◉ Perfect World
Las Cruces ▾
Town Square›Parks & Rec Watch›October 15, 2020
Parks & Rec Advisory Board · October 15, 2020

Trails routed onto surface streets, forwarded to Council over the cyclists' objection

The board voted unanimously to send the $2.7 million GO bond trails presentation to City Council, after cyclists, a pedestrian advocate, a Safe Routes to School coordinator and an adjacent property owner all objected to routing the Armijo Lateral trail onto McClure Road and other surface streets. The board then tabled all three discussion items to November 19 on a 4-1 vote.

Called to order 6:04 p.m. · adjourned 7:43 p.m. · 14 pages · source document ↗

If you read nothing else

  • The 2018 GO bond trails question was $2.7 million, approved by voters August 21, 2018.
  • The Mesilla Drain trail had to end at Burn Lake for the time being: farmers near NM28 who sit on the EBID board do not want the trail behind their orchard and plant.
  • EBID restricted the city to the west side of the Armijo Lateral — the direct answer to the cyclists' request to use the east side.
  • Public Works applied for two MAP grants for two HAWK crossing systems and did not get them, so existing signalized intersections at 17th and Picacho and 17th and Amador will be used instead.
  • Every public commenter argued the same point: keep the trail on the laterals rather than on surface streets. The board forwarded the presentation to Council anyway, unanimously.
  • All three discussion items — GO bond updates, Covid procedures, and budget information — were tabled to November 19 on a 4-1 vote, with Vice-Chair Engle voting nay.

Who was in the room

5 of 7 seats represented.

Present

  • Stan Engle — Vice-Chair, presiding
  • Robert Harrison
  • Eric Montgomery
  • Megan Schuller
  • Maryln Zahler — via phone

Absent

  • Cassie McClure
  • Eli Guzman

Staff

  • Sonya Delgado — Director of Parks & Recreation
  • Phil Catanach — Recreation Administrator, Parks & Recreation
  • Franco Granillo — Parks Administrator, Parks & Recreation
  • Joy Ann Lucero — Management Analyst, Parks & Recreation
  • Catherine Mathews — Landscape Architect, Parks & Recreation
  • Hazel Nevarez — Senior Office Manager, Parks & Recreation
  • Robert Nunez — Youth Services Administrator, Parks & Recreation
  • Ceci Vasconcellos — Community Engagement
  • David Sedillo — Interim Director, Public Works
  • Tony Trevino — Interim Deputy Director, Public Works
  • Sreedevi Mohanraj — Architect, Public Works
  • Jennifer Morrow — title not given in the attendance list

Others

  • Paul Dugie — Souder, Miller & Associates
  • Arturo Gonzalez — Program Manager, ECM International
  • Mike Heard — Highland Enterprises
  • Frances Escola — Public
  • George Pearson — Public; Chair of BPAC
  • Philip Simpson — Southern New Mexico Trails Alliance, and local resident

Public comment

Kept at length on purpose. Every point raised is listed, in the order the minutes record it.

Frances Escola5. Public Participation, and again during item 6.1
  • At Public Participation she said it sounds like phase 1 is being talked about, and that the portion of the Armijo Lateral giving her great concern for her safety is that there is not enough discussion about safety for the people who live along the ditch, from the bicyclists.
  • She said she is not ready to address it at this point but does not want to miss an important opportunity, and that maybe it is better for her to hold what she has to say until it gets closer to that phase of the project.
  • She asked whether Mathews or Vasconcellos had anything to say.
  • Speaking again during the trails item, she expressed concern with what she understands to be eight feet of paving.
  • She said that where the Armijo Lateral runs between Brown Road and Avenida de Mesilla it is so narrow, with homes coming right up to the ditch bank, that eight feet of paving plus concrete could damage plant material from people's yards and the roots of plants going underneath.
  • She said people will have to use more water to offset the heat, and wondered whether the well-being of the plants and the humans who live along the way is being taken into consideration.
  • She said that from what she heard about the concerns of the farmers, there are still plans to move forward, and wondered how much respect is given to the concerns of the people who will have to live with these decisions — saying she would like to hear this.
  • She said she has numerous concerns about this lateral, that she has spoken to Trevino before and he assured her it was not part of any trail plan, and it is.
  • When Trevino answered that the GO bond project does not go that far south, she said she understands it is on future phases; Trevino said yes, it may be.
  • She asked for consideration for the well-being of people who live that close to the ditch, and said she is serious: she will not continue to live here if this trail goes through. She said she should be able to be in her back yard safely, with peace and quiet and a feeling of privacy, and that it is not safe.
She is serious, she will not continue to live here if this trail goes through, she should be able to be in her back yard safely, with peace and quiet, and feeling of privacy, it's not safe.
She has spoken to Mr. Trevino before and he assured her it was not part of any trail plan and it is.
On the record in response

Mathews said she had spoken with Escola, and that the part of the Armijo Lateral south of Brown Road and north of Avenida de Mesilla has been discussed by others as a potential location for trail facilities but at this time is not part of what is proposed for the Armijo lateral trail. She said Escola's concerns could be heard and could be valuable in providing all perspectives, and left the final decision on whether she should speak to Vice-Chair Engle — who said the meeting is going to be pretty long and this could be discussed off-line. During the item, Trevino responded that the eight feet will not be all the way through and vegetation will be taken into consideration, and that on the farmer question he had to do his due diligence and put forth best effort for the public who voted these trail alignments forward. Vice-Chair Engle told Escola she can talk to him at any time and he can bring her issues to the board and staff.

Philip B. Simpson — Southern New Mexico Trails AllianceEmailed comment read at item 5 (pages 12–14), and spoken during item 6.1
  • Wrote at 8:23 a.m. the morning of the meeting, apologizing for not sending comments 24 hours in advance because he had just seen that request on the agenda.
  • Said he thinks safety of the trail users is paramount, and to him that means keeping users on the laterals as much as possible, off the streets, rather than forcing them onto the streets and hoping that paint, signs and other markings will protect them from distracted and drunk drivers. He repeated this in his closing, adding "and doing it right the first time".
  • Noted he attended the February public meeting on trails and the June 16, 2020 BPAC meeting where a GO bond trails update was given.
  • Said his biggest concern is the big deviation from the Armijo Lateral between McClure Rd and Hadley Ave: the June 16 presentation, slide 8, included an interim alignment routing the trail onto McClure Road, 2nd Street, Parker Rd, and 4th Street, crossing Picacho at 4th Street, then 4th Street to Hadley where it rejoins the original alignment.
  • Point 1: north of Picacho, EBID plans to use the east side of the lateral for maintenance, and the west side does not go through to Parker but dead-ends into railroad property. It was mentioned a bridge could be built over the lateral just north of Parker to bring users to the east side, but they would then have to use Mesilla St, which has flooding and ponding issues. He said a trail that floods occasionally is far preferable to a trail always exposed to cars, trucks and other traffic, and requested that alignment rather than one along McClure and 2nd Streets. As another alternative, he suggested using the west side of the lateral from Parker to Picacho instead of Mesilla St, after crossing on the bridge, then crossing the railroad track along Parker Road.
  • Point 2: recommended crossing Picacho next to the railroad tracks, either just west of them along the lateral road or to their east at the intersection of Mesilla St. He said the median on Picacho just west of the railroad track, which was raised as a problem, in fact serves a useful purpose as a safety island, and a curb cut could make it even more convenient. He acknowledged approval for a highway crossing is not easy but thought it worthwhile to avoid trail users spending so much time on surface streets, and noted this crossing would also serve the park there with the Laabs pool, tennis and handball courts, restrooms and other facilities.
  • On the lateral bank between Picacho and Hadley: the stated problem was not enough room for an eight-foot trail plus the slope down to 1st Street and 1st Street itself. He suggested the trail could share 1st Street as needed for that section, which is extremely low traffic since it does not go through to Picacho and has very few houses — he counted perhaps two.
  • Said routing the trail near the park, with its restrooms and other facilities, improves access to the park for residents north of Picacho while providing facilities for trail users.
  • Said he realizes there are issues with the original alignment, but none of them seem to him worth forcing walkers and cyclists onto street traffic for so long, and deviating so extensively from the plans that voters approved.
  • Asked three questions if the interim alignment remains on surface streets: will an alignment off surface streets be actively pursued; will GO bond funding still be available in future for items like a pedestrian bridge across the lateral and signs and signals at pedestrian street crossings like Picacho; and if an interim HAWK signal is installed at 4th Street, can it be moved in future to a Picacho crossing at the park.
  • Speaking at the meeting, he told Trevino that 2nd Street was described as part of the Active Transportation Plan, and that his greatest concern among the surface streets is McClure: he does not see McClure as a very good solution for bicycles and pedestrians, and does not see there is enough room to widen it or really make it safe for non-motorized users.
I think safety of the trail users is paramount, and to me that means keeping us on the laterals as much as possible, off the streets, rather than forcing us onto the streets and hoping that paint, signs, and other markings will protect us from distracted and drunk drivers.
In my view, a trail that floods occasionally is far preferable to a trail always exposed to cars, trucks, and other traffic.
None of them (to me) seem worth forcing walkers and cyclists to join with street traffic for so long, and to deviate so extensively from the plans that voters approved.
On the record in response

On the east side of the lateral, Trevino said the reason the city cannot be on the east side is that EBID has restricted it to the west side. On McClure, Trevino agreed it is probably not one of the better roads on the project, but said at this point it is the only way to get across the railroad tracks at an already identified crossing, across the lateral and onto the west side, and that the design team is working on what improvements can be done to McClure — answers to be shared with Parks and Recreation and on the website. On 1st Street and alleyways, Trevino said alleys were never brought up, that the Active Transportation Plan called out 2nd and 4th, that striping 4th Street makes the budget go further than building along an alleyway, and that alleyways get a lot of heavy equipment traffic from utility companies. He displayed an aerial of Picacho and the Armijo lateral showing no more than two feet between the property line and the EBID drain — no width to drive through or put a path without modifications — and said obstacles like this have hindered the project.

Ashleigh Curry — Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Las Cruces Public SchoolsEmailed comment read at item 5 (pages 10–11)
  • Said she appreciates Simpson's comments and seconds his opinion on the matter.
  • Said Safe Routes to School is conducting walk audits to identify safe routes to each elementary school from multiple directions, and that she looks at these GO bond multi-use projects through the lens of children actively commuting to school.
  • Said one reason she has been such a fan of these projects is to create routes students can safely bike with minimal concerns for conflicts with vehicular traffic, and that she too has concerns about the temporary routing presented at the June BPAC meeting.
  • Said she would be much more comfortable with the route Simpson outlined — staying on the laterals as much as possible and using Mesilla St or 1st Street as alternatives.
  • Said this GO bond multi-use trail will provide safe access to seven schools as well as Lion's Park, and that the Armijo lateral serves as a boundary for three LCPS elementary schools: MacArthur to the west, Alameda to the northwest, and Central to the southwest. It will also provide access to Las Cruces Catholic School (Holy Cross), J Paul Taylor, Mayfield High School and Alma de Arte High School. She attached elementary school boundary maps.
  • MacArthur Elementary: following the lateral as much as possible and crossing near the railroad tracks on Picacho would let MacArthur students continue through neighborhood streets such as Van Patten or Brownlee to reach their school.
  • Alameda Elementary: the current Safe Routes to School walking school bus meets at the corner of Miranda and Palmer; having the trail along the Armijo lateral at this point gives students access to commute along the multi-use trail, and rerouting via 2nd Street will eliminate this option.
  • Central Elementary: SRTS has recently identified Lions Park / LAABS pool as a starting point for a walking route, and access to the multi-use trail will extend the reach of students who can actively walk to school.
  • Said she would support a HAWK signal as close to the lateral and railroad as MUTCD standards allow, and reported she spoke with Mr. Love at NMDOT that day and he is open to discussing the possibility with the City again.
  • Requested that solutions be found to the issues presented rather than creating a temporary route that would have to wait potentially years to fix.
  • Noted she had a conflict and could not attend the evening's meeting, but would be very happy to discuss further at any point.
I would request that we find solutions to the issues that may be presented, rather than creating a temporary route that would have to wait for potentially years to fix.
On the record in response

Harrison asked whether other funding is possible through Safe Routes to School, since some crossings go through multiple schools. Trevino said he has not had that conversation with Curry per se, is open to any kind of grants, will apply for the MAP grant again this coming cycle, and noted the interim connections are on existing streets in the Active Transportation Plan so signage and striping will be done and the effort will not go to waste; Public Works will reach out to Curry and through the quarterly LCPS/CLC meeting with the schools. Sedillo added that coordinating funding as part of Safe Routes to School is something that can be discussed, that Love said in Curry's email he was open to reviewing the crossings again, and that a joint meeting would help move toward a permanent HAWK signal on Picacho and possibly over by 17th.

Andrew Bencomo — pedestrian representative, MPO Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeEmailed comment read at item 5 (page 9)
  • Echoed the comments of Curry and Simpson and added three points of his own.
  • Said the planned reroute of the Armijo Lateral Trail down McClure is problematic because there are no sidewalks on that long stretch of McClure between the lateral and 2nd St, and there does not appear to be adequate right of way — and definitely no funding — for adding any in the near future. He argued that if safety is the issue, using this roadway and others for the extended distance as currently planned is more dangerous to walkers and riders than crossing at Picacho where the lateral accesses the roadway.
  • Said multi-use trails should be designed for the lowest-skilled bike rider, since being off roadways by design makes them the safest to use, and that forcing all riders onto roadways definitely makes safety an issue.
  • Said that looking into the future, advocates are hopeful the bonds can be recycled in approximately two years to continue expanding multi-use trails. With the Armijo lateral trail running from the outflow channel trail to McClure and then seemingly dead-ending, he said the city chances sending a very detrimental message that could drive community members to legitimate questions such as whether this is what their taxes were raised for — a trail that goes nowhere.
  • Said incomplete trails that lack connectivity are not what was put forth in the GO bond question voted on, and in his opinion will damage any hope of future recycling of bonds by general vote.
"Is this what we had our taxes raised for, a trail that goes nowhere?"
Multi use trails should be designed for the lowest skilled bike rider since by their very design, being off -roadways makes them the safest to use.
George Pearson — Chair of BPAC, and citizenSpoken during item 6.1
  • Said one of the concerns of the BPAC is safety, and the safety of road crossings is of primary concern.
  • Said a multiuse trail system is being designed, and he would like some assurances from the City that at some point, when the trail transitions to where it is no longer multiuse, there are markings indicating you are no longer on a trail.
On the record in response

Trevino agreed with Pearson, and said that as engineers it is their job to make sure crossings are safely done, safely marked, and have proper signage.

GO bond trails — background

$2.7 million
GO bond trails question (Question #4)
August 21, 2018
Approved by voters
1 of 3
EBID permits obtained
Mesilla Drain done; Armijo Lateral submitted; Las Cruces Lateral next

Tony Trevino presented a PowerPoint on the 2018 GO bond, Walking, Jogging, Biking, Recreational Trails (Question #4), and said it is the same presentation given to the BPAC Committee.

The GO bond was approved by voters August 21, 2018 for walking, jogging and biking trails, $2.7 million.

Past meetings: a public meeting February 20, 2020; an EBID meeting June 10, 2020, held to apply for the first leg of the Mesilla drain trail and get permits from EBID; and a BPAC meeting June 16, 2020, where the same presentation went in depth over interim detour routes and the reasoning behind them, with future plans to follow the main plan trails along the drains and laterals when funding, time and collaboration with entities allow — whether the railroad, NMDOT or EBID.

At the EBID meeting there were lots of concerns by the farmers and residents. The city had to end the Mesilla Drain trail at Burn Lake for the time being, because farmers near NM28 who are on the board of EBID do not want the trail behind the property on the drain behind their orchard and the plant.

The first permit was obtained; Mathews is now working on the second, the Armijo trail. Trevino said EBID tells the city which side of the drain to be on with the lateral, and that the reason the city cannot be on the east side — as Simpson's email requested — is that EBID has restricted it to the west side.

The routes as presented

2
MAP grants applied for
two HAWK systems; not awarded
asphalt
Trail surface
some concrete where bank width requires
eight feet
Trail width discussed
Trevino said the eight feet will not be all the way through

Mesilla Drain Trail, just permitted by EBID: ties into the Outfall Channel northwest of Mayfield High School, works its way south crossing Bruins Lane to the Field of Dreams — where modifications to the drain will be required because there is not enough access to build a safe trail and get safe access across — then continues to a crossing at Tashiro and further south.

Where the Mesilla Drain Trail crosses Picacho is another area of concern. Trevino said Curry had spoken with Harold Love of NMDOT and that he had also had conversations with Love. Public Works applied for two MAP grants for two HAWK systems. The first HAWK was to be on the drain just east of 17th Street; NMDOT had a serious concern that from an engineering standpoint a HAWK crosswalk that close to the major intersection of 17th Street and Picacho Ave. would conflict with the timing of traffic signals. Public Works did not get the grant, so the existing intersection of 17th and Picacho will be used as the crossing. The trail continues to Amador Ave, also using the signalized crossing at 17th and Amador, then to Burn Lake, ending at I-10. Staff are working on final design to hopefully start the project as soon as possible. Trevino displayed a possible last segment across I-10.

Las Cruces Lateral Segment A Trail: starts at the Armijo Lateral southwest of Three Crosses Ave., heads east across Alameda Blvd. to Madrid, uses some bike lanes at Madrid crossing Main — another location where a HAWK system will need to be installed — then continues behind the police station and ends at Spruce. Public Works is currently designing Campo Street, working through design concepts to fit pedestrians and bicyclists through the narrow road and accommodate extending the Las Cruces Lateral trail down to Campo, picking up downtown and extending in the next phase.

Armijo Trail: starts at the Outfall Channel west of Doña Ana Road and follows the eastern bank of the lateral to McClure Rd. The concern is that further down the Armijo Lateral, where it ties into Parker Rd., the right of way ends a couple hundred feet north of Parker Rd., so there is no direct access from EBID property to Parker Rd. without crossing BNSF — a lengthy process. This forces the jump to McClure Rd. Improvements will be done on McClure as it crosses to 2nd Street, which the Active Transportation Plan calls out as a shared bike route, to get to Parker. From there, Mesilla Street was too close to the railroad traffic signal, which is the reason the route goes to 4th Street. From 4th Street it continues across Picacho to Hadley Ave., up to the Armijo Lateral and on to Amador Ave., crossing Valley Drive to the Mesilla Drain Trail.

Trail cross sections: the trail is going to be asphalt, with some areas requiring concrete based on the width of the bank to make sure it is structurally sound. EBID will work on naming the different locations.

Trail crossings will have signage with Ziggy the Turtle, stop signs for bicyclists before they enter the roadway, bollards, crosswalk signs, advance warning signs, and wayfinding signs.

Next steps as presented: EBID permits — Mesilla Drain obtained, Armijo Lateral submitted, Las Cruces Lateral next; Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approval; amendment to the design-build contract; City Council approval; begin construction.

Board discussion before the vote

Harrison thanked Trevino and asked, in light of what Curry raised and the NMDOT grant that was not approved, whether there are other funding possibilities through Safe Routes to School for parts of the project, since some crossings go through multiple schools.

Harrison also asked whether the city can keep working with BNSF and EBID to maneuver something that stays more on the trails, and which of the two is the greater obstacle. Trevino said it is a little bit of both — BNSF had a longer lead time and a lot more restrictions — and that Public Works has been in contact with them in other trail areas trying to find remedies and to have an answer for the rest of the trails in future.

Vice-Chair Engle said Simpson mentioned using 1st Street north of Hadley and Trevino said it was too narrow to add a bike lane; Engle asked whether sharrows or signage could designate it a bicycle corridor, and asked whether the many alleyways visible on aerials had been considered, and why not.

Harrison asked whether neighborhood concerns were listened to regarding the McClure transition, Council, and neighbor input. Trevino said invites were sent out for the first public meeting, and that this was through the entire trails.

Harrison offered another interpretation of the trails — that thinking of safety and multiuse, these trails are just linear parks. Trevino agreed, and said there is a lot more to it than just a trail, with a lot more collaboration on the alignments, going through EBID with crossings.

In moving the item, Schuller offered Trevino an advisory point coming off Escola's comments: a word of caution about how EBID is depicted in the presentation to Council, saying the farmers and ranchers will block a lot more if it is presented the way it was presented here.

Montgomery said it would benefit the Council presentation to include comments on the paving and vegetation affected as discussed by Escola. He said he appreciated staff's consideration of the routing, especially concerning the linkages of the EBID flow channels relative to BNSF right of way, and appreciated the explanations in the presentation.

Vice-Chair Engle said that as an avid cyclist and walker he is forced to begrudgingly agree with Trevino's analysis of the engineering issues involved in getting the crossings, plus the fact that in some instances the money for crossings did not materialize when submitting for grants. He said he would love to have seen crossings that favor walkers and cyclists, because he believes walking and bicycling have been neglected as a viable transportation system in favor of single occupancy vehicles for far too long. He said the project needs to be done, otherwise the city may not get anything else out of it, and that Trevino did a good job showcasing the difficulties of building a transportation system that could benefit those users.

Everything else tabled to November

Vice-Chair Engle asked the board whether it is willing to entertain discussion items 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 or table them for a later date. Zahler said that per Robert's Rules of Order, if tabled, the date and time the items will be discussed has to be decided.

The three items tabled were 7.1 GO Bond Project Updates (Trevino), 7.2 Parks and Recreation Programs / COVID Procedures (Delgado), and 7.3 Budget Information (Joy Ann Lucero, Management Analyst).

Schuller asked whether 7.3 Budget Information was time-sensitive; Delgado said it was just for information and not time sensitive.

Montgomery asked what next month's agenda looks like, given three items were being moved into it. Delgado said there may be an item that comes forward related to GO Bond, but no other items.

Staff and board comments

Delgado said there were no staff comments at this time.

Harrison thanked Trevino for taking to heart the recommendations of the BPAC, trail and biking communities, and said he appreciated his District 2 meeting that week.

Zahler thanked the board for being patient with her, and said she wants all board members to know the dog issue for the veteran plaque is not a dead issue, and hopes this is still a goal for the board.

Vice-Chair Engle said it was good to have Zahler back and that he is glad she is moving forward with issues important to her, the City, and Parks and Recreation, and thanked Parks and Recreation staff and the board for dealing with these interesting times.

Recorded votes

3. Approval of AgendaMotion carried unanimously
Approve the agenda as presented.
Moved by Megan Schuller · seconded by Eric Montgomery
There was no discussion.
4. Approval of MinutesMotion carried unanimously
Approve the minutes of August 4, 2020 as presented.
Moved by Eric Montgomery · seconded by Robert Harrison
The August 4, 2020 minutes were already approved at the August 20, 2020 meeting, on a motion by Mr. Harrison seconded by Mr. Montgomery. No minutes for a September meeting appear on this agenda.
6.1 Go Bond — TrailsApproved unanimously
Accept Mr. Trevino's presentation to move on to City Council.
Moved by Megan Schuller · seconded by Maryln Zahler
Carried after four public commenters and one board member had all argued for keeping the trail on the laterals rather than surface streets. Schuller and Montgomery each attached advice for the Council presentation — on how EBID is depicted, and on including the paving and vegetation comments — but neither was made a condition of the motion.
7. Discussion ItemsCarried — 4 in favor (Harrison, Montgomery, Schuller, Zahler), Vice-Chair Engle voted nay
Table discussion items 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 until the November 19, 2020 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting.
Moved by Maryln Zahler · seconded by Robert Harrison
The only divided vote in the meeting. The presiding officer was the dissenter.
AdjournmentMotion carried unanimously
Adjourn.
Moved by Eric Montgomery · seconded by Robert Harrison
There was no discussion. The item is numbered "IB." in the source, an OCR rendering of 10.

Left open at the gavel

Tony Trevino
Safe Routes to School funding for trail crossings
Harrison asked whether other funding is possible through Safe Routes to School. Trevino said he has not had that conversation with Curry per se, is open to grants, and will apply for the MAP grant again this coming cycle. Public Works will reach out to Curry and through the quarterly LCPS and CLC meeting.
David Sedillo
Joint meeting with NMDOT on permanent HAWK locations
Sedillo said Love of NMDOT is open to reviewing the crossings again, and that meeting together would help move toward a permanent HAWK signal on Picacho and possibly over by 17th. No meeting was scheduled.
Tony Trevino
McClure Road improvements
Trevino agreed McClure is probably not one of the better roads on the project and said the design team is working on what improvements can be done, with answers to be shared with Parks and Recreation and on the website. Bencomo's email states there are no sidewalks on the stretch between the lateral and 2nd St, no adequate right of way, and definitely no funding.
Catherine Mathews
Armijo Lateral EBID permit
The Armijo Lateral permit has been submitted; Mathews is working on it. The Las Cruces Lateral permit is next.
Unassigned
Mesilla Drain trail terminating at Burn Lake
The trail had to end at Burn Lake for the time being because farmers near NM28 who sit on the EBID board do not want the trail behind their orchard and plant. No path to resolution is recorded.
Unassigned
Simpson's three questions if the interim alignment stays on surface streets
Whether an alignment off surface streets will be actively pursued; whether GO bond funding will still be available in future for a pedestrian bridge across the lateral and signals at crossings like Picacho; and whether an interim HAWK at 4th Street could later be moved to a Picacho crossing at the park. No answer to any of the three is recorded.
Tony Trevino
Markings where a multiuse trail stops being a trail
Pearson asked for assurances from the City that there are markings where the trail transitions to no longer being multiuse. Trevino agreed it is the engineers' job to make sure crossings are safely done, marked and signed, but no specific commitment on transition markings is recorded.
Stan Engle
Frances Escola's concerns about the Armijo Lateral south of Brown Road
Mathews said this section is not part of what is currently proposed; Escola said she understands it is on future phases, and Trevino said it may be. Vice-Chair Engle told her she can talk to him at any time and he can bring her issues to the board and staff. Her request to be heard at the meeting was deferred off-line.
Tony Trevino
How EBID is depicted in the Council presentation
Schuller cautioned that the farmers and ranchers will block a lot more if EBID is presented to Council the way it was presented at this meeting. Montgomery asked that the paving and vegetation comments be included. Neither was made a condition of the motion.
BoardNovember 19, 2020
Discussion items 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3
GO Bond Project Updates, Parks and Recreation Programs / COVID Procedures, and Budget Information, all tabled to a date certain.
Maryln Zahler
The dog issue for the veteran plaque
Zahler said she wants all board members to know the dog issue for the veteran plaque is not a dead issue and hopes it is still a goal for the board. The minutes give no further detail and record no response.