to30 tip. So we are asking uh this body to approve the project list for both things today. So within years 2027 to 2030 we have about uh$1.2 billion dollars in funds. uh reflects a similar split to uh the uh uh the MTP in terms of the distribution of uh text dot versus local entities and uh we are expending uh pretty close to to

all of that. We got 11 text dot projects and 23 local entity projects. Next slide please. And then this just lists who gets how much for what. and this list is in your backup and in the interest of time we'll be moving forward. So our recommendation to you all today is that you approve the draft preliminary project list for the 202 MTP as well as for the 27 to 2030 kip. And that concludes my presentation.

Members, any questions? Motion to approve. Oh, yeah. And TAC TAC's recommendation is Thank you. We've got a motion to approve. We have a second. We We have a a lot of public comment. Oh, that's right. I read it out question.

Uh we can go ahead. I was recently in a meeting with El Paso Water Utilities and they were talking about population projections and how they're planning for infrastructure development. I'm curious about the last like what population projection modeling are you using? Are you when you're making these decisions, are you thinking about a decreased population size or are you still using the projection models that you were using previously with an increased pro uh population size?

No. Every time that that we go in a in in a plan update every every four years, we update you know the the projections. We have been using uh traditionally the projections coming out of the state demographers uh office. Um and I don't know if you've been following the news recently, but there's some some um you know concern about the growth rate of of El Paso County compared to the to other areas in the state of Texas. Uh so that is included in our projections. In other words, the growth rate is not uh as robust as it was in the past to account for that. But again, you know, these are projections. We're looking at the 2022 as our horizon year. So, it's it's out there in the future. But but but indeed, to answer your question, yes, we take into consideration the latest uh information available and uh and again, you know, we came with we're using the projections from the state demographers's office. In other words, we don't come up with those control totals for El Paso County or for for New Mexico internally. Us, you know, we our job is, you know, we take those control totals and through a a a process that includes input from, you know, multiple people and and this time I think Salvador is still here. uh we can get into the one of the innovative uh procedures that we use this time using the land use model urban sim but uh but you know we we can have that discussion but to answer your question yes we are always um um you know mandated to use the latest planning assumptions

I guess my other question is I see in the plan there are projects that are still um obviously taking public comment and that there are maybe even some concerns and I'll be really transparent everybody knows I very real concerns about border highway east. It's on the plan. It's on the plan to be funded.

So what does that mean for somebody like me who has to now take a vote that that vote is very transparent to people I have made commitments to saying I'm against this? Right. So projects that are in the outer years like like border highway east, I forget exactly where the the two phases are are in the outer years. So they are funded with funds that we anticipate that we will get in the future, right? It's not not the same thing as like Ann was explaining like a project in the tip in the next four years. Those projects are funded with with you know real money, right? the projects as you get farther out uh projects are matched with you know funding that we anticipate that that will be available within reason to the region right um in the case of a border highway easta that you mentioned that project has been looked at uh you know by by text and by the no and by by many for for many many years but uh but there's still not a a firm commitment to to you you know to advance it uh you know in the next few years. There's been uh a lot of feasibility study planned as you well know um you know there's still from a congestion relief a high level you know we still think that it's a that it's a good project but once we get into the actual details of you know alignments and all that that is still an activity that needs to be done in the future but but we still think that from a from a regional perspective and for

my question wasn't about you selling border highway east my question is is it's on the plan and it has some potential it has uh predicted funding connected to it in this in this proposal. So voting for this I would be therefore supporting the predicted funding for the future. Is that accurate?

Yeah. Yeah. along with how many projects? 18 projects. We have represent Canales and the mayor projects. I had questions.

Um, sorry, diving into the project list a little bit. 17 and 18, that's the Montio design phase and the Monio construction phase. There's like sixyear gap. Yes. Could we anticip like would we anticipate six year design phase or is that just how we were able to fit the funding?

It's how we were able to fit the funding. Okay. But theoretically there would be that large of a gap between design and construction. Yes. I mean could be but if if that is a project that uh that gets traction it becomes more of a priority then then you know we would work with a sponsoring agency to accelerate the the implementation right for now this is you know just like a um not a guess but you know it it fits you know with where the funding is

anything or so our assumed caps for category seven which is the the funding through which we can build new roadways uh for local projects. We're assuming 25$26 million a year. So anything with a price tag approaching that or exceeding that we need to accumulate multiple years of CAT 7 funding in order to make it happen and we need to you know do nothing else within those years. So just for for those larger projects, they are spaced a little further apart and they do have kind of longer leadups because that's what's necessary in order for us to just get get it working fiscally.

Okay. Yeah, I notice notice similar on Northde Bridge uh port replacement. There's the feasibility and then five or six years later the the potential construction as well. Same same similar problem. Um, and then let me see. Downtown safe streets, I think was the next one. Yeah, number 34. Is that the city's repackaging of the what was formerly the CBD4?

Yes, that is. Okay, let's see one more. Uh, the uh 85 87 88 is the hero. Um, you we don't have like funding category listed here. Where where do we anticipate that multi-year HERO funding coming from?

Cat 7. Cat seven. Okay. Um and we we anticipate we'll have sustainable source of cat 7 for hero into at least these these few future years. For hero, yes. Uh for CRP, we are assuming that program ends after uh 2028.

Okay. Yeah. Tech love the hero program. I hope that we find something long-term sustainable for that program as well. Um, you know, maybe your most frequent caller. Every time I see someone trying to change a tire with their foot hanging out into the lane, I call there's a hero there within a few minutes. So, really appreciate that program.

And to that to that point, that is the only text project that is funded with category 7. Um, you know, that's not a traditional text project. I think the you know like like you well say I mean everybody uses hero so you know we feel that it's not just a text project right so it it helps everybody so

they administer the program but it exactly exactly right that was all my project specific questions thank you thank you mayor so I'm going to piggy back a little bit off of the question representative had concerning the modeling and I'd like to talk a little bit about the growth and how this was all put together more I think this is more a question can this be amended before the four-year timeline right within those four years and the reason why is uh Horizon City two years ago we had a growth rate of around 19% where uh two years now as of two months ago we're at 31.9% growth rate um so that's just going to keep increasing for Horizon City so this project list I I mean, I was going through all the projects. Yes, those are needed. Um, however, I think the timelines that that are here are we're going to reach those so much faster than we had anticipated. Now, the question is, and you know, this is kind of for everybody here because everybody's going to experiencing growth on that side of town. Um, Sakoro Sanelli, if that happens, how can these be amended or is is there another look that can we take another look at that here in a couple of years prior to the four years? Because honestly, with four years from now, um, I could be at even higher growth rate and right now I'm looking at in four years we're going to increase our population by about 10,000 people. So, where how do we do that? Well, it's a loaded question.

Okay. Really is couple of different This is going to be a little bit of a nuanced answer. So, uh within our transportation modeling, we have what's called network years, which basically it's a snapshot of everything that's open to the public on each of those years. So, right now, uh uh the the very first snapshot we we're we're using 2022 as a basis. The first snapshot is taken at 2027, then 2032, 2042, and 202.

If you are moving projects within the same network year, we don't need to rerun the model. We might need to do formal amendments to get things in the uh four-year fiscally constrained plan, provided additional money is found, because we can only pro program as fast as we can find funds. Um, if you are going to be changing network years, if you're going to be accelerating something into a sooner snapshot than it was additionally programmed, that does require us to rerun the model. And it is technically possible. There is a process for it. It takes about 18 months. Um, and we we had to do that for a couple of projects uh with an amended MTP process that concluded uh this past April. Um so there there is a process but you know it is it is much easier on all parties involved you know if you know to wait till the four-year uh opening you know opening of the project list

but I think part part of the answer is on on the demographics right on growth rates and all that so we are anticipating that that explosive growth the question is how do we how do we address it right you know and that's what what we still need to do with this this is why we're calling this a preliminary project list because now that that we have this you know a higher level of certainty of what projects are going to make it now we need to start running the models and make sure that we are addressing congestion in the best way that that that we can and it's not just about congestion it's safety and and it's uh you know connectivity and and so on but what is what is also true is that because we've seen that in the past right? There's not enough money to cover all of the needs for everybody throughout the region. I mean there clearly that there's not. So that's why we we go through this process and and you know we are very careful to prioritize um you know evaluate and prioritize projects right and to do that we we go through a process you know it's a quantitative there's a selection criteria that that we coordinated through uh through the technical advisory committee through TAC and uh so that's a little bit more quantitative but the other piece that I personally feel is very important is that we went back to the agencies and make sure that that we that we understand the individual priorities for the city of El Paso, for the county, for Horizon, for all of you because, you know, no selection criteria is perfect, right? Um, as much as we love to say that it's data driven and and all that, right? But we want to make sure that we're not missing projects that are priority for the individual uh sponsors. So it's a it's a long answer to to your question that it's not not easy but you know we we do the the best that we can

but we are including those growth uh you know pro uh projections and and honestly I was just wanted clarification to make sure that we could do that within the four years because honestly the growth that we're looking at here on that side of the county is we we probably need to take a look at that model again. um because it's just growing so fast out there,

right? Thank you, Representative Chavis. Thank you, Chairman. The projected cost that's listed, is that projected in the year that the um project is going to take place? Yes. Yes. And um I guess a little bit um like Mayor Lentia was saying, is there any opportunity to advance some of these projects in the future?

Yes. I mean, if for example, if if additional funding is found, you know, through a a local source or through like a federal grant or something, yeah, clearly those projects will be advanced. Um, but if it's if it's a project that that is competing with this for the same pot of money, well, that's what this process is all about, right? So, if you want to advance a project, well, likely something needs to move out, right? So that those discussions are are the ones that uh that you know happen as part of the process.

Do you know how often that happens or or how um accurate this timeline really is? Well, I mean it's a it's our best estimate based on on need, but also based on on where individual projects are as far as development, right? If you're if you tell me that it's a $50 million project that you want uh in two years, but there's no engineering, no environmental, you're going to need to acquire right away, it's not going to happen in two years, right? So that's in in the outer years. But like Ann was saying, you know, that we get into the technicalities that if it's an added capacity project that triggers conformity, then it's it's, you know, very time consuming to to do that. And this is one of the reasons why we we want to make sure that that we have a good list as we start modeling because once we approve the plan and the conformity gets approved by the federal partners making changes is is is honorous for all of us.

Thank you. I want to build a little bit on what um Mary said. I think what I have concerns with beyond the border highway east component is if you go back to the graph that shows the percentage of El Paso Horizon Sakoro and county etc. That pie chart um it's complicated. I represent both El Paso and the more rural communities or um suburban communities. But the the other one the next the local projects one that one like mayor said Horizon population is growing 31%. The city of El Paso population is growing by 0.05% according to the El Paso Times in May. It's I I don't want us to get hyper competitive, but are we being are we distributing in a fair way? And how are we making sure that we're distributing in fair ways? Because when I think about population growth and changes, I would think the 50% would be Horizon Soro the county because people are moving to those areas and yet we're planning for more of that pie and I again I represent El Paso too so it's a complicated situation but it just it does seem that there might be some gaps for these communities that are starting to feel the growth in communities that is not being felt. And the other thing is they're new communities. So El Paso has roads in some ways whereas Horizon so it's building roads and so I just I'm curious about um these numbers attach attached with growth. Well, it should be stated that 100% of the projects submitted by the county and by the uh uh the communities to the east, they got literally everything that they

requested. Um we had to uh make make it work in terms of just when we can afford to do what with the money that we anticipate being available. But the the communities that had projects moved to the information list were the larger ones that had submitted more. So literally everything that was submitted that was requested from us from those communities and to include the county uh made it into the plan.

I think that's a I hear you but I know I grew up in Clint. We don't have transportation engineers, right? So I I think that sometimes yes, maybe they submitted for X but maybe didn't even submit for something else because of capacity issues. And so again, I guess I would love to see a chart of distribution based on population growth and how we're modeling that.

Sure. Absolutely. If I may. And and I just want to say like I love El Paso too. I live I repres I love everybody. I just wanted to be fair. Do you have any more questions? Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so yes, everything was granted because of funding, but maybe not in the year that we're looking at. So if you know, some of these projects here, we're looking at uh, see 202 or 2042 for Horizon. Um, I mean that that's we're looking 15 years down the line where I may well the city may be looking at putting looking at that construction here in three years or four years. That's that's where I'm getting at. So because of the growth so I understand completely and we're grateful that the funding is there. Believe me, we it's all about it's a funding game. We understand.

Right. So So I think it was just a comment. Um so I think one of the things also to remember is that when We're analyzing this part of decision lens is a criteria. We're not just solely looking at population, but we're looking at where active transportation is. We're looking at some of the exterior transportation actually coming into

city of El Paso. Right. So there were other criteria that were looked at not solely based upon that. So maybe Yeah. So, so it it's not not necessarily you know the where population is right but it's more where the trends and where we are anticipating growth and congestion right so that's that's that's a um you know to your point Gonzalez um but but yeah the the there like you say um Mr. on this the the selection criteria includes not just you know congestion relief right it it includes other elements like you you will state like you know active transportation multimodal but it's also connectivity uh safety and and other other elements

any other questions do we Oh we've got public comment right okay so moving on uh we have several people here in person and several got sent in um that we will read into the record. So if if it's okay, Mr. Chair, we'll start with those in person with Mr. Diego Reyes. And as a reminder, you have three minutes. And Nick, can you help us with the Hi, I'm Diego Reyes. Um, and I would I wanted to speak on uh agenda item two and um setting aside the funds for the downtown deck plaza. Um, so um right now I'm at AP at EPCC. I'm studying architecture and um a week ago the downtown deck plaza foundation had actually came to our school um and to talk about that whole project. Um before then um I had heard about the project but I had mostly heard um whatever what was on you know Bitfam and all those social media sites. Um but once they came to us to talk about it, it really opened my eyes and it got me excited for the future of our city. Um, I think timing wise, uh, the highways are only, um, redone every 50 years. So, timing wise, this is a once in a 50-year opportunity to do this deck plaza. And right now in school, we're learning about urban planning and city design and the importance of these public spaces and what they do for the health of the

community and to just bring the community um together in general. Um so I hope that this project continues to get support um because it's exciting especially for me. I'm uh 19. So by the time this project uh comes to fruition um it's right in my kind of generation. So it's something it's something that's exciting. Um it's something that will impact El Paso greatly positively. Um and it is possible. So I hope that this project comes to fruition. uh because I really want to see it uh happen. Um and yeah, thank you.

Appreciate it. All right. Next um we have Analisa Cordova.

Good morning. My name is Anaisa Cordova and I stand before you today to speak on item number two as you discuss the recommended project list for the region's 202 metropolitan transportation plan. I'm here to support the designation of a full 25 million in funding for the transformative deck plaza project. I commend our elected representatives for their vision and commitment to modernizing I10, but that modernization must include the breathtaking vision of a 6.5 acre green space, which will fundamentally be a new jewel in our downtown. I'm a fifth generation El Paso Westside resident, and I have been civically engaged before I could vote. I've advocated for every quality of life project because they're more than amenities. They are investments that generate value for our residents, attract tourists, inspire our expats to return home. My grandparents first home stood right along I 10 on the corner of Brown and Missouri Street. I have a personal generational connection to this corridor. Think about the tourism. The drive-thru El Paso on I 10 is the one thing every out oftowner mentions when you say you're from El Paso. Imagine their experience when they drive through and see a vibrant community, bright trails, linking neighborhoods to a thriving downtown, a massive green space in the middle of a desert. They won't just pass through, they will make El Paso a destination, pull off the road, and spend money at our businesses. Investing in the Duck Plaza is investing in the future of this region. By capping the freeway, we are ensuring that this major infrastructure project does more than move traffic. It strengthens the connections between our neighborhoods and downtown that will dramatically elevate the quality of life for every resident. Since the renovation of downtown, I've planned countless fundraisers at San Hasinto and have used our beautiful downtown as a backdrop for an alresco gala. I can tell you plainly,

San Hasinto Park, qua beautiful is not big enough. People are starving for community spaces where they can truly gather. I work downtown and at night I see reading and cycling groups in droves. We need a park big enough to hold concerts, major events, large runs, and outdoor movies. On the eve of Winterfest, there's no better time than today to fully support the Duck Plaza. I traveled to Austin and spent money to participate in their Trail of Lights run. Imagine the pride of being able to do that right here in my own community. Please support the 25 million to fund the Duck Park Plaza and make this vision a reality. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next, uh we have uh Danielle Estrada. Hello. I'm also here to talk to you guys about agenda item number two. My name is Danila Strada and I'm a proud bord and raised El Pasoan. I've been blessed to travel all over the United States, but in my opinion, nothing will ever compare to the Sun City. The city deserves to look the way it makes its residents and visitors feel. 50 years ago, when I 10 split downtown, they split the heart of El Paso into two. Now we're given the chance through the Deck Project to unify the past, present, and future generations of El Paso. The Deck Project is an opportunity to reconnect communities and bring a worldclass urban park to El Paso. As a public health student attending UT, I must mention the tremendous public health benefits the deck park would have. In a study published by the NIH, it was found that the public parks that quote public parks are critical resources for physical activity in minority communities. Because residential proximity is strongly associated with physical activity and park use, the number and location of parks are currently insufficient to serve local populations well. End quote. With that statistic being said, I ask, what is a better location to serve our local minority population of 81% Hispanic population than the heart of this city? Another study also published by the NIH links green spaces to better mental health, including lower odds of anxiety and depression. The deck project provides an opportunity to not only beautify El Paso by displaying its unique and wondrous flora, but also it impacts the mental well-being of its citizens and visitors. The scientific journal concludes with a

call to action that quote more green spaces should be considered in city planning. End quote. I believe El Paso is just the city to answer that call. The deck park would help bring El Paso to a healthier tomorrow. I hope that we have your support and we can build an even better El Paso, one that is healthy, safe, and united. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next, we have U Matthew Guusman and after him, uh, Manny Rodriguez. You want to get closer to him?

Morning everyone. Uh, excuse my voice. Um, I'm here also to speak in support of the the funding for the deck park. Um, I moved here in 2015 uh with my wife with a two-year plan to get out of debt and uh enjoy some sunshine and golf while we were here and then make a beline back to Chicago where we moved from. At the two-year mark, we we decided, you know, El Paso is okay. We can do this for another year. Let's stick around. And we kept saying that year after year. Uh we did that a few times until a house in Sunset Heights popped up on the market and opened our eyes that there was urban living right here in El Paso. Uh which is something that we were we were seeking for ourselves and our family. Um the the urban lifestyle um is something that I think has been overlooked in El Paso. Um I I tell I tell this story uh to highlight two things. Uh the first is it's incredibly difficult to recruit people to El Paso and it's equally difficult to retain them. Um It takes time for the beauty of the desert and the charm of El Paso uh to to sink into a non-native. Um and the second reason um is to highlight the fact that I don't think we would have stayed here if it weren't for finding uh Sunset Heights and and urbanism here in El Paso. Young families and young professionals um the very demographic that we're trying to attract and retain, they don't want to live um in the fringes of a city. They they want to live in the middle of it all. They want to feel the heartbeat of the city and be a part of um the activity of everyday life. Um so I urge you guys not to view the debt park as an expense or or a line item on the budget. Um it's really an investment uh a meaningful and impactful investment um in the city that we want to build for professionals and innovators. Um we need to create that that central hub. Um, and you know, to these to these people's point about growth, um, there's some red flags right now in the city of El Paso. We're seeing our our our growth slow, it's having a very real and tangible impact on our our

public schools. Uh, we're seeing those close because families are leaving the city. Um, if we don't do something to attract them back, um, I think we're going to continue down a path of of shrinking. And if we if our population goes from growth to shrinkage, it's going to fall on every taxpayer to an exponential to an exponential point. So, um I just urge you guys as you have a voice and a vote going forward about the deck part, um consider those things. Let's invest in the core. Thank you.

Thank you. Right now, we have uh Manny Rodriguez. Thank you. Good morning and and thank you uh chair and members of the transportation policy board. My name is Manny Rodriguez speaking on behalf of the El Paso Chamber um and um which represents over 400 organizations across businesses, nonprofit, healthcare, education, and public sector partners across our region. I'm also here on behalf of our president and CEO, Ricardo Mura, who could not be present today as our team is presenting our annual report to the El Paso Chamber membership. I'm here to speak on item two and express the chamber's strong support for the recommended designation of $25 million for the downtown debt plaza project as part of the region's 2052 uh metropolitan transportation plans. I also want to thank everyone who continues to support modern the modernization of I 10 reflected in the project list including $500 million for uh for I 10 project number 89 and for recognizing the critical opportunity to integrate a 6.5 acre cap over the freeway as part of this effort. This isn't about um this isn't just about modernizing a highway. It's about building the next generation of mobility, commerce, and regional connectivity. Highways are redesigned roughly every 50 years. Um therefore, we won't get this chance again. As we reinvest in I 10, we must use this once in a generation opportunity to cap the highway and reconnect neighborhoods um long divided by it. The deck plaza will generate significant funds uh returns for our region, new jobs, increased foot traffic, support for small businesses, multimodal connections, housing opportunities, and meaningful environmental and health benefits. A recent impact study estimates it would it will create nearly1 billion dollars in economic activity for El Paso. This project is more than a park. It's an economic development infrastructure uh that brings people back into the heart of the city, supports mixeduse growth, and improves quality of life. With more

green space, walkable and bike friendly design, a new public gathering and new public gathering areas, the deck plaza has the potential to reconnect communities and create a safer, healthier, more a more more vibrant downtown for families, workers, and visitors. The MO support and designation of funding would be a major milestone not just for the project itself, but for El Paso's future. We have a real opportunity to lead the nation in how highways are reintegrated into urban cores, combining mobility, safety, innovation, and community connection. But we can only accomplish this through collaboration across public, private, and nonprofit partners, which is what the El Paso Chamber is here to do, and to convene. On behalf of the El Paso Chamber, I respectfully urge the board to continue supporting the Duck Park Plaza and to approve the recommended $25 million project designation in today's plan. Thank you for your time and for your continued leadership on regional mobility.

Uh now next we have Joe Gutenrath. Good morning. Joe Gutenrath, executive director of the downtown management district and I also sit on the Deck Plaza Foundation. had a lot of great speakers, so I'm not going to repeat a lot of what they've had to say, but within the downtown management district, we while we're a jurisdiction within the heart of of of this area here and primarily serve the the property owners and businesses and stakeholders within the district, we view it as part of our obligation and our goal to really develop downtown as a regional economic driver for the entire region and to attract people from outside of El Paso into our community to help further our economy again throughout the region. The Deck Plaza Foundation has done an extensive study on the economic benefits of the Deck Plaza. I'm here to also talk about the in support of the support for the Deck Plaza as well as the modernization of I 10. Appreciate your support in that. And then back to the the Deck Plaza Foundation has supported or has created an economic impact um study that can get into the details of how beneficial the Deck Plaza will be. But I also want to highlight the the qualitative benefits that this that this transportation the modernization of I 10 as well as the creation of this uh once in a-lifetime opportunity for public investment in public space will be for our community tomorrow. Tomorrow's a big day for downtown in El Paso and the region. I want to thank the city of El Paso and give them a plug for all the work they're doing with Winterfest. If you want to see what what trans how transportation impact and public spaces impact the quality of life of our community, come downtown tomorrow. What you will see are people from throughout the entire El Paso region, visitors to our community, enjoying our public spaces. Many a significant amount of them will be traveling on I 10 to get downtown. So get here early. There'll be a little congestion, but you will see

our community truly enjoying great public spaces, great activation, and again being an economic driver for our community. So again, I encourage your support for the funding for the deck plaza, your continued support for the modernization of I 10, and thank you for your time today.

Mr. Chair, I have a three that were submitted in writing that I I'll read into the record. So, the first one is from Mr. uh Danielle Rubio. Uh my name is Daniel Rubio and I am both a local business owner and a resident of the Sunset Heights uh neighborhood. I'm writing today in strong support of allocating the proposed 25 million toward the Deck PL Tech Park Plaza projects. When my family and I chose Sunset Heights as our home, one of the most exciting prospects was a future development of the Deck Park Plaza. At the time, my children were too young to fully grasp what such a space could mean for a community. But now, years later, they are thrilled by the possibility of having a world-class public park just steps from our home. Their excitement reminds me that this project not simply for those of us here today. It's an investment in the generations that will follow. The Deck Park Plaza represents opportunity for community connection, for economic growth and tourism, to create a healthier, greener, more livable city, and to show our children what vision and progress looks like. El Paso deserves projects that elevate our identity, encourage families, entrepreneurs, and visitors to plant roots here. This development will be a meaningful step forward for our city's continued growth, resilience, and ability to compete with other thriving metropolitan areas. As someone who lives here, raises a family here, and operates a business here, I urge you to move forward in support of the funding request. Our future families, future businesses, and future El Pasoans depend on the decision made today. The Deck Park Plaza more than infrastructure. It's a statement of confidence in our city's potential. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your consideration of this transformative project. I hope you will join me and many others in supporting a stronger, more connected, and more vibrant El Paso. Respectfully, Danil Rubio. Next, we have another comment from uh Mr. Joseph Sto. Uh hello, my name is Joseph Sto, and I'm writing to express my support for item two of the project

list for this region's 2022 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. I support designating 25 million for funding of of the deck deck plaza project. My appreciation goes to our elected officials for continuing to help modernize downtown. My family has lived and worked downtown in south of El Paso for almost a hundred years. My grandfather and father witnessed the construction of I 10 in the late 50s and early 60s which resulted in the separation of downtown. Now with a new highway update occurring, I believe we have a chance to not only reunify the area but add beauty and opportunities. As a business owner, I not only work in the downtown area, but also frequently enjoy the many events and attractions that are present here. By building the deck plaza, we will expand the opportunities present in our city. The deck plaza will bring new investment into the area and boost the number of visitors downtown. I appreciate the opportunity to convey my thoughts on the deck plaza in hope that you will vote in favor of the recommended projects. Uh and then finally, uh we have a comment from Pierce Piger. Is that posiger? Um, and I checked with legal to see if there was any issues with uh with this and you'll see. Dear Mo, my name is Pierce Posiger and I am 9 years old. I think we need the deck park because it is something a lot of El Paso have wanted. It is also one of our biggest projects that we have been looking forward to. The deck park could give other people from out of town something to come see. And it would also make downtown look a lot nicer and give kids and families time to enjoy. One of my friends who is also 9 years old wants the deck park, too. A lot of people are crossing their fingers for the deck park. Sincerely, Pierce Piger.

So, uh, any more public comment? That's it for public comment. Do we have a motion? Move to approve. Have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Second. Uh, all in favor say I. I.

All opposed. One. One. One opposed. Motion passes. All right. Item number three is consider approval of amendments to the El Paso MO bylaws. Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. Let me take an opportunity just to touch base on this. I know there's an agenda item that we've focused on in the past, but I want to clarify a point. from uh last TPP's meeting regarding the county attorney's office uh work with the MTO. Uh Commissioner Butler had noted uh that the county attorney was waiting for the commissioner's court to meet uh before submitting recommendations and at that time we didn't have the full context uh for the timing. And with that information that we have now, I want to make sure that I'm very clear that the county attorney's office was working within uh their own procedural time constraints uh and that they were uh coordinating with the MO uh our legal council in order to provide that input. Um however, the the timing made it impossible to meet those posting deadlines requirement of the NO bylaws. So, uh, I want to clarify my comments. They weren't intended to highlight those procedural realities. Um, they were they were intended rather, and I didn't want to suggest that the county attorney's office, um, did not cooperate. And I know we've got our county attorney, Christina Sanchez, here, and her deputy, Erica Rosales, who have been working very closely with, uh, our legal counsel as well. So, um, they they were working under their constraints as well. So, I just don't I want to make sure that if if my comments made it sound that way, I apologize if they do and and and they were inaccurate. Um, but that leads us to the larger issue uh before us today on this agenda item. Um, you know, this situation demonstrates why it's uh neither sustainable nor appropriate for an external government entity to influence or to control the government structure of this TPB. um even the even in the best of

intentions uh deferring meeting schedules internal processes uh create delays and uh it's creating a lot of uncertainty within the no um and we're risking compliance compliance that may hinder the NO's ability to move these transportation dollars to these projects and the NOI quite frankly can't operate effectively if it's legally mandated ated timelines depend on another body's calendar or another body's deliberations. Um this bylaw revision that we're um uh have before us today ensures that the TPP operates independently that this TPP operates transparently and in full compliance with all the applicable state and federal laws including the Texas Opens Meeting Act. Specifically, it prevents any outside entity from establishing a quorum within the TPP um during its executive session. Over the past several months, seven to be specific, uh the NO and the county representatives have examined multiple options to resolve the quorum issue that we have now. Um it's create uh uh and the MPU evaluated several approaches to maintain that current membership structure, but none proved workable. None of those options um uh are administratively feasible for uh TPP staff and Edoardo and his team uh they can speak to more in detail if there's additional questions uh from the board. But uh uh these operational challenges uh were that they were challenges and they continue to be despite extensive coordination with uh from the MO and the county. The current uh situation that we have now is unsustainable.

Um it's unfair to all the parties involved, especially those constituents that we represent. um to continue operating in this way uh with this uncertainty with this level of risk um of inadvertent legal violations only to increase um uh this issue and and and to continue it allow it to persist. So no statutoily required entity should ever lose its seat at the table and this current process and some of the proposals in fact do that. Um, under the county proposals, uh, uh, El Paso area transit representative, EPAT, which is currently represented by by Commissioner Butler, uh, could be excluded from executive session. Um, and those deliberations in executive session that they are legally obligated to participate in. um that position represents the people in our county in in the unincorporated area or in the county area that need public transportation. So that voice should be there. Uh however, it creates both compliance risks uh it it creates unequal governance which our attorney has communicated to the county uh attorney's office as well. So, as chair of this body, it's my responsibility to lead the MO in a lawful, in a transparent, in a fair uh and and regionally focused manner and and and the bylaws revision before you today preserves that representation. It um allows all entities uh to participate and avoids disenfranchising any member that represents uh El Paso County individuals that that need public transportation. Um it

doesn't change the current representation for El Paso County. El Paso County still has its two elected officials, uh currently the judge and commissioner. Um and it and it still retains the El Paso County Mass Transit Authority representative. Um it just won't be an elected person that that creates a quorum. So this change protects uh every member organization by ensuring compliance with state and federal laws and safeguarding that the NO's uh ability to function effectively in the future. Um look, we all many of us have served on this body for many years. Um uh this is my 10th and we have been able to work collaboratively. We've been able to deliver uh we've been able to advance a lot of transportation projects uh that our region deserves. So adopting this bylaw change is going to allow us to continue that mission uh to allow us to efficiently and lawfully uh and in partnership with all of our local stakeholders uh to represent be represented on this board. Um so with that um happy to answer any questions uh from folks for any additional comments. Michin uh the floor is yours.

Thank you Mr. and thank you for your clarification of your prior statements as well as um outlining the history of kind of what got us to this point. So, I just wanted to make just one um final additional clarification. Uh part of the discussion that was had last month was regarding who might potentially be able to participate in executive session and of course the concern about excluding the EPATS member that you just mentioned. So, uh, prior to today's meeting, and I'm not sure of exactly the date, perhaps Miss Sanchez has it, um, the county did provide basically our agreement and our concession, um, to that point. And so, uh, I believe it was a suggestion by the MO's attorney at the last meeting that the that there always be the same two members from the county would be allowed into executive session so that there's never that uncertainty and that possibility of the EPAST member not being able to participate that you just mentioned. Um, so that's something that the county did agree to based on the last meeting's discussion. So I just wanted to make sure the entire body was aware of that concession with the county.

Any other questions? Some questions. Um, procedurally first because I think I mean obviously all the good discussion thus far is about another entity having an operating quum here or executive session. There are a number of other amendments to the bylaws that are proposed here that I think no one has any objection to and I guess my question is procedurally today are we able to divide that question.

Uh that's a question for our legal counsel. Um Deborah, are you on and can you please turn your camera on? Sure. Trying trying to. It's just not responding very quickly.

We can hear you fine. Can you hear us? Yes. And maybe I'm blocked from um starting it. I've tried. It's not doing anything. But um yes, I heard the question. Sure. That could be if there was a motion and a second to take up separately um the part of the bylaws amendment. I think it's in um article three about membership um and vote on that separately. That of course that could be done. It would require a motion and a second and a discussion on that. So it would be a motion to approve the bylaws as proposed and then once that motion has a second then um someone seeking to further amend it by breaking it in two could make a submotion to the uh primary motion. to approve.

Well, so then that's after public comment, after all that, correct? Procedurally, that's something we do at the back end when we're getting ready to vote. I just want to be clear, right? I mean there after an initial presentation which I think is being basically being made now there could you know it would be appropriate for someone to move to adopt the the bylaws as proposed get a second and then at that point when the chair calls for discussion someone like you could make a motion a submotion to break it into two parts

understood. Okay, that's just a procedural question. I have some factual questions and I apologize for not being in attendance last month where a lot of this discussion was had. Um, uh, my understanding and I guess we we have people from the county, I assume, that are signed up to anyone signed up to Yeah, there's no sign up. Nobody signed up.

Have any Okay. Oh, then I'll ask the the transit authority at the county. position obviously in the bylaws they have a position on on a TPP. Uh is that required under federal law their participation at this entity?

Do you want to take that Deborah or Yes. It's it's in the federal regulations it's required that there be representatives of transit authorities county transit authorities who is in the bylaws for the MO. However, it's there's no requirement that that be the chair. It could be any staff person. It's just a representative,

right? Okay. No, no. And and I I understand that it's still a decision up to that entity who they send, but that that but that the seat itself here is mandated. Um I guess I have more questions. Reading through the bylaws of the transit authority itself, um the chair is always an official from the county, whether it be a staff person or an elected And I think currently there's two commissioners serving in those two out of the three positions

and the transit authority, Commissioner Butler, Commissioner Stout and one other. So this I guess the question I've got is is and I've been here look at the table is this 14 years I've served here and never once have we had another entity establishing quorum here. So, I do understand that that's clunky and it is a new legal question that we're asking. Um, the concern I have just as just as as as the senator and chairman stated, we don't want another entity essentially dictating how processes work here. Can our bylaws essentially bind another entity that has unlawful seat at this table? And are we sub are we opening the door to legal questions about our ability to do that and bind the hands of the transit authority as to who they can send because you know I know Anthony s town of Anthony sits on transit authority village of Vinton so out in my area I think a lot of them are out on the east end of the county that sit there um so that I don't know if that's if that is a legal question that's been asked by this body before you take an action. Do we have an illegal opinion?

We do we have the do we have the ability in our bylaws to bind the decision making of another entity? I think I would recommend that we discuss legal issues in close session.

Okay. Are there other NPOs in the state that so no not a legal question but are there other NPOs in the state that have an operating quorum of another entity that sit on their NO

and I believe the county attorney's office did do research on that representative has it been submitted to us and I apologize if I'm behind on this and we do have um two attorneys incl attorney including county attorney. I'm not sure if you would want to hear from them.

I mean, I'm not going to demand that I hear from them, but I think I mean, these are some of the questions that are just good to have a look. The answer is yes. There are other NPOS's that do uh operate um with a with a quorum of a third party. Do you know which ones there I I thought San Antonio was and and what is it? And again, I apologize because I'm sure this was discussed a month ago. What are the and you talked about kind of going through the different uh options of creating some workable framework for both entities. What are the solutions that are employed by those entities? Do we know that? Has that been reviewed?

Uh you can ask our legal counsel. Yeah. What the answer to all of your questions about have these things been reviewed? The answer is yes. um and considered. I would recommend not to talk about what all the answers are and what all the thoughts are about that. It has been thought about and considered and but I do believe that it's appropriate to have those conversations within close session. So the answer to the question is has it been reviewed? The answer is yes.

To go to an executive session I don't want to belabor this point but because I think it could subject us to some sort of legal action like to make a motion. Yeah, I move to that the body move into executive session for this. A motion to move into executive session. We have a second. Uh we're now in executive session.

All right. So before we do that, some uh logistical um things. We need to clear the the room so that only the the board members are here. and Marisol, do we have the other WebEx uh link ready for those board members that are remote?

Just quickly, I think it's I think

Then um the others would be voted I think there's like six or seven others voted in the other function. Um I don't know how functional you do that but that's my motion. Sorry to be the Robert's rules. Sure.

It's fun motion for division of the question. There you go. I'm not a Robert Schules guy. I know the Texas House. Okay. So, we have a motion. Um, so we have a motion to I the way that Representative Canal stated it, I would move to divide the question. Uh the separation would be the amendments to article bylaws amendments to article uh article three membership and then the other uh bylaws amendments uh being house and the other vote

and the justification and the justification for the motion. I think the other items are are unobjectionable. I think there's there are certain questions as to the article three amendment. At least that's been the bulk of the conversation. Sure. One clarifying question before we before there's a second. Uh, article 3 also contains the addition of the non- voting member from Cuad. Okay.

In the item in the backup documentation there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Yeah. Amendments proposed

and the only item that I would like to divide is the second bullet point there. Addition of clarifying language on a 10. I'm sorry, where is it? Not that one. There it is. The third one. Third bullet point. Addition of language defining a policy that TPB membership may not constitute a quorum of another local unit of government. The other seven I would take divide out into another question.

So we have a motion um to separate. Is there a second? There's a second um all in favor. Let's take a roll call vote. Actually, if I may, if I may.

Sorry. Am I right? You're right. Uh there was a motion and a second prior to that. There was there was one on the table. So there was one on the table. So I think if I'm correct um council um that has to be voted on prior.

What was the first motion? The motion was to adopt the item to approve the item. There was a motion uh by the mayor. There was a second by uh Mayor Cruz. So Deborah So Deborah, uh,

we have a motion and we have a second on approving the agenda item and then there was a second motion to amend by Representative Moody um, procedurally, Deborah, what do we need to do? Do we need to vote on the first motion?

I think that we can vote on the submotion. Um, and if you know I'd have to I can get a But I think that um if it's immunable to the motion maker makes the difference on how you proceed. Let me look it up.

Okay. I didn't anticipate this question. So let me look at this. Yeah. And it's already been restated by the chair. So we have a we have a submotion on the floor. Uh we have a second for that submotion. Um, I'm going to ask for a roll call vote. Um, show the chair voting nay on that submotion.

Okay. All right. So, on this submotion, uh, chair blanco, no. Uh, vice chair uh, clear voting on. Don't you have to be present to vote?

This is on division of question, right? Just to separate separate the two things. Mayor Pere, but you have to turn. Okay. Um, Mayor Cruz, Representative Canales,

hi. Mayor Jakon, Representative Chavis, voting on the first motion or divide. Divide it.

Divide it. Aaron Chavaria. Anthony Daiser. Representative Fiero. Hi. Uh, Commissioner Gomez.

Uh, Representative Gonzalez. I Hernandez, Commissioner. Uh, Mayor Johnson,

Mayor LMA, Representative Woody, hi. Uh, Representative Perez, this is a a vote to divide the items.

Yes. Nay. Mayor Randia. Santoho. All right. So, the nays so the the the nays have it. The mot the motion to uh for division does not pass. Um back to the main motion. Uh we have a second and we have a we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor say let's take a roll call vote. All in favor say I. Those against obviously nay. Roll call.

Sure. The chair voting uh I on the motion. Okay. Vice Chair Perea. Hi, Mayor Cruz. Hi. Representative Canales. Hi,

Mayor Chakon. Hi, Representative Chavez. Hi, Erin. Chavaria. Hi, Anthony Daiser. Hi, Representative Fiero. Hi, Commissioner Gomez,

Representative Gonzalez, I bet Hernandez, Commissioner, Mayor Johnson, Mayor LMA,

Representative Moody, Representative Perez, Hi, Mayor Ria. And Tomasinho. Hi. All right. Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item. All right. Item number four. Consider adoption of the border plex safe mobility plan and its goal of continually reducing and ultimately eliminating the number of fatalities, serious injuries and cycling and pedestrian related crashes by half in 2035 and by zero in 2050 through implementing safety counter measures. So we have a presentation on on on this but I think Mr. chair, if it's okay with you. Um you know that we've been working on this uh safety action plan and one of the the requirements um from the federal grant program is for this board to to adopt it

and 13. Yes, we're

check to see if anyone went to the restroom. Is there anybody out there in the hostage? Let's do it again. Now you're going to be You lost. How many minutes? coming up. He was trying to get somebody else.

Yeah, he's coming back. I know where he is. I went there. At least to me.

I make a phone call right here. This is a 9:30 start. inch diameter. We can't even drink.

I ran outside looking for him, but Well, quickly, can we get

Do we have 16? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Okay, here we go. We got quum again. So again, on item four, what we need is the what we're asking for is the approval of of the adoption of the board safe mobility plan, our safety action plan. That's all the information is in your backup.

Members, any questions, sir? To approve. We have a motion to approve. We have a second. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion passes. So item five is consider approval of amendments to the amended RMS 2050 MTP and RMS 20252028 TIP to program the following projects using fiscal year 2628 Texas transportation alternative set aside TASA program funding as recommended by the proa by the TASA project call adica committee and items A B and C as written in the agenda. Uh we recommend approval for this motion to approve

no motion. Okay. Oh, you got a motion to approve. We have a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item six, consider approval of an amendment to the RMS 2528 tip to remove the border highway connector construction uh phase CRNE 100391 project from appendix D. Again, we recommend approval for that. It's a procedural item.

Any questions or discussions? Motion. Very quick. We have a question just very quickly. This is because of it being pushed out of the funding year and it's no longer eligible. Well, because it's now funded for construction, so now it's programmed as a on the regular tip. So, it's no longer needed to to have it in appendix D.

Any other questions or discussion? All right. Do we have a motion? Second. Have a second. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Passes. Item seven, consider approval of amendments to the amended RMS 2050 MTP and the RMS 20252028 tip for the following projects. Um, and the projects are as described in the agenda and we recommend approval for this

one by one note on this item. Um, we've got a floor amendment for 7B. The uh CSJ and the NOI were listed incorrectly on the agenda. The correct CSJ is 0924-06-734 and the MO ID is M506.

Um, want to vote on the amendment? Do we need to vote on the amendment? It I'm not sure if we needed to vote on the amendment. Make motion to approve the item including the amendment. We have a second. Second. Uh, all in favor say I. Any opposed?

Okay. Item eight. Consider approval of an amendment to the amended RMS 2050 MTP and the RMS 2025 2028 tip for the delay street construction project to move the project from fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 29 and to deprogram the project from the RMS 2025 2028 tip. The item is just to move it and its procedural in terms of moving from one tip to to the other. So we recommend approval.

Any questions members? Any discussion? Do we have a motion to approve? Motion. We have a second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Item nine is consider authorizing the executive director to execute the contract amendment between the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCQ and the El Paso MO for the writer 7 state and local air quality planning program PM2.5 program contract number 5822401394 to include an additional $320,5106 in funding for fiscal years 26 and 27. This is a great thing. We get more money from TCQ to con to continue doing our work. So, we obviously recommend approval.

Any questions on more money? Looks like a motion to approve. Second. Have a second. All in favor say I. Opposed? Motion carries. Item 10, consider authorizing the executive director to execute an amendment to task order number one between the Texas&M University Transportation Institute and the El Paso MO for training, technology, transfer, support, and other related training services to increase a maximum amount payable from 25,000 to 49,000. So again, this is uh we use this task order to provide the training to to the board. um you know the the estimate that that we had from uh two years ago of 25,000 we need to increase it and with this we should be okay to go through the ex the the the termination of this task order which is September of 2027

any questions we have a motion a motion to approve we have a second all in favor say I any opposed motion carries all right and for reports of discussion, the executive director's report, um a lot of really cool things that are going on with uh our our ban or um I'm sorry, our international border crossing uh strategic plan, a lot of meetings. Um at the same time, text that is initiating the the the update of the uh border transportation master plan. So there's a lot of a lot of things that are going on at at the same time and many of you uh have been invited and will be invited to participate in all of these. Uh with a little more time next next month, you know, we can come in and explain how all of these different studies are overlapping and um and complementing each other. Um with that, I think that that's that's it. Mr. Chair

unless you want to stay here for another two hours. All right. Um, we can't adjourn. We just lost grading sit down. Move to adjourn the meeting.

We have a motion to adjourn. All in favor? I needed you for the second. All favor.