Summ19Oct05

Summary: Open Space and Trail Network Meeting Oct. 19, 2005

Announcements:

1) The City’s draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan will be presented at a public meeting, Thurs. Oct. 27, 6:30pm at City Council chambers. The document is available from the CLC website.

2) Andy Hume announced that the MPO boundaries had been extended to include San Miguel and La Mesa, such that the southern boundary is now contiguous with El Paso’s boundary. This should allow coordination between our two communities with regard to trail systems. The South Valley Area is being studied and a series of public input meetings are slated for that area. Check the MPO website, which is updated frequently: http://lcmpoweb.las-cruces.org

Groundwork Application Update (Sandy Geiger and Susan Krueger)

Sandy announced that the Groundwork proposal will be presented to the County Commissioners on Tuesday, October 25th. An important issue with the county is the $25,000/year in matching funds, but there will be time during the feasibility study to search for contributing partners for these funds. The deadline for supporting letters has been extended to Nov. 1^st. So far, letters have been received or promised from Las Cruces City Manager Terrence Moore, World Wildlife Fund, Back Country Horsemen, League of Women Voters, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Town of Mesilla and Bureau of Land Management. Mary Sanchez will assist in setting up the 501C3 (or other) non-profit status.

Future of the Network (Susan Krueger and open discussion)

Susan reported on the teleconference of the organizing subcommittee: Carol McCall, Richard Hummel, Tim Sanders, Ray Bowers, Luis Marmaleo and Susan Krueger. A discussion ensued about what should be the function of the Network, now that the Vision is in place. Do we serve as a clearinghouse, a resource for information sharing OR do we implement projects, such as those listed on the agenda (North Fork Arroyo, Dona Ana Mountains, Bosque Park/West Mesa, Tortugas Mountain, River Trail)?

Susan described her role with the Town of Mesilla: that the mayor requests updates from the various meetings she has attended, she suggests tasks that the Town of Mesilla might undertake. For example, Mesilla could be a lead agency working with EBID on the liability issue. If there were state legislation pending, Mesilla could supply information and talking points; if there were local ordinances needed, Mesilla could draft model ordinances,

Andy H. mentioned that much of this work re trail liability is ongoing, since MPO is collaborating with EBID and their lawyers. A comparable “ditches to trails” movement is occurring in Albuquerque: led by Claude Morali, chairman of a North Albuquerque walking group. If MPO partners with Mesilla and ABQ, there could be more strength in the effort. It may be that the liability issue will be best handled via local entities, rather than the state legislature. The Network could function as a steering committee, e.g. to facilitate the indemnification issue with local entities. Andy will give an update at the next Network meeting on the MPO’s “ditches to trails” project and questions of liability.

Susan asked whether the Network wishes to be more proactive than in the past, i.e. are we leaning toward implementing projects? Richard H. hoped we would follow through on projects in which we have invested, e.g. the Tortugas Mountain preservation effort, and that we find other such rallying points for the group. People felt that the timing is opportune, since the city’s Master Plan is undergoing review: that we should focus on the natural resources aspect of this plan and its proposed creation of the Regional Open Space and Trail Authority, as well as the Rio Grande Corridor plan, arroyo preservation and water conservation. Additionally, the ETZ ad hoc committee is currently revising its zoning ordinance, and in the county, a similar move is afoot.

Different projects are at different stages, e.g. some are still at the grassroots level, but the EBID trails project is well beyond that. How will the Network focus on and set priorities among these? If we select a few projects for implementation, should we establish a coordinator or subcommittee or a task force to work on the project and report back? Some projects still need research, others are ready for lobbying; some mapping is still needed, as well as management plans and writing of ordinances/resolutions. Since the Tortugas Mountain project already has a working group, there would be no need to duplicate that effort. Concern was voiced that some components were not represented on the agenda listing: e.g. farmland preservation, open space zoning, and infrastructure establishment. Tim S. offered his overview: (A) that we have the Vision in place, the bigger picture, which requires a “caretaker” or “vision master”. (B) The Network could establish the organization, possibly via subcommittees, by which (C) the implementation of specific projects could be accomplished. A question arose about whether Network members who represent governmental agencies could sit on subcommittees, since they may not be able to lobby for specific projects. Government employees can educate the community and be an information resource, as long as the whole is presented.

It was decided to continue this discussion at the next meeting, with a goal of working out the structure and prioritizing specific projects. Other items on the agenda will be: an update on the MPO trails and the non-profit status for Groundwork. The meeting was scheduled for Nov. 16^th at the Branigan Cultural Center.

Future of the Network (Susan Krueger and open discussion)

Susan reported on the teleconference of the organizing subcommittee: Carol McCall, Richard Hummel, Tim Sanders, Ray Bowers, Luis Marmaleo and Susan Krueger. A discussion ensued about what should be the function of the Network, now that the Vision is in place? Do we serve as a clearing house, a resource for information sharing OR do we implement projects, such as those listed on the agenda (North Fork Arroyo, Dona Ana Mountains, Bosque Park/West Mesa, Tortugas Mountain, River Trail).

Andy Hume mentioned that some of this work re trail liability is ongoing, since MPO is collaborating with EBID and their lawyers. A comparable “ditches to trails” movement is occurring in Albuquerque: led by Claude Morali, chairman of a North Albuquerque walking group. If MPO partners with Mesilla and ABQ, there could be more strength in the effort. It may be that the liability issue will be best handled via local entities, rather than the state legislature. Tom Schuster’s and Andy Hume’s idea for the Network is as a formal organization; the Groundwork application points in that direction. The Network could function as a steering committee, e.g. to facilitate the liability issue with local entities. Andy will give an update at the next Network meeting on MPO’s progress with the “ditches to trails” project.

Susan asked whether the Network wishes to be more proactive than in the past, are we leaning toward implementing projects? Richard hoped we would not let projects we’ve invested in cool off, e.g. the Tortugas Mountain preservation effort, and that we find other such rallying points for the group. The timing is opportune, since the City’s Master Plan is undergoing review (with Mary Ann Ustick):. we should focus on the natural resources aspect of this plan and its proposed creation of the Regional Open Space and Trail Authority, as well as the Rio Grande Corridor plan, arroyo preservation and water conservation aspects (with Joshua Rosenblatt). The ETZ ad hoc committee is currently revising its zoning ordinance, and in the county, a similar move is afoot.

Tim Sanders offered his view: A) that we have the Vision in place, the bigger picture, which requires a “caretaker” or “vision master”. B) The Network could establish the organization, possibly subcommittees, which would accomplish C) implementation of several specific projects.