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.