Trustees accept state TAP money to continue Chavis Road trail design; 30% design must return to board

Trustees on May 19 accepted a state cooperative funding agreement to continue design and feasibility work on a proposed multi‑use trail on Chavis Road, but required the project to return to the Board at 30% preliminary engineering with at least two public design sessions before any final commitment.

Planning staff described a lengthy feasibility effort that found corridor right‑of‑way constraints in multiple sections and recommended combining trail design with traffic‑calming measures. The project is funded by federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds administered by NMDOT; the award supports preliminary engineering and 30% design work to test whether a multi‑use trail or alternative pedestrian/bicycle improvements can be safely accommodated between Forest Street and the MRGCD facility near Tin‑an Farms.

Planning project lead told the board the initial survey showed the public right‑of‑way was "very restricted and very varied" and that some segments could not meet typical federal minimum trail widths without either shifting travel lanes or acquiring additional right‑of‑way. The state granted conditional variances but required that at least 51% of the corridor meet minimum widths and that the project incorporate traffic‑calming measures (bulb‑outs, circles, four‑way stops or similar) to lower vehicle speeds and protect vulnerable users.

Public comment was sharply divided. Several speakers urged trustees to accept the funding and press ahead with design to reduce speeds and protect walkers and bicyclists. Others — particularly residents whose homes line Chavis Road — opposed the plan as presented, arguing the corridor could not safely accommodate a 10‑foot multi‑use trail in many places and that the plan as developed so far would produce substandard, narrow paths and localized impacts. One public commenter asked the board to return the grant funds rather than pursue a design that might not meet the project’s original goals.

Trustees weighed two practical risks: returning approximately $240,000 already expended on feasibility work if the village declines the funding, versus accepting the award and moving to a more detailed 30% design that may still show the corridor cannot meet desired standards. After a series of motions, the board approved acceptance of the cooperative funding agreement but instructed staff and the consultant to bring a 30% design and alternatives back to the trustees for public review and final decision. The motion requires at least two public information sessions prior to the trustees’ determination.

Project background and next steps: Parametrix (the village’s consultant) has completed right‑of‑way surveys, subsurface utility explorations and a drainage analysis; the next contract stage funded by TAP will produce a 30% level design package that details lane shifts, proposed traffic‑calming measures, drainage solutions and cost estimates. That 30% package is expected to take several months and will be the basis for trustees to accept, modify or terminate the TAP‑funded project.

Why it matters: The decision lets the village continue design work without immediately committing to construction, while creating a review checkpoint that gives the Board and the public a formal chance to accept or reject a final design that balances safety, right‑of‑way limits and cost. The trustees’ condition preserves options: if 30% design shows fatal constraints, the village may choose not to proceed and will need to address grant repayment and regional reallocation of funds.

Contact: Planning & Zoning Department; Parametrix (design consultant).