- Will call the MPO policy committee meeting to order for Friday, April 11th at 1:30
- Introductions I'll begin to my left
- Andrew Seabor serving as proxy for mayor Thompson Lisa Ridge Monroe County
- Hopi Stossburg City Council
- Scott Ferris Monroe County Planning Commission
- Dan Swofford town of Ellisville
- Chris Wolman within that
- Nate
- Nichol City Bloomington Public Works Department serving as proxy for Adam Weiss and Public Works
- director for the city of Bloomington
- Jason Banach Indiana University
- and
- Then we have online
- members
- If you want to introduce yourself first John
- John Kennedy
- vice chair
- And Jody David Henry, sorry
- David Henry County Council
- Jody
- Jody Vadera County Commissioner
- Okay, and just a reminder for any voting items. You must be have your camera on
- Moving to approval of the meeting agenda
- With need a motion I
- Move approval of the meeting agenda
- I have a motion and a second drive any comments from the board
- Any comments from the public
- Seeing none roll call vote, please
- Okay for approval of the agenda Hopi Stasberg. Yes
- Andrew Seaborg. Yes, Dan Swafford. Yes, Nate nickel
- Yes, Jody Madeira
- Yes
- Chris woman. Yes, Lisa Ridge. Yes
- John Kennedy
- Yes
- David I don't think oh David Henry is on video. Yes. Yes
- Scott Ferris. Yes, Jason Bannock. Yes motion passes
- All right, moving on to approval of minutes of March 14th, 2025
- The minutes from March 14th 2025
- We have a motion and we have a second do we have any comments from the board
- Any
- Public comment
- Saying none roll call vote, please for the approval of the minutes Chris woman
- Yes, Lisa Ridge. Yes, Hopi Stasberg. Yes, Andrew Seaborg. Yes
- Nate nickel
- Yes, Scott Ferris. Yes, Jason Bannock. Yes
- David Henry
- Yes, don't Sean Kennedy. Yes, Jody Madeira
- Yes, Dan Swofford. Yes
- Motion passes
- All right communications from the chair or vice-chair I I do not have anything today John
- As vice-chair
- don't have anything for today and
- Would it be okay to give the report from the CAC?
- Sure when we get yeah when we get down here to reports on the next item, that'd be great
- All right, then the CAC met
- the end of last month
- In our meeting we recommend to the poll that the policy committee approved the two items that are
- on today's agenda the tip and the
- UPWP and most of our meeting was
- presentation and discussion of the
- Data and and pictures in the crash hub
- Thank you from the technical advisory committee
- And on March 26th and we reviewed the new business agenda items that we're looking at here today
- and recommended approval of both
- Thank you
- Moving on for reports from the MPO staff
- I think Katie's gonna kind of go through them have a pause in between some of the items
- So if you have questions, please let her know
- So we'll let her begin with item a
- Fiscal year 2026 to 2030
- Tip document that was adopted by the policy committee on March 14th
- It has been submitted to in dot Federal Highway and Federal Transit for final review and hopefully
- approval
- The
- 2050 MTP document that was adopted by the policy committee on February 14th
- Has been submitted by MPO staff to in dot for final review and approval
- I
- Requested at the February in February time frame of the MPO to include a
- Comment in the long-range portion for in dot
- specifically on page 67
- That would state something to the effect of State Road 45 intersection improvements from Pete Ellis
- Drive to start to slice
- Discovery Parkway to Russell Road. It was not included and
- Because the if you look at the data
- so letting dates
- for that particular project it started in 24 he went to 25 and now it's in
- 2030 but the time frame in 2030 really is in fiscal 31
- I make the argument that is long-range and based upon the history of these projects which started
- in
- 2005 and then 2010 and 11 and then
- recently
- When I introduced it back in 2018 29
- The brought the projects continue to move to the right. We need to put on the record that in fact,
- this is a project
- That is on in dots scope
- And so I would formally request that you take and amend or add or whatever you need to do to that
- particular
- document to include that
- particular project
- And I welcome comments from anybody else in support of what I'm saying
- Well
- Well, it's the very unsafe area in addition. We're in a situation where
- With the all
- stop situation
- Actually, it raises the rivets according to many because some are not on protocol there
- You keep we just lost Jody looks like
- Can you hear us now Jody
- We can see you Jody, but we can't hear you
- Yes, I just got thrown off line by something can you hear me now
- Okay, yes, I was pretty much done
- The commissioners have had a lot of residents complained to us about that
- As well. We understand that in dot will basically
- Issue a permit if the city can find funds. I we very much support
- Scott's proposition
- Just maybe a question for staff. So this is being presented as an update
- on the 2050 MTP that the
- That this body voted on and approved and so
- for any amendments to happen would we
- Need to have it as a future agenda item with some I just I just don't know what
- What the process is here
- Identified as short-range and as long-range in other words beyond the current tip
- were proved through in dot
- Because we asked for that review and in dot
- Agreed with what was identified in there. And so that's when that's what came before this committee
- when it was adopted in
- February 14th of this year, we then submitted that document to end up
- For approval. It's still in the review and approval process
- it's if we were to amend something that
- We've already adopted and it's still in the review. I mean the question is do I call it back?
- Can I be recognized please
- Scott as
- You well know there were some comments when we discussed the MTP
- That you in fact the MPO and staff in fact went back and made changes to
- Those changes that you made and were published in an adopted version did not come back to us
- For us to approve that the the comments that you put into that document
- Zero we talked about the zero
- some gain in population in which you provide a new language and you actually listed as
- Projects which were missing and I can give you the page numbers you end up adding that after it was
- adopted
- But you didn't bring back those changes to us
- For any type of approval and so what I'm suggesting is what I'm recommending you add
- Requesting that you add would fall in that same vein
- If you're going back to what the engineer back here was asking
- Yeah, the end on and ourselves agreed we identified the state road 45 corridor project from the
- bypass to
- Russell Road, we identified that as a near term type of project and then
- We did not want to identify the last segment of that project as a long-term project
- For fear that that would be
- What I would call lowering the priority of the project
- So the entire corridor is identified as a near-term project
- in other words, it's it's a commitment and then the next update of the MTP will come along in three
- years and
- That will put us at
- 2028 and then we can make a decision if we still want to make it long-term or whether we want to
- make it near-term
- I mean the judgment and the agreement was that steward 45 corridor is a near-term project
- Last thing we wanted to do was lower the priority on the project
- The the playing field shifted when the letting date changed
- And I will argue or I will agree with what your point was with respect to that being a short-term
- project before the letting dates
- We're pushed to the right when you're pushed all the way into fiscal 31 and based upon the the
- history
- And if you just do a little bit of analysis here, there's probably a strong possibility that
- letting date will continue to push to the right
- Outside of five to six years is not short-term that is long-term
- And if you're going to make the argument that it is still short-term then
- Somewhere somewhere somehow you've got to define what short mid and long term is so we can use that
- as a point of reference
- Next point we can have the end out rep here
- We can ask to ask the end out rep whether or not they agree or disagree with what I'm proposing
- I'm kind of with Pat here's we would probably classify this as a short-term project because we have
- we have
- funding set aside in the in the tip document for PE and right away even though
- That project has moved out and construction pat beyond the the tip
- But we're still actively working on it. So I would consider that a near-term project because we are
- actively working on
- So, I mean whether you call it near term or long term we're actively work on and that supports it
- I don't know what else you want
- I mean my major point here is getting it on the books and have it listed as a project
- As a short-term project the MTP states that short-term projects are things scheduled in the next
- five years
- That are programmed and fiscally funded. This is not scheduled in the next five years
- They do have updates to the road scheduled in the next five years in four years when the next MTP
- is written
- It may continue to be in the MTP as a short-term project. I don't agree with your argument
- It's still FY 31 when in fact you have a let
- I can't hear you Pat, please speak up and we look at the project in terms of are they funded for
- preliminary engineering and this one is
- This this whole project going all the way back to
- 2005 has a lot of history and a lot of it's not positive history and you have folks sitting in this
- room
- Going back that far when they know what I'm talking about
- You even had the you had the governor of the state of Indiana talking about about this back in 2005
- As something that was necessary. This is Mitch Daniels
- It was started it was stopped and and then it was started and stopped again in 10 11
- And here we are again. We're still talking about this is 25 years by the time
- You're gonna have a contract in place to actually start doing any work
- That is a real issue and it has not been
- Acknowledged in all the discussions we've had going all the way back to 2018 2019 in this forum
- This
- Is a sentence this is as this is a sentence in a document
- But yet it puts a it puts a marker on the table on the significance and the importance of this
- project
- Where it has been lacking in the past
- Respond that we see the sentence in the document is saying that it's a near-term project and we
- want to keep it as a near-term
- Project. We don't want to lower the priority of the project and saying it's long-term
- David has a question or a comment. Thank you for asking online. I
- If I heard a point of order on the phone, I'm just trying to track the conversation here. It just
- for my own clarity are we
- as I've heard the Scott discussion develop here I
- Heard mr. Seymour say ask if this is requiring an amendment process to add into the tip
- If that's yes or no, what does that process?
- I think I've also heard mr. Ferris say whatever the process was for an edit that was done to the
- tip
- He would like the same edit done to the document
- So I just I'm trying to look for some clarity here
- Are we looking for a motion to amend something or are we looking for a process to add something in?
- As I'm trying to understand on the phone
- And while we're all mulling that my second comment and question maybe for staff is we say five
- years
- We saying fiscal year or we saying calendar years because one could make an argument fiscal years
- is a five-year window
- As we start an FY, you know at a certain point on the federal calendar and state calendar a little
- differently
- Can we get a clarification on that one? Thanks
- Program in the statewide transportation improvement program the Metropolitan transportation plan in
- five years
- Will be replaced with a new plan
- Looking at the year to the year
- 2055
- so what we're looking at is the transportation improvement program because that's much more fluid
- in terms of
- project progress
- We see the state road 45 corridor is making significant progress right now
- as is and
- we see no reason to
- Show that project as a long-term project when it's currently progressing as a near-term project
- It's all I can say
- So I I think a little bit of the confusion here because I was starting to get a little bit confused
- myself
- So we have the 2026 than the 2030 tip that is the more current funded projects
- That are most likely under contract. They're funded. They're going ahead in the process
- the 2050
- Long-term plan I will call that is basically
- Today's projects but also what we see in the future, but it does not have any funding commitment
- The the project that is of concern right now the Pete Ellis Drive
- To Russell Road for State Road 45 is in our current tip
- 2026 to 2030 it is a funded project
- and I think a lot of the concern that I've I've been
- Part of some of the conversations of the four-way stop that's been installed are there any other
- solutions while this is under design that may be the city the county and
- Granted the county doesn't have any
- We don't have an intersection there. It's city. It's state
- But if it can help to work with any of the MPO funding
- On how we allocate it. Is there something that we can do as partnering
- To
- Help the situation. It sounds like a traffic signal has been suggested
- I'm not an engineer. So I can't sit here and say that that's that's better than the four-way stop
- Typically, it is your next step besides a four-way stop
- So I didn't know if that's an avenue that's been looked at at in dot if it's a possibility
- I know in dot has stressed that they would work with permitting and such. I think the problem is
- funding but
- And I'm not sure of what we're looking at for cost at this point
- We might be able to work with our engineers that we have with the city the county come up with if
- it's even feasible
- That we can afford something. I just thrown that out there
- I think that's kind of where the maybe like I said the confusion got between the 20 26 20 30 tip
- and the
- 2050 long-range plan so
- Current document and then the
- Indiana Department of Transportation statewide transportation improvement program to step it's
- currently open for comment right now public comment
- That's in a 30-day public comment period. I think right now and it mirrors or we mirror what they
- have
- so
- The projects the projects showing as being committed and underway right now
- So we are to that next step it's not
- Like we're in 2005 again
- No, and I see that but I think there's still a lot of concern and with the residents out there of
- What could be done right now while it is going under design and while it is under right-of-way.
- Yeah
- And I looked at what we could do short-term low cost to help with the situation we installed the
- always stop
- Did a little vegetation clearing?
- We recognize that's a
- short-term solution
- To get us to the thought, you know while we wait for the final project if if
- The City County MPO
- Whoever wants to do something
- More intensive there that fits within the the the final scope or
- The purpose and need of the final scope. We're willing to partner with you all either if it's
- It's 100% local funds. We could do it through a permit
- If it's federal aid, it would come through in dot system and we would have a review of that, but
- We you know
- We'll have engineering resources to help and maybe partner with that. We look at that option to
- work worse. I want to
- Re-emphasize we're in support of the project. It's just a timing issue with us and funding so
- Hi, this is Judy. I just don't think residents understand that the four-way stop was intended to be
- Temporary and that temporary meant, you know
- Years and so that's what we're hearing
- Actually, I was going to devote some time in board member comments later on
- To requesting that the city actually find a way to fund this sooner out of their own dollars
- Than 2030 because I think the situation is going to continue to get worse until this problem is
- taken care of
- Our city engineer who happens to be here today about the
- If he can speak to it about the
- That particular location and the idea of a stoplight versus the stop sign
- Versus any other not thought of
- Temporary improvement to that intersection. I don't know if you're prepared to talk about that at
- this point, but I think that that's
- part of my interest at this moment
- Yes, the the city has not been involved in the study of this intersection in dots taken the lead
- and and I'm assuming
- Implemented this change to address safety as being a priority and generally I support and trusts
- their staff and making that determination
- and I also
- Appreciate that they do have an active project under I think contract even to do the design work of
- this
- And so the the reality is if a signal wanted to be designed
- there would still need to be another contract and all of this still takes time and then there's
- limited time before the long-term improvement happens and so
- Just I guess trusting that in dot has evaluated this and and that it is a positive step forward and
- recognizing
- It's not the the long-term solution and that that is already in process by in dot on in dots
- facility
- But the city has not specifically evaluated this intersection or looked at alternatives
- Given it's managed by in that
- Just a data point
- As I've been doing my reading I
- See that
- The city is now as part of their safe Street for all initiative is
- Looking at 10th Street
- From between Morton and Indiana and it's all based upon safety concerns
- I've heard some make the argument that
- the discussion with respect to the city ends at the bypass and
- I don't know if that's true or not. This is what some have told me, but that's beside the point
- 10th Street, which is State Road 45
- Has just if not more safety concerns between the bypass all the way out to Russell Road for those
- of us who live in that area
- That little dip between Grandview to Smith Road
- Just drive out there matter of fact if you want I'll drive you out there and show it to you. We've
- had a fatality there
- There's actually been two fatalities on 45 within the last few years
- There are no sidewalks
- There's no
- Shoulders on the roads
- We've get we we get even though we just put those stop signs up. I have seen the little 500 crew
- They come zipping down that hill as they're going
- east and
- They just run right through those stop signs. They don't even stop and that's just an accident
- ready to happen
- That was as an unintended consequence to
- What happened? They're not adhering to the rules of the road
- We don't have turn lanes. We don't have sidewalks. You've got I have literally seen
- women pushing baby carriages on
- the side of the road
- Going west from Smith Road down to Grandview up on that where there's no shoulder
- I've literally seen people weren't walking on the side of the road all hours of the day as
- People are coming over the top of that hill going east from Grandview to Smith Road
- Which is extremely dangerous. This is a safety issue
- And 10th Street goes all the way through the city out to the county and includes the state
- This issue is is going to balloon one of these days and we're going to have another fatality
- Concerns about this road and also the history of it. I really appreciate that. I
- I also
- You know am frustrated when some of the state roads just don't have proper
- pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
- Your concern for this road is definitely valid
- We if you are interested in seeing if the city
- Could include this section of 10th Street as part of their
- 10th Street study you can contact Ryan Roebling about that. There's kind of a separation between
- the two
- So I'm not sure that that's going to be in their scope plus they've already been doing a lot of
- public
- Participation for that particular segment. So I'm not sure that at this time it can be included in
- that study
- At this time in dot has this on their short-term list
- They will continue to evaluate it a stop sign at Smith is a first step
- that's required before installing more expensive infrastructure and
- in four years
- It will continue to be under evaluation it may also be in the tip for
- 20
- Sorry, you may also be yeah
- It may also be in the tip for 2030 to 35 as a short-term project. It may continue to be on their
- list
- So MPO staff we at this time don't see a reason to
- Put it on the long-term list as it will continue to be prioritized by in dot at this time
- If it is if it is not
- prioritized
- Then we will ask in dot why at that time if it's not prioritized once the next window for this be
- included as a long-term
- Project that is up to in dot and their traffic studies and the data that they collect on that road
- as well as their funding
- limitations I
- Do truly understand what you're trying to say, but as long as it's on the short-term list
- We're okay. If for some reason there are additional changes and they decide in 2030 that it's
- not going to be prioritized then we'll have to put it back on the long-term list, but
- currently it is at
- maximum prioritization where we want it to be and they
- are aware of the concerns and
- Are open to any thoughts we have
- So I'm asking for two things here and I and I don't know where we stand on based upon a lot of this
- discussion
- One I have a formal request to amend
- the adopted
- MTP to include what I had suggested previously
- Do we need to put a motion on the floor to do that? Or is this something that you're just gonna say?
- We're not gonna do it
- Public comment period and voting on this document is passed
- We don't really do amendments to the MTP. We do them to the tip
- throughout the year I
- Brought this up at the February meeting before it was adopted and I talked to Pat about it after
- the meeting
- So public comment I provided public comment
- True and I was under the impression that it was actually going to be included
- Until I when I reviewed the adopted version, which I asked you about
- Okay, I did not see it
- I saw the other things that we talked about had been updated and included the vote did not pass
- under the condition that that project be
- Included say again, please
- The vote is taken
- But not with the condition that but the vote that was taken was taken on the adopted plan
- But did not include the comments that came up that were in the changes that were made after the
- vote was taken
- I'm talking about yeah regarding regarding those changes. So most of them were administrative Scribner
- errors the
- additional language
- regarding population that was
- Something that was included as part of the the vote. That's not administrative
- Right, but the vote was taken
- with the condition that the MTP include language about
- the
- 2020 census and the impact of that on our populate possible impact of that on our population
- I also talked about adding this to the long-range plan portion of in dot during that meeting and
- then it was
- Between Pat and I we discussed we would bring it up after the meeting because of the complexity of
- the topic and I did not
- Want to take all the time to explain all the things I explained here today
- So, I mean this there's a disconnect here
- You're telling me that it's already been adopted and forwarded and what I'm telling you is that
- there was a request on the table and
- You did not incorporate it
- Yes, and I'm telling you there is a and I'm telling you there's about excuse me
- And I'm telling you there's a valid argument about what is short-term and long-term
- In the fact that there is history with the letting dates of pushing to the right which consistently
- over time
- Moved to the right because of prioritization at the state level on other projects around the state
- We hear you and we responded to your email last week
- Denying your request to add it to the long-term list. You did not deny my request
- You said did you say you actually thanked me for my thoughts? Yes, as opposed to my request. I said
- At this time it will remain solely on the short-term list
- Last time I checked you're not deciding body you the NPO staff
- This is deciding body on what is in fact included in that document
- So you individually denying something doesn't carry a whole lot of weight with respect to what this
- particular
- committee does
- It's an input. And so that's why I brought it up today because you did not respond to my latest
- comment
- When I sent you an email in response to what you said now, I'm gonna get beyond this because we're
- just waiting every we're wasting everybody's time
- So what I heard from you is that you're formally denying my request
- to include what I had suggested earlier with respect to
- The improvements from Pete Ellis Drive all the way down to Range Road
- You're denying my requests to include that as part of a long-range plan, even though it's pushed to
- FY 31
- It's fiscal year 31 and probably beyond you're denying that request
- On a short-term immediate list in
- consultation with the Department of Transportation because they're the ones that gave us that
- identity and
- What we did was we made sure that we were consistent with the Department of Transportation
- Was there an effort to push it out and the answer was no, it's an immediate
- Term project and so therefore we saw no reason to go against their recommendations
- Because it is their corridor in their project. So please confirm with me. You just denied that
- request
- Absolutely not we made our request to the Department of Transportation
- Should we move this out? Should we keep it the same we kept it the same?
- All right noted I mean we I
- Don't see the purpose of moving the project out when the projects already committed
- I don't see any any need to push it beyond 2005
- But it has been for whatever reason
- We have no idea what happened in 2005 I have what I
- Actually there is quite a bit of history out there and if you do a little research I know you have
- it's there
- Because I believe we had people in this body here at that time
- so
- It's out there
- It's been documented by others
- Etc. I'll respond to your response. What you just told me is noted. Okay
- second thing is is that and I was going to bring it up later and it is with respect to
- Replacing the three-way stop always stop with a stoplight
- That is what is in the final
- plan
- Indots plan to put a stoplight there
- By taking and putting it always stop into that area there and let it sitting there for five or six
- years and beyond
- That is not a temporary solution
- We have I've already explains the problems we're having with that intersection particularly with
- the bike riders now
- Because they're not adhering to the rules of law or the the law of the road. They're not doing that.
- It's not happening
- It's just a matter of time before one of those bicyclists gets smacked
- Because somebody is they're going cross-traffic to where the cars are turning. It's just a matter
- of time
- What I am requesting and I noted what you said about the the current
- Input for the safe streets for all for the 10th Street corridor
- That is not the forum for us to bring that to this is the forum to come up with a team a
- Collegial team of individuals who will actually sit back and take a look at this and
- Potentially come up with a funding source even even in the end-of-year fiscal dollars that have
- been obligated but unspent
- The city the county MPO and even in dot. There's dot. There's always dollars there at the end of
- the year
- You just need to go out and find them I would offer that putting together a team
- of the city county
- in dot and
- Who am I missing City County?
- MPO staff
- To take a look at that and report back at the next MPO meeting on what they did are able to decide
- or determine
- Can we put that up as a as a as an action item or a motion or what?
- Chair tonight, I think we're in the section of our agenda
- That's called reports from staff and I think we were talking about the 2050 MTP and getting a staff
- report
- I think if there's additional conversations, maybe they're more appropriate at other times, but
- just want to keep this this meeting
- Later on the meeting except somebody else brought the topic up
- For me and so that began the discussion I can bring it up again here at the back part of this
- agenda if you like
- But that's that's exactly what I'm going to suggest
- So you may we can all ponder that before we get to it
- Thank you
- Okay
- Just a quick update on the
- 2026 to 2030
- Stip, so the in the in dot is in the process of updating their step
- Which is a federally mandated for your funding and scheduling document for surface transportation
- projects in, Indiana
- It includes federal state
- city county transportation projects
- multimodal projects and
- projects in the national parks
- So the step has the folks at in dot have provided some resources
- They have scheduled public meetings one of which will be held in Bloomington
- Here on the chambers on April 30th
- There are also virtual meetings available
- There are there's a public comment form online and a map survey
- So I just wanted to notify everybody about that the meeting here will be April 30th four to six
- Just a quick update on the
- Federally funded projects
- Updates as provided by by engineers at the the TAC meeting recently. So for the city
- North done
- multi-use path project from bypass to Griffey
- The first round of public input for that took place on March 27th with an in-person meeting
- First Street is wrapping up this spring
- Currently finishing asphalt surfacing at Fairview. Actually, I think the road recently opened in
- the past couple days
- High Street they are continuing to work on
- within dot on right away acquisition
- Destruction is to start in early
- 2026 as of right as of now
- Second Street is currently waiting on environmental approval from in dot
- contractor bids will be accepted starting in August and
- the beeline trail extension is
- Mostly complete but a block of it is
- Delayed a little bit for environmental remediation, but should wrap up in the spring
- for County
- the pedestrian trail crossing
- Improvements project which includes rapid flashing beacons at the crossings at seven locations
- At Clear Creek Trail Bloomington rail trail and limestone greenway
- Those are going to be started in the spring and should be finished by June
- The karst farm trail project here
- Traffic signals and pedestrian crossing lights at the two intersections are now
- Functional and a walk-through is happening soon may have happened already
- the vernal pike connector
- Road and bridge at sunrise greetings court. The beam setting is in progress
- May have also happened, but weather's been sketchy and the Fullerton Pike
- Project they are working on a sound wall for the next month and clean up an opening of phase one
- from Wiccans to Rockport
- Should occur by early May
- Moving on to State Road
- Updates you all know already what these updates are
- So I won't spend any more time on that. There are
- Induct communications in the packet if you want to look at those
- and I just wanted to
- finally
- Highlight some federal grants that were received by the LPAs
- NPO staff did not assist with these grants, but we just want to help spread the good news so you
- can congratulate the applicants
- There was a federal highway safety improvement program special safety call that was awarded in
- December
- Neil
- from City of Bloomington Engineering
- received
- About 80 80 860 860 1000
- they'll be using that to
- modify and reconstruct curb ramps in downtown Bloomington areas for accessibility and
- Lisa
- Applied from Monroe County and received about half a million to be used for improving
- Safety and curve locations along Fairfax and then the community crossings matching grant program
- that was awarded in March
- 2025
- Dana
- from Park Public Works and Neil from engineering
- received about a
- 760,000 to be used for
- maintenance
- paving guardrail curb ramps on North Walnut from bypass to just past old 37 and
- Lisa received one and a half billion to be used for 28 miles of paving projects
- Ellsville also received almost 300,000. So congratulations to them
- And I'll say actually Steinsville applied for the first time and they received their
- Application awarded to so thank you any comments or questions from the board?
- And seeing none online
- Moving to old business
- Nothing listed new business item a is the fiscal year 2024 to 28 tip amendments
- I
- This is just a shift of federal state funding for the bridge thinned-deck overlay
- for rocker road and tap road
- I
- They are shifting funding from 2028 to 2027 it is the same
- Sorry about that
- Hopefully you could mostly hear me without my mic
- So this tip amendment is in dots
- Request to move funding from 2028 to 2027
- For the bridge thinned-deck overlay on Rockport and tap over I 69. So we because this is a change
- in fiscal year
- We're required to get local approval. And so we are just requesting your
- Adoption of this one proposed amendment to the tip
- All
- Right any questions from the board moving it from a fiscal year and using
- Stbg funds that doesn't affect any other projects within the plan. Is that correct?
- This is all federal and state funding. So no
- Okay
- And moved up a year in terms of like this particular project as opposed to
- We have another group of thin deck overlays on I 69 in the county and we wanted to bundle those
- together
- So we get economies at scale
- Any other questions so this would be require a motion and a vote I
- Guess one question so this is the
- 2024 to 2028 tip is it also gonna need one in the 2024 to 2030 tip or because this is gonna happen
- everything's that that is a
- everything that's approved
- Up until July also gets updated in the new tip
- So, no, we won't have to reapprove it later, okay. Thank you
- Do we have a motion
- To approve the tip amendment
- Changing the year of letting is that the right?
- So we have a motion do we have a second I
- Second and assume this is for the in dot contract four five two four six four does number twenty
- three
- zero zero nine one nine and twenty three zero zero nine two zero
- Do we have any questions from the board
- Any public comment
- Saying none roll call vote, please
- Jason Banach
- Lisa Ridge. Yes, Chris Wallman. Yes, Jody Madeira
- Yes
- Dan Swofford. Yes, Hopi Stasberg. Yes
- Nate nickel
- Yes, Andrew Seabor. Yes, John Kennedy. Yes
- I don't see David on video wait
- Well, I don't see David on there anymore and Scott Ferris, yes motion passes
- Right moving on to item B the 2025 2026 unified planning work program adoption
- Okay, the unified planning work program represents our contract with the Federal Highway
- Administration Federal Transit Administration
- administered by NDOT as requirement for the receipt of federal funding by all the local public
- agencies
- Including Bloomington Transit and rural transit
- The budget this year was a cut of nine point nine percent
- This is as a result of the statewide distribution
- For all the group two cities cities under the population of the United States
- For all the group two cities cities under the population under population of 180 200 000
- And we received that nine point nine percent cut
- um
- the
- It the work elements themselves remain the same as in the current fiscal year
- administration and public participation data collection
- Short-range planning management systems, which is actually the transportation improvement program
- Long-range planning that was reduced because of the completion of the mtp in the current year
- And then transit and active transportation and then finally other planning initiatives and special
- projects such as title six initiatives
- the appendices
- Identify the current committee memberships of all three committees
- The staff and support personnel that will be charged to the grant itself
- The cost allocation plan is identified approval letter is identified in appendix b
- We have abbreviations
- Metropolitan
- Transfer well the mpa metropolitan planning area urbanized area map, which is just approved
- last fall
- Uh, that was approved that was submitted in the summer of last year and I believe that was approved
- in october
- Maybe november
- Um, we also have the public
- The legal publication notice and public record of public comments. We received no public comments
- during the 30-day
- public comment period
- committee adoption resolution is there at the tail end and then also we have
- Self-certification statement which was approved by the federal by by the indiana department of
- transportation
- Now normally we would have what are called planning emphasis areas
- These are what guide our efforts
- Those planning emphasis areas were withdrawn
- By the u.s department of transportation
- Just in the past few weeks
- We've also had a reorientation of emphasis areas too for that matter
- Where we're to focus
- on
- Other activities other than what we were told under the previous federal administration
- So with that i'll open up the door for any questions that anybody may have
- Okay
- Did I just hear you say that the state already reviewed this and changed it
- Because they didn't like what our goals were
- Is that no we we we submitted a draft document to the department of transportation roughly three
- weeks ago
- They got back with us fairly quickly
- uh it
- All of the mpos there are 14 metropolitan planning organizations in indiana
- All of us are going through what I would call a rapid and fluid change
- with shifting and safety
- shifting and changing
- federal priorities
- Things that were de-emphasized for all urban areas in the united states include climate change
- greenhouse gas emissions
- a quality of any type
- Environmental justice of any type justice 40 initiative sustainability cumulative impacts and sea
- level rise
- We were
- Directed to remove references to all of those in our documents and so therefore we did
- This document was changing up until yesterday
- for that matter
- so what you have before us is
- what what we've been directed to
- say and what we've been directed to
- work on or study
- or facilitate
- With the local public agencies and with the department of transportation and bloomington transit
- Over the course of the next fiscal year beginning july 1st to june 30th of next year
- Does that
- Answer your question?
- Yeah, and it gets it on the public record, too. Thank you
- So did you see um any big difference between last year's and this year's allocation differences or
- restrictions that might affect the lpas?
- Um
- Several
- Most significant to those is that we were
- under the previous federal administration
- We were directed to look at projects for environmental justice to ensure that
- What I would call title six traditional title six and ada
- communities
- Were not adversely impacted by investment decisions
- That changed in that we're no longer restricted to do that
- We're still documenting that we the mpo staff and all the mpos in indiana are still documenting
- those
- Because we look at investments in those areas
- As title six and meeting title six and ada requirements those those laws have not changed
- You can take away the word environmental justice, but title six and ada still remains
- Any other questions anybody
- Are all these funds you you or they
- Utilize the whole year. I mean, do we use this? Do we use everything that's allocated?
- Or do we send some back? Yeah
- Last year, we spent every penny
- Okay, this year. We're on track
- We're actually we spent more than what we had in our budget last year and we took it up to the
- limit
- And zeroed out the entire grant last year
- Last year this year. We're on target to
- Definitely zero it out and then with the nine point nine percent cut in fiscal year twenty twenty
- six
- will most assuredly
- Expend the grant too. Yeah, we have we have had no surplus for the last two years and
- possibly this year, too
- Thank you
- So, uh, do we have a motion
- Oh, sure. Go ahead
- So I have another question if nobody else does
- I guess I also heard you say that there was no public comment during the public comment period
- Is that correct?
- And i'm just kind of wondering like where
- That announcement was posted and how much this was advertised
- I mean, I think that this is the the fourth meeting that i've been to and there's
- Basically, I mean there's nobody in this room right now outside of us
- I don't know if there's anybody on zoom and as a body
- You know, we kind of manage a lot of important things and so i'm trying to figure out
- How much the public really knows or understands?
- as part of this question because it feels thoroughly wrong to
- To approve something when there has literally been zero public participation in this
- Traditionally for the last eight and a half years, I can tell you we've never had public comments.
- I'm sorry
- I didn't quite hear you traditionally for the past eight and a half years. I can tell you we never
- received public comments on the work program
- The advertisement was in the herald times
- We did a legal advertisement in herald times on two specific dates two two consecutive dates
- And then we also posted it on our website
- That it was the draft document and that the public comment period was open. We encouraged the
- public comment
- Contact us either by email or by phone and again, we didn't receive any comments
- And
- This isn't just for the work program. I said I mean a lot of times
- We don't receive any comments on the transportation improvement program only either
- Okay, thank you
- The primary form of advertisement for this one this year was a legal a legal ad
- Any other questions Scott just a side comment to echo what we just heard
- You know, I appreciate that you're you're meeting all the requirements to provide
- Notifications and whatever form or the HT in this case, but most of us understand it
- It's not getting very wide dissemination
- And if you were to go out on the street and ask people about this what this is, they wouldn't have
- a clue
- and so
- The transparency piece of this is is even though it has it's no fault of your own
- there really is very little transparency because people don't even know what this stuff is nor are
- they aware of it and
- And that's an ongoing problem a lot has to do with our lack of a media reporting
- And an availability to to most anybody who's willing to look at this information up
- They don't even know what's out there
- So that's just a comment even though you're promoting transparency and you're doing what's required.
- It's not very transparent
- Thank you
- Any other board comments
- All right, do we have a motion
- I
- Move approval of the BMC MPO FY 25 to 26 unified planning work program
- Do we have a second I'll second we have a second
- Do we have any board comments?
- Do we have any public comment
- Seeing none roll call vote, please
- Nate nickel, yes
- Andrew Seymour, yes
- Dan Swafford. Yes
- Jason Banach. Yes, John Kennedy. Yes
- Jody Madeira
- Yes, I said yes before sorry if I was not audible
- Chris Wallman. Yes, Lisa Ridge. Yes
- Hopi Stasberg
- Yes
- Scott Ferris, yes
- Motion passes
- All right moving on to public comment on matters not included on the agenda
- Agenda
- Seeing none
- Communications from committee members on matters not included on the agenda item either
- communications or topic suggestions for future agendas
- Scott
- Okay part two
- I'm not gonna repeat what I already said
- but
- To add to what I did not say and I think it's important to note is
- That a lot has changed over the last. I don't know few years in particular with the City Church
- Which is right up there off of Russell Road and 10th Street State Road 45 that congregation now, I
- believe is
- 1,400 people I think they have
- four services now on on
- Sunday and they also have classes
- Essentially every night of the week again for those folks who live it out in the area. You'd
- appreciate all this
- The City Church actually hires their own security
- to direct traffic on Sunday because there's so much congestion as they're coming out of their
- parking lot and
- Exiting onto in two places either on Russell Road or out of their parking lot on
- Up on further up on 45 10th Street
- It is it is an absolute choke point for those of folks who understand what a choke point is
- You got one way in one way out and things just do not move
- the other thing is and
- And I know that we have a person here is familiar with the university elementary school
- There is a tremendous amount of traffic in the morning and in the in the afternoon with the parents
- Dropping off and then picking up their children at that school
- This is all in addition to all the bus traffic we have with the city
- IU and in the school system
- So that entire area that comes right on down to Smith Road
- 10th Street State 45 is a highly congested area during those peak times
- what I'm requesting and what I'm recommending and I'll even participate in is a
- Collegial group of individuals from the county the city MPO staff and also in dot
- that could meet and potentially come up with a way to
- fund install collaborate with one another to put a
- stoplight into that intersection of Smith Road 10th Street State Road 45
- And I would ask that it meet within the next couple of weeks and report back to the MPO PC
- On what their findings are
- So as a LPA and committee chair
- If one of the MPO staff would want to reach out myself
- county engineer
- I know Andrew has stated that he would have conversation in the field in the future for this
- request
- and
- Maybe kind of put us all together for a meeting for discussion if that's possible. I
- Also think that would be good idea
- Operations
- question and
- MPO staff doesn't get involved in engineering operations
- But yeah, we'll sit in okay
- So can we ask for somebody to take the lead
- Yes, I will send a meeting invite out and I will get that meeting scheduled
- Okay
- Any other topics for discussion
- Okay upcoming meetings technical advisory committee meeting is April 23rd
- at 10 a.m
- citizens advisory committee April 23rd at 5 30 p.m
- And policy committee meeting May 9th at 1 30 and all the meetings are available hybrid and
- I would move for adjournment
- [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
- (upbeat music)