- We will call this meeting to order for the NPO policy committee December 12th 2025 at 1 30 p.m. We'll
- start with introductions to my right. Scott Ferris I'm an old county planning commission. Oh I'm sorry.
- OK. Nate Nedgold City of Bloomington Public Works Department and a proxy for Adam Waston City Bloomington
- Public Works Director Doug Horn. Bloomington Public Transit Corporation.
- Board of Directors Lisa Ridge Monroe County John Kennedy Citizens Advisory Committee Jodie Madeira Jodie
- Madeira County Commissioner Andrew Seabor serving as proxy for mayor Thompson Hopi Stasberg Bloomington
- Common Council and online Robin is still muted
- I can ask her to unmute, but that's... There. There. It kept telling me the host would not allow me
- to unmute. I'm Robin Bolte. I'm here for Smallman, and like I said, we have... Okay, we can hear you.
- Okay. Okay, and Jillian? You can't hear her either.
- They all have the power to unmute themselves, so. Now we do. Something just changed. Yep. And we just
- see David Henry back or no? No, David Henry. OK. Moving to item two, approval of the meeting agenda.
- Move approval of the agenda. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion. Seeing none. Any
- public comment. Seeing none. A roll call vote please. For the approval of the agenda. Nate Nicole. Yes.
- Doug Horn. Yes.
- Stasberg yes Kinsey. Yes. Yes Kennedy Yes, Madeira. Yes seabor Yes, Ridge. Yes Ferris. Yes Bolte She's
- muted but she shook her head yes, but I don't know that that would count I
- We were able to kind of barely hear you Robin. So if you unmute next time we can get it to count. But
- if not that's OK. We're fine in numbers and vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Item 3 approval of minutes
- for September 12th 2025.
- Approval Second we have a motion and a second any discussion Scott I Don't know if you can call up the
- minutes. Can you yeah, it's in the packet right here. Yeah, can you just I really have a question more
- than anything else And I could talk about it later in the meeting or I can talk about it now and it's
- under Report from MPO staff. It should be on page. I think it's five Yeah, next page
- And what I'm talking about is paragraph E. So this is back in September. If you remember most folks
- can remember that we had a discussion in this body about end of year tip funding and we're talking about
- projects that are federally funded but the money is unspent and how we take and move that money around
- within this MPO and whether there was a process or not.
- And of course what we were told is there was not a process. Some of us did meet with the planning and
- transportation director and talked about this. And I honestly don't remember this being brought up in
- the minutes but I probably was and I just didn't hear it. The question I have is what is the status
- of that document. What is the status of it.
- It was an initial draft write-up of what the existing process is at this time. So even though the process
- wasn't documented, there is a process by which things happen and funds are distributed. But this is
- a way to write that up. And this was a start at writing that up and making it more transparent.
- In the future, hopefully that information will be in the top tip document itself.
- But this is a this was an initial write up and it's something that so devil's advocate is that process
- published now. It's not formally published in any way. No. OK. And the follow up question would be is
- this body going to get a chance to review that process before it goes fun. I mean it may not necessarily
- be finalized in any way. It's not necessarily a pot.
- Policy as much as it is how things are done. It will become formal once Once those words the once that
- process is put in the tip document and that will happen next year So the plan is to take whatever it
- has been developed And to put it in the the tip document itself and then you guys get and then this
- body would be given the opportunity to take and review it and Whatever comment and improve it hopefully
- Right. Yeah. But as we mentioned when this was shown in the packet this is the initial write up. And
- if you guys have thoughts or comments about it you're welcome to share them with us. My point is that
- the minutes were back in September September October November December. And I don't think I certainly
- let me ask the question has this body seen that draft document.
- Up here these people sitting up here all of us seen that document. Yeah I was in the packet in September
- right. I don't believe that we have seen that document. Were you in attendance in September. Yes but
- you didn't take and present that document in September as I reckon. I think you just said that you're
- going to be doing that. No it was in the September packet.
- So I guess I can add the last thing that I received on it was sent from David Heidel and it had the
- document attached and it said, please find the attached written standard operating procedures describing
- the MPOs handling of federal funds, exchanges or trades. The SOP mirrors the funds exchange process
- of Indiana's other MPOs
- And aligns with in dot guidance. That's the last information I got. Yeah. OK. So as a follow up was that S.O.P.
- coordinated with this body here. It was in the packet on September 12th as is noted on the minutes on
- pages 30 and 31. I have all this packet saved on my computer and I'm looking at it right now. I take
- that as a note.
- My question is is that did we get a chance to chop on it? Were there other iterations or was just published?
- It wish it was shared as informational purposes only on how the current process is and then it was shared
- via email with Lisa and Andrew and They they have given feedback but the next You know draft or changes
- to it has have not yet been
- completed yet. Okay, with respect, the point I'm trying to make is that there was an SOP that was published.
- I would argue that certain people were included in that review process, in the review process, chopping
- of it and adding edits and going through an iterative process. And I don't believe that everybody on
- this body here was given a chance to do that. Now, I take for face value what you said that once it's,
- that this SOP, now that it's published,
- will be included in a tip document and we'll get a chance to take and see it again and either comment
- review or not approve etc. Correct. Yes correct. I think that's correct. Yes. Well we shared in September
- is is how it's currently how the current process is done and has been done. Thank you.
- I have nothing else to add about the minutes. Any public comment on the motion for approving the minutes
- of September 12 saying none. Roll call vote please. Kennedy yes. Ridge yes. Madeira.
- Am I saying your name right. Nickel. Yes. Horn. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Kenzie. I don't think they can unmute.
- I don't know why.
- Is host not allow my dad? Hold on one second. Can you try again Kinsey? Yes, now I can. OK, yes. Sorry
- about that. Bolty. Maybe yes, thank you. Ferris yes. Seabour yes. Motion passes.
- communications from the chair or vice-chair The Citizens Advisory Committee met last month about the
- middle of the month and Recommended to the policy committee approved the tip amendments that we'll be
- looking at today. I Don't have anything it's the end of the year Wish everybody a happy holiday season
- safe travels
- Sounds like it's gonna be a little messy tomorrow and really cold. So Any reports from officers or committees
- we just had John's advisory committee we met in November as well November 19th and Reviewed the items
- proposed on the new business section of our agenda and recommended approval Thank you. Thank you
- Right moving on reports from the MPO staff Okay, the first item is This is kind of a restatement we
- should share this at the previous meeting but We're just kind of restating it because the policy or
- the technical advisory and citizen advisory committee saw it just this past month and
- September Pat shared that the the MPO received in dot federal and in dots approval and Federal Highway
- Administration's approval of the fiscal year 2026 2030 tip That was received at the end of August. So
- the tip is now the 26 to 30 tip on our website is now the official guiding document for utilizing
- Utilizing the federal funds given to the MPO Item number two or item B There was a fatality at 17th
- Street and And I'll just pause briefly after each item if anyone has questions I didn't be there was
- a fatality at 17th Street and SR 45 46 bypassed earlier this year. It was a crash that involved a
- and a motorcycle and So previously before that prior to that crash the left turn lane from northbound
- on the bypass Turning left onto 17th was a flashing left arrow in dot staff have Changed that light
- to simply just show a solid red or a solid green light now So there is no longer a flashing left turn
- Yellow arrow. I don't know if anyone's seen that but this is just an FYI about that. I am see just to
- let you know. So the city of Bloomington's College of Walnut Street project which is slated to receive
- federal funds through the MPO in the next five years. They hosted two open public open house sessions
- during the last week of October.
- wherein a Couple possible designs were displayed and the public could submit their comments Staff also
- did some outreach on the streets by tabling and They also opened an online feedback form which did close
- on on December 1st but I hope that you all got a chance to complete that survey or complete that form
- if you'd like and
- If you didn't, the design alternatives are still linked on the website. So feel free to submit any comments
- you have directly to Ryan Roebling in the Planning and Transportation Department. Item D, MPO staff
- coordinated with Indiana Traffic Incident Management to hold a training on TIM, Traffic Incident Management.
- in City of Bloomington council chambers on October 24th We had individuals from City of Bloomington
- Fire Department and the risk department Ellitsville Fire Department and Monroe County Health Department
- all participated in the training This was just an initial attempt to do some of T. I am training in
- Monroe County to offer that Currently as of July
- 2025 Tim training is only required for new EMS personnel It's not currently required for law enforcement
- Even though law enforcement does take that role of incident commander in traffic responding in traffic
- incidents So we continue to encourage all local responders communication EMS fire rescue law enforcement
- towing and recovery because
- The towing operations are actually the group of people who are Second highest on the fatality list when
- it comes to secondary crashes happening after a primary crash Because they're just kind of left there
- at the end to tow the car and they're kind of unprotected So first the first the highest fatalities
- will be law enforcement So
- You know feel free to reach out to us or you have to reach out to Indiana Tim Tim and Organize a training
- for any of your local personnel It would be great to get more law enforcement involved and I'm hoping
- that the Bloomington Fire Department Helps make that connection The Indiana Tim also offers a train
- the trainer workshop for responders if anyone wants to lead those trainings locally
- If you want to read more about traffic incident management, there's a flyer in the packet.
- Item E, presentation to city of Bloomington Common Council. The MPI was asked to present at the council
- meeting in October. Specifically, the council wanted to, was interested in hearing
- what a new pedestrian infrastructure has been supported by MPO funds in the past and proceeding into
- the future. And they were also interested in new in dot projects or upcoming in dot projects involving
- pedestrian infrastructure. So there's a copy of the presentation in the packet just for your general
- information. I will highlight a couple of slides from it.
- So these are kind of the tallies from 2018 to 2025 25 projects received funding 21 of them involved
- by school and pedestrian improvements and then this is a tally of Or this is a chart showing I Don't
- know why that's green with black This is a chart showing
- Yeah, there's also a chart in the packet showing Funding that has gone out through the federal funding
- that has gone out through the MPO since 2018 Go ahead and unmute yourself Page 22 of that briefing
- Please 22 page 22 of the packet. Yep. Let's start with Let's start with the one on top the dealing with
- The Stand by for a second mean that we'll start with the one on the bottom. I got him in wrong order
- here I'm talking about 45 46 Pete Ellis drive, etc. I
- And I don't know if you can answer this question or not. It's like I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
- Say again. It would really help if you could speak more into the microphone because it's really hard
- to hear you down here. So page 22 the chart on the bottom dealing with the road and pedestrian improvements
- between 45 46 bypass and Pete Ellis drive.
- The the letting date has been pushed now till Well in 26, I think it's going to happen till January
- of next year now and the the issue remains the right away with the Postal Service building there the
- post office and the fact that Evidently in dot has been petitioning to that's the right word The postal
- Service in Washington since I think 2022 I may be wrong, but I think that's the date any update on that
- That's the latest update I have Okay That's I would just make the I make the observation that that's
- that's pretty extensive For the government to take and delay it this long. I realized there
- was a bureaucratic bureaucratic process. It has to go through and
- but this is 2025 and we're assuming gonna be 2026. Can I say something? I was in a meeting yesterday
- with the commissioner. They are going to change the design very minimally to work around the post office
- because we have had it at the attorney general's office. And so we are going to work around the post
- office and design around it. And it is still going to letting
- On the next available. I believe it's April now. And we don't plan on it moving. So I think we're going
- to be OK with it. So if I could ask the question, when do you anticipate? Maybe you said it, but I couldn't
- hear what you said. What's the anticipated letting date of the contract now with that work around? April 8th. OK.
- Thank you. Yes. Next one I have a question about is in some page 23 top portion and it's a road and
- pedestrian improvements between Pete Ellis Drive and North North Russell Road. Could you pull that up
- please. Just not sure.
- What document you're looking at at the moment because I'm looking at the briefing. This is the briefing
- that you gave the City Council those charts. That's the topic we're talking about and it's page twenty
- three top portion. All right.
- and The question I have is that they say the Anticipated construction it's a little bit further down
- the chart. It's fi 29 This this particular project has been Started and stopped started and stopped
- and now it's started and it's the letting date has been pushed And at the last date that I had was fiscal
- 31 and I see fiscal 29 and
- Which if that's the case, this is good news because it's moving in the right direction instead of being
- pushed out further So my question is I guess it's for end up. Is it really FY 29 the letting date? No,
- I think that well Robin can speak to that if she wants but I Think that that moved to
- 31 was happened after I made after we made this presentation packet. All right, so Okay noted now the
- last question I have is is that This was presented to the City Council. Was it also presented to the
- County Council and the County Commissioners? The city's the City Council made a specific request for
- us to come speak to them on this topic Okay, so the answer is no it was not presented to the County
- Council of the County Commissioners. I
- That's all I have Okay, actually so if later in the agenda if you click on the Project update link it
- will take you to my spreadsheet Let me try and share it here
- This is the current the latest spreadsheet with all the latest updates in it. So Pete Ellis road to
- Russell Road has a letting of 7 14 20 32 As we last heard Thank you, yep
- Okay Item F The Indiana Department of Transportation is currently in the process of updating their 2050
- long-range transportation plan in dot is required by federal legislation to develop adopt and implement
- a long-range transportation plan in much the same way we are required to do that and
- Similarly, it is a policy-based plan that is used to guide the development of Indiana's transportation
- 20 years into the future So one way or they are collecting data for their plan is a public survey If
- you have any comments or insight about local traffic conditions environmental safety bike and ped transit
- developments bridge and pavement that you want to share with in dot Please complete that online survey
- before December 20th
- It should be linked in the packet Item G is just an FYI A memo is provided in the packet to Showing
- the administrative modification to the tip that MPO staff approved on September 18th in dots this was
- for in dots intersection improvement project at West SR 45 and
- Flatwoods Drive So in dots requested change was to increase fiscal year 26 PE HSIP funds from four hundred
- thousand to five hundred and eleven thousand three hundred That increased the total project cost by
- five percent And
- NPO staff did not bring this item to committees for voting because it qualified as an administrative
- modification, which doesn't require Committee approval, but we still share the modifications with you Item H
- I did send out an email a couple of weeks ago with the calendar year 2026 schedule for the policy committee.
- Hopefully everybody got it. There are a few changes that were made to the schedule for next year. Those
- changes include the policy committee meeting time was moved to 1030 a.m. on Friday instead of 130 the
- policy committee meeting.
- was moved to the same week of the month as the other two MPO committees, which is the fourth or the
- last week of the month. And then the November meeting for all three committees will occur the week after
- Thanksgiving instead of the week before Thanksgiving, which is often what's been done in the past.
- No voting has to occur on this schedule However, we welcome any serious concerns that you have about
- this change because I know that it has Been the way it's been for a while You can share those changes
- through directly with us or at this meeting Okay item I Yes
- Because I know and when I've been here in the past, it was usually discussed At the policy committee
- if the time still worked for the board at the current the current board So who who made the decision
- to move it to 1030? It was moved to accommodate a couple people On the policy board. Yes Was everybody
- given that same opportunity? No
- If there are concerns, we're open to changing it back It's just I've served on a lot of boards and it
- just surprises me that the whole board was not Interacted with for that type of decision instead of
- just a couple members. I Understand the bylaws do you say that? That MPO stuff are responsible for creating
- the schedule and that voting doesn't have to occur but I am sorry that
- Email wasn't sent out to everybody If there's if If there is a interest in keeping it at its current
- time, of course, we're open to that Well, it sounds like it was already decided upon and that a vote
- is not required Well, it's it's not but we're still presenting this as a
- Please let us know if you have concerns and we Will keep it at 1 30 if most of the policy committee
- is interested in that Thank you How do you want us to express our opinion on that do you want to Pull
- Pull the committee now
- And leave that up to you guys if you want to make that decision here now for the the whole committee
- or if you'd like me to email I can do that On this issue
- Have any comments thoughts at 1030 or I'm sure it but it depends on accommodations of the room also,
- correct The scheduling of this room the room is available. Yeah, okay So educate me real quick, what
- are we what are we suggesting we change here just I just raised the question that it's the first time that a
- I've been on this board for 10 just myself just 10 years and it was never just thrown out that the meeting
- got changed by two people requesting it be changed. That's I really don't have a problem of it going
- to 1030 but I guess I don't agree with the way that it was reached when it was not a board decision
- and everybody is affected with that decision not just two people.
- Or why there wasn't an email that it was proposed So when the staff was approached by these two people
- on the board Why there wasn't an email sent to the board asking for a poll of if it fits everybody's
- schedule, too So the question I have and maybe you said it I just didn't I can have a hard time hearing
- hearing What's the rationale on? 1030 versus 130
- Why are you changing the time? You probably said that I just didn't hear it. Individuals who travel
- for this meeting requested that it occur in the morning rather than the afternoon. But that being said,
- sometimes those individuals do call in via Zoom
- Before the meeting but there is a limit to how many times in a row one can call into a meeting And I
- respect that for the traveling part I again, I'm just Questioning the way that it happened I just think
- it would have been considerate to reach out to the whole board and see how it affects everybody and
- if everybody was okay with the new approach the new proposed time again, I've to my knowledge it's been
- at 130 for
- 20 plus years and then all of a sudden we're just told that it's changed to 1030. So. I have one question
- if I may that I actually exchanged emails with Katie about this earlier because I thought it actually
- could have been a mistake where a stray zero got entered into the calendar announcement. So it was supposed
- to be 130 but it indicated 1030.
- She confirmed that indeed it was 1030 and I am supportive of the staff as specified in the bylaws setting
- the meeting time and considering the staff who are most involved in it as setting the time. I just think
- it is important to clarify with people that this is a change so that we're not surprised by it and I
- agree there probably is a level of courtesy that
- could have been extended to notify people that there is a request for the meeting to be changed based
- on the needs of some important participants and not that anyone is more important than others, but I
- think those who are traveling and who are required to be here, it is a consideration I'd be willing
- to entertain. But I guess I'm okay with this.
- Shift in meeting time per the bylaws indicating that the staff sets the meeting time But I think there
- could have been a little more notice put forward Thank you Would you like me to I
- There may never be a meeting time that fits everybody's schedule. But that being said would you like
- me to email and do a form a poll or would would you like to do a poem. I'm OK with the 1030. I have
- no problem with that. I just I would 100 percent agree with Julian. It just it would have been nice
- to have a little bit of notice that this was changing because we all have different meetings. We all
- attend different meetings.
- for this to and this is a very important meeting for Monroe County and Bloomington and the transit in
- Elitsville and I get the traveling part. It just would have been nice for a heads-up that The staff
- was going to change the meeting time with no notice. So I Recommend you send out an email and with a
- poll. I Don't think you're gonna get it. You're gonna you're not gonna get a solution here today from
- this body. I don't think
- So just send an email ask what people what they think. So that's what I would recommend. I can still
- do that. And either comments about the schedule.
- Okay, and like I mentioned if you Let's see If you click on the link the agenda you can see the latest
- project updates next time I will include a screen grab of that in in the packet but just to highlight
- a couple updates for These projects that are receiving MPO federal funds through the MPO and
- For Monroe County's superstructure replacement on Eagle Sin Avenue over the Indiana Railroad The tree
- clearing was completed in October Monroe County's Dillman bridge project near SR 37 They've completed
- a soil bearing test and environmental reviews are in progress for Monroe County's old SR 37 and Dillman
- Road intersection improvement project
- A notice to proceed with preliminary engineering and design was sent to the consultant. INDOT's project
- on the bypass between I-69 and Kinzer Pike, the J-turns, this is a little bit dated, but the J-turns
- are completed and the westbound ramp to Arlington is now open to traffic. The SR 45 10th Street between
- Pete Ellis and the bypass, the letting date has been shifted to February 2026.
- Which it sounds like it might have changed again Based on what Robin said City of Bloomington's beeline
- extension project from Adams to 17th the remainder of the path along the railroad section just west
- of Adams was just a few weeks ago Paved and
- Not necessarily formally open yet. They're still finishing work, but the whole path is there now and
- That's exciting City Bloomington's Dunn Street multi-use path project. They had a site walk and Staff
- are coordinating with utilities for stormwater and finalizing the right-of-way limits City Bloomington's
- High Street multi-use path and intersection improvement project. The letting date was moved to March
- of 2026 and
- The city of Bloomington's downtown curb ramps phase five five project the RFP for preliminary engineering
- was posted and City Bloomington's West Second Street project from Walker to beeline Utility relocations
- are in progress and a contract was awarded for construction But there's more more updates in the in
- the list that you can see I
- Okay, just a reminder that Many many of you are proxies but just a reminder that all of the policy committee
- positions come are are dictated by the bylaws and are according to your your role and so if you are
- if you are proxy for Currently or if you fall on this this membership list here
- this then make sure you talk to the person you're being a proxy for and let us know if you intend to
- be a proxy for 2026 or alternate representation or if you cannot attend the meetings Please let us know
- what who your proxy will be your alternate representation will be or you can just send a proxy for every
- email or every meeting and Then finally item K
- Those are just some links to the in dots electric vehicle infrastructure plan just for your information
- as a result of our conversation and at the September meeting. They do have a subscription service where
- you can receive updates to it if that's of interest to you. But those are just for your information
- and it's related to a project that's in the tip.
- For Neve funding for the state of Indiana. There is a proposed Charging facility for Bloomington. We
- are on a potential list to receive that funding, but it's it's kind of stalled right now The end dot
- CY 2026 safety targets Okay, so as part of the national safety performance management system the federal
- highway establishes five critical performance measures for the State Department of Transportation's
- and the MPOs and so these safety performance measures are also called called targets and
- They include number of fatalities fatality rate per hundred hundred million vehicle miles traveled number
- of serious injuries the rate of serious injuries Per hundred million vehicle miles traveled and the
- number of non motorized fatalities and non motorized serious injuries and so
- Federal Highway uses these targets to assess whether the state DOTs and the MPOs have met or made progress
- toward meeting the targets And so every year the state of Indiana sends out Or releases their statewide
- targets for the calendar year And so in dots targets for the calendar year 2026 call for a 2%
- straight-line reduction From the five-year average for each target and so the exact numbers of their
- each target for 2026 are 794 point seven total number of fatalities point nine nine two rate of fatalities
- Two thousand nine hundred and sixty five point five number of serious injuries and
- 3.7 rate of serious injuries and then Ford 462 point nine six number of non-motorized fatalities and
- serious injuries and so Most of you should remember because we had to redo this in February to January
- February of the beginning of this year but each MPO has 180 days
- endorse these targets or to develop their own targets using methodology approved by the Federal Highway
- And so in the past we've adopt we have adopted in dots targets and I believe some folks will remember
- the Miss Jillian Kinsey will remember how we how we did that in the past But we are asking for policy
- committees adoption for these targets
- Discussion. I have a point of discussion since Katie mentioned the concerns in the past. Is it okay
- if I mention them now? Sure. The annual discussion on this very morbid and safety related topic has
- been that we should not accept these targets because they should be zero.
- in terms of the targeted number of fatalities. But recognizing that while we would hope that it's zero,
- that that is probably not attainable in any given year, but that that's something that is being worked
- toward. So I at least appreciate a 2 percent straight line reduction that's been proposed by INDOT.
- But I do feel like it's always important to lodge our concern about
- the perception of accepting any number of fatalities, that's beyond zero. I think it's a challenging
- topic to talk about. I just want to acknowledge that challenge, but would ultimately suggest that we
- do accept the proposed targets or endorse them, what the proposed target is according to this,
- you know, our own target should probably be zero. And that's just as a matter of history. We could take
- it as an endorse, as a, I'm willing to make a motion to endorse the target given that consideration
- unless someone else has another proposal that they're putting forward.
- 2% straight line reduction corresponds with common council's resolution last year in support of the
- safe streets for all plan for Bloomington that Envisions that zero number in 2039 Has anybody done the
- math on that Okay, I would be interested in seeing the math on that and that kind of chart to know if we do
- have those targets of you know that that mirrors the in dot targets if that target brings us to That
- zero at 20 in 2039 and if it does that's great. And if it doesn't Then I guess my proposal would be
- something that that does There's a lot of math in there, you know if you have any high school students
- that wonder like
- When am I ever gonna use math in real life? There's there's a scenario for you right there What if it's
- if this is tabled or is what's the timeline on this They would like in that wants to know by February
- and so we could discuss this in
- Again, in January, I don't know if that would be enough time for us to develop our own targets according
- to federal highways guidelines. But we could attempt and put it off until the January meeting.
- I will mention that the 2025 The calendar year 2025 targets for in dot is also 2% reduction and so far
- The state is meeting that target but that doesn't include November and December's data yet
- pretty lengthy conversation at the TAC about this very topic too and The concern was that you know,
- it's difficult to look at expected Fatalities and even if there's a reduction it was a hard pill for
- us to swallow too but we also recognize a position that the MPOs in and that in dot is in as well, so
- it is safety targets it is a decline in the target and
- I think there's a lot of good intention there. Obviously the language is, you know, difficult for a
- lot of people to swallow. It's a difficult pill to swallow, but our solution at the TAC was we approved
- this, but as was mentioned previously, we did have kind of a disclaimer that although we would prefer
- it to be zero, we understand InDoubt has targets, and we had some
- Some foreign language that we've used and I believe in the past we've used that very same language at
- the policy committee level too. So that would be an option. We could recycle the language we've done
- in the past because it's something annually that does require us to approve and we've had this concern
- prior meetings. So just an option that we've done prior. Yeah I think it's a I think it's a good idea.
- I know we have had the discussion many times.
- And I think we have added in the motion disclaimers on that that it's the board's recommendation would
- want to be zero. But we understand you know there are our methods to follow to the policy. So I felt
- like kind of Gillian had made a type of a motion towards that. So I didn't know if everyone heard that
- or if anyone wanted to second her motion on that.
- I'd be willing to formally make the motion to approve these or endorse these targets with the, I'm sure
- that in the end our communication just becomes a yay or nay, but that we would endorse these targets
- and unless, as Commissioner Stossberg indicated, we table this and work on proposing our own targets
- at a January meeting based on the math that would get us to the zero by 2039. I don't know if that was
- a serious suggestion by Commissioner Stosberg or a good mathematical thought exercise. That was a very
- serious suggestion and I would guess that
- our planning department who deals most directly with the Safe Streets for All plan might actually be
- super helpful in figuring out some of that and at least being able to be like, yeah, it would be like
- figuring out how big a lift it would be to make that comparison. And it would be a relatively small
- lift to figure out our numbers and just determine if the 2% straight line reduction over that
- 14, 15 year period would work. Yeah, and that at least I would be interested in doing. I don't really
- wanna, I don't know what that background is. I don't really wanna vote on this today just because we
- don't have to in terms of timeline and I think that it would be good to look into that. And I also think
- that it would be better to have a more formulated motion if we do decide to just endorse their numbers
- with some kind of caveat language. I think that it would be better to
- I don't know what that background is right now. But I think that it would be better to have that thought
- out better than we can think it out on the fly right now. So given that discussion, I would motion to
- table this until our January meeting. These are statewide
- Targets is it inappropriate for us to or would it be inappropriate for us to? To approve these at a
- state level but but have our own Targets within our own jurisdiction that
- that might be more stringent and more focused toward these objectives in the future that the member
- suggests. Yes. Yeah. I hesitate trying to dictate to the state what to do. But I certainly could embrace
- a local effort
- That is more the focus toward the zero objective Discussion and what everybody's saying I think every
- year when we vote on this it's one of the most awkward votes that I think we all make so just recognizing
- that I think also just being an engineer and seeing a number of fatalities listed with
- Not a whole number number of serious injury is not a whole number. It just makes me think whoever wrote
- this wasn't fully thinking what they were writing. So just recognizing that I don't know what there
- is to do with it. But I think another interesting question if we are to table this that I'd be interested
- in knowing is what happens if the state doesn't meet these goals and what were this year's goals and
- how are we lining up with those just to understand what
- What does this mean. What does it do. I'd just be kind of curious to what is the practical impact of
- this. And that's maybe more for somebody in that to be able to answer than anybody in this room. But
- just just throwing that all out there. I do think that's a good idea. We've discussed we do discuss
- the same topic every year on this plan and the
- The whole board really feels the same and don't like committing to that number of fatalities. I do like
- the idea if we can you know supporting in dots plan and it is their plan but having our own local numbers
- of what we feel that that we could support. I don't know if that's something outside of this but I we
- do have a motion on the floor to table and I feel like that's kind of the direction
- I'm hearing from the board and then maybe work with staff on some of the suggestions that were made
- for the January meeting. Of course. So do we have a second on tabling. I'll second. We have a motion
- and a second. Any more discussion. Any public comment. Roll call vote on that.
- Lisa, I'm happy to do it if that's helpful. The motion is to table action on the INDOT safety targets
- for calendar year 2026 until our January meeting. Kennedy?
- Seaborg. Yes. Madeira. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Ridge. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. Kinsey. Yes. Horn. Yes. Nickel.
- Yes. And Bolte. Yes. Motion to table until January. Hello, Bannock is here.
- Oh, hi Jason. Hi. Yeah. Apologize for my tardiness. I was having technical difficulties, but I've actually
- been on for probably 45 minutes. That's okay. Yes. Okay. Oh yeah. We have to see your face too. I've
- got my camera on.
- There we go. Thanks Jason Okay, there are five amendments proposed The first is to add a new project.
- This is a request by by in dot The project is Astro safety software
- So INDOT currently uses Road Hat software, which is a custom software developed by Purdue University
- to do crash analytics. They aim to purchase the AASHTO safety software package, which meets a national
- standard and is used by 40 DOTs in the country. The AASHTO software has
- Higher capacity of functions does crash queries network screening predictive analysis reporting trend
- analytics and more and so in dot Would get this statewide software would get a statewide software license
- and then give some access to all the communities in Indiana to it free of charge or or not depending
- on how you
- You want to look at that, but we don't have any direct costs that we have to to give for this Do you
- want to do these separately or all together The second is an amendment are the addition of a new Bloomington
- Transit project so just as a reminder the federal funds that the NPO gets every year does not
- Does not go to Bloomington Transit But their projects do have to be in the tip in order for them to
- receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration and So they would like the Bloomington Transit
- would like to add a project for EV mobile chargers For the amount of 350,000 Item three
- Bloomington Transit would like to add a project for s1 guard deflectors At 125,000 Amendment for Bloomington
- Transit would like to add to the tip a project for a new administrative and maintenance facility And
- Bloomington Transit would like to amend update the their
- their funding table for the purchase of replacement buses and charging equipment. So what you said was
- that those additions from Bloomington Transit like like there's not really any money that is coming
- from us for any of those but they have to be in the tip so that BT is able to access other grant funds.
- Yes. Okay. Great. Thanks. Yes. So in the tip when you look at this table of funding funding allocations
- when we talk about the money that's given given out to the local
- public agencies, Monroe County and City of Bloomington. That's all coming from this annual revenue that
- we get from all of these federal highway funding programs. And the BT projects are just in the tips
- so they can get federal transit funding programs. So it would be like a whole different chart of funding
- sources that were specific to transit.
- It would be, but we don't have authority to distribute that. Right. So we don't have that in our chart,
- but that's what it would be like in theory in terms of understanding where, because I was like, where
- is this $47 million coming from? I don't get it. But that makes more sense. It's coming from a completely
- exterior source that isn't related to anything else that the MPO does particularly. Yes. But in theory,
- you still have a say on the types of projects that federal transit or that
- Right that they would be allowed to pursue. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. With the motion just approved the resolution
- twenty twenty six oh three resolution fiscal year twenty twenty six oh three. Yes.
- I'll move to approve resolution fiscal year 20 2603 as presented Any public comment Seeing none roll
- call vote, please bannock Yes Okay, now go back to driving I'm parked. Okay
- Nickel Yes Rich yes Harris I Thinks I think Stasberg was called and I didn't actually say anything.
- So yes, I'm not sure who that was down there that said yes for me Sorry Stasberg yes
- Yes Kennedy I heard that time. So yes Madeira. Yes Kinsey. Yes Bolte Yes And seabor yes motion passes
- Do we have any public comment on matters not included on the agenda I
- Seeing any any communications from committee members for Adam matters that are not on the agenda. Cruz
- the Monroe County Highway Department Cruz Ellsville Street Cruz everybody out battling the snow. They
- had a really long night last night and they're in for a pretty long weekend. They're all doing a great
- job and much appreciated. Thank you Nate.
- Upcoming meetings technical advisory committee Meeting is Wednesday January 28th at 10 a.m. Citizens
- advisory committee January 28th at 5 30 p.m. And policy committee meeting Friday January 30th at 10 30 a.m.
- All these meetings are hybrid and We are adjourned to be determined time for the policy committee meeting
- correct And move for adjournment
- Thanks Lisa.