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 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"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"] (upbeat music)