- We will call this meeting to order the MPO Policy Committee. And we have approval of the meeting agenda.
- Motion to approve. Second. So we have a motion and we have a second. We have any comments? Any public
- comment? Seeing none, roll call vote.
- You know, actually, I skipped introductions, so I apologize for that. Sorry. You can not nominate me
- for chair next, sir. Sorry about that. We'll go back. I am so sorry. So we call this to order and we'll
- do introductions. So I'm going to start over here. Hi. Nate Nichols, City of Bloomington Public Works
- Department, proxy for the Director of Public Works.
- Linnea Wellings, NDOT, proxy for Tony McClellan. Andrew Seabor, City of Bloomington, serving as proxy
- for Mayor Thompson. Doug Horn, Bloomington Public Transit Corporation Board of Directors. Scott Farris,
- Monroe County Planning Commission. John Kennedy, Vice Chair and CAC Member. Lisa Ridge, Monroe County.
- Online we have. Julie Julie Thomas, Monroe County Commissioner and Jason. Jason back Indiana University.
- Alright, now we will go to approval of the meeting agenda and motion to approve. And do we have a second?
- Seconded again. Any board comments?
- And any public comment? Seeing none, roll call vote, please. Ferris? Yes. Banach? Yes. Thomas? Yes.
- Kennedy? Yes. Stosberg? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. Ridge? Yes. Nickel? Yes. Horn? Yes. Wellings? Yes. Motion passes.
- All right, moving to item three, election of calendar year 2026 policy committee officers for chair
- and vice chair. And do we have nominations? I would put a nominating motion for the current president
- and the current vice president to maintain their positions for this calendar year. Second.
- Can I speak? Sure. I really think I should decline, respectfully decline, because we were not able at
- the CAC to elect a chair and vice chair for this year. And it's quite possible that someone else will
- be sitting in this seat next month. So I think it would be best if I declined to serve as vice chair
- for this year. Can we take and withdraw the motion?
- You need to take in support of that. I support the withdrawal. And then what I would do, I would put
- a motion on the table that we take into the president and the vice chair, or the chair and the vice
- chair separately. So I would put a motion on the table for Lisa to remain as the chair for the next
- calendar year. Second. Do we have any other nominations?
- to some crazy point of order. I think Julie seconded the motion. Oh, I'm sorry. I did not. So Julie
- would have to second the withdrawal, I'm guessing. Do we have to vote? And I agree, yes. Yes, I agree
- with the withdrawal of the original motion. I'm sorry. No, no, that's all right. You've got me trained.
- I'm just trying to move this along. I know I'm trying to do so.
- Any other nominations for chair? Lisa, do you accept the nomination? I will accept the nomination.
- This year? This year for 2026. Do we need to vote on that? Is that a roll call vote or anything? I move
- that nominations be closed. Oh, OK. There you go. Is that a roll call vote or?
- We can do just for chair. Lisa Ridge for chair. Kennedy. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Banach. Yes.
- Ferris. Yes. Wellings. Yes. Horn. Yes. Nichol. Yes. Ridge. Yes. And Seaboard. Yes. Passes.
- So do we have a nomination for vice chair? Hold down all those nominations. I would move that we table
- the vice chair nominations until the February meeting. Until the CAC figures that out or? Yes.
- you anticipate you will be at the February meeting in case we don't have a... I guess I'm looking more
- at Lisa, if the chair has a chance not to be there. I usually typically am here. I mean, unless we had
- 15 inches of snow again, but I would do everything I can to be here. Do we need to second that or is
- that just... I think you would have to second it. I will second that. Who doesn't vote for Thomas? Julie.
- I have a question. If Julie isn't here, could her proxy sit in as chair? I don't know how that plays
- with the rules. Oh, you mean if I wasn't here? Would I send a proxy if I couldn't be here? OK. That
- would then chair the meeting. Are we close on that then? OK, thank you. So we'd have a chair one way
- or the other. Thank you. So you have a motion and a second.
- So we have a motion and a second. Any board comments? Any public comment? I guess we would have to have
- a roll call vote for that. Okay. To table the vice chair election. Seaborg? Yes. Sausberg? Yes. Kennedy?
- Yes. Thomas? Yes. Ridge? Yes. Nichol? Yes. Horne? Yes. Wellings? Yes. Ferris? Yes.
- Yes. Tabled. Moving on to approval of minutes, December 12, 2025. Motion to approve. We have a motion
- to approve. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Any comments from the board? Any public comment?
- Seeing none, roll call vote, please. Approval of the minutes, Ridge? Yes. Nickel? Yes. Horne? Yes. Banach?
- Yes. Thomas? Yes. Kennedy? Yes. Stasberg? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. Wellings? Yes. Farris? Yes. Motion passes.
- Thank you. Communications from the chair or vice chair?
- At our meeting on Wednesday night, the CAC meeting, we had a number of the members on Zoom and it seems
- that they kept coming in going. At first we moved the agenda to choose a chair to later in the meeting
- because we didn't quite have enough and then during the meeting they kept coming and going. So we eventually
- moved to next month to choose a chair for the CAC.
- So, as I said earlier, it's very likely that I won't be sitting in this chair next month, but we don't
- know yet. And also, we did discuss both the amendments for this evening and recommended that the, or
- this afternoon, this morning, that the Policy Committee approve them. And we reviewed the draft UPWP,
- and we recommended that the Policy Committee consider it and approve it.
- Thank you. I don't have much to say. I know Paul Satterly has sat on the TAC for the last 10 years,
- and he is retiring next Friday. So I just wanted to publicly thank him for serving on the TAC committee
- for the last 10 years for Monroe County. Reports from officers or committees.
- Give a brief one from the TAC. We met on Wednesday, so our new schedule will have us meeting just a
- few days earlier than our policy committee meetings. For 2026, we elected a chair and a vice chair,
- so the chair will be John Baton from Monroe County, and the vice chair will be Jane Fleet from the City
- of Bloomington Utilities. We also gave Paul a great send-off. We'll miss him at the meetings.
- And we had an opportunity to review the new business items that we're looking at here today. And the
- TIC recommended approval to the policy committee. Thanks. Reports from MPO staff. Item A. OK. On page
- eight of the packet, this is a early coordination letter that we received as well as other stakeholders
- This is for the Monroe County project at Old S.R. 37 in Dillman Road. This early coordination letter
- from INDOT requests comments regarding possible environmental effects associated with the project. This
- is a project that is receiving some federal funds through the MPO in fiscal year 26, 27, and 28. The
- letter describes that the preferred alternative
- for the project is an intersection, sorry, is a single lane roundabout with a curb and gutter with drainage
- going to either a new storm sewer or a detention basin. The construction will take place between March
- of 2028 and August of 2029. And the letter says that Empire Road will be the detour, but Paul Satterly
- is working with them to make 37
- 69, the official detour. So if you have any comments or questions, especially related to environmental
- effects of the project, there is some contact information in here, but you're also welcome to let us
- know as well and review some of their other materials in here.
- for my own identification. That road is used by some fairly long wheel-based tractor-trailer vehicles.
- I'm assuming that that's taken into consideration when designing the size of the roundabout. Size of
- the roundabout? Yeah. 80-foot tractor-trailer combination with what I would call run-over area. I don't
- know if that's the proper term or not.
- where if they're outside the lane, there's a... They're not gonna end up in a ditch, yeah? Yeah. Gotcha.
- Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay, next item. All right, on page 16 is a press release that
- you probably have already seen. This is from INDOT. This is a notification that they have already reduced
- the speed limit on SR 45 and 46 between Kinzer Pike and 10th Street from 45 miles per hour to 40 miles
- per hour. Nothing? Why? I mean, I travel that road almost every day, and it's a highly traveled road.
- As we well know, it's a highly traveled road.
- The initiative came from the Citizens Advisory Committee. Several of the members expressed the concern
- that at 10th Street, if they were to make a southbound turn- 17th. 17th. Well, actually it was 10th
- Street and 17th Street. But to make a right-hand southbound turn, particularly at 10th Street, the decision
- site distance wasn't sufficient enough because the speeds were too high.
- And so that was conveyed to NDOT in an NDOT for you. And there wasn't a response for several months.
- And then all of a sudden, the news release came out. But then we also had one member of the committee
- note that there is an issue at 17th Street this week because of snow piling up. If you were to look
- to the north, condition site distance isn't adequate enough. So yeah.
- And this is part of an ongoing initiative by the Department of Transportation for safe streets,
- safe streets, safe roads, safe design. There was a reduction in Ellitsville earlier this year of speed
- limit there to 35 miles an hour through all of Ellitsville. And then there was the sidewalk initiative
- announced by the Department of Transportation earlier this, earlier
- in 25 also, where they'll be constructing a sidewalk on the 45-46 bypass on the north side between Kinser
- College and Walnut to allow for safe passage of pedestrians across there because there's a, what I would
- almost, I would call a homeless hotel type
- structure there where people are going to Kroger for food and back, and it was a dangerous situation.
- It was noted three years ago, almost four years ago, and then the announcement came. There's been a
- policy change. The Department of Transportation and the central office about NDOT does now become involved
- in the construction of sidewalks for safe passage of pedestrians.
- four initiatives altogether so far in 2025 that are outside the norm. I'll say that there, but this
- is part of the aggressive approach, not only by the Seymour district, but all of the districts in using
- safety countermeasures, 25 proven safety countermeasures, wherever there is a fatality or wherever you
- have a, what I would call a,
- increased frequency of serious injury crashes. This is all aimed at reducing fatalities and serious
- injury accidents, FSI-type crashes. And then the other was the sidewalk proposal for State Route 446,
- too. But that's a couple of years out. But that also came out in the last calendar year. So you're going
- to see a lot more.
- It's a very dangerous area between 17th and 10th. And the deal with the hospital and Discovery Parkway
- and people coming over that rise and going down to 10th Street as you're going south is a very dangerous
- area. There's a lot of bang, bang, bang, bang because people are going too fast and they're stopped at 10th.
- and they come up to the stoplight going to the hospital and it's just smack, smack, smack, smack. It's
- a very dangerous area. There was another one, too, last year. There was fatality at 10th and Bypass,
- where it was a northbound vehicle turning left at 10th Street, onto 10th Street. 17th, I think, motorcycle.
- Yeah, motorcycle. I thought that was a chance. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay. They've changed that was a permissive
- yellow left turn. They've turned that to a hard red, hard green. So, you're going to see a lot of that.
- Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Seat. Item C.
- Page 19, there is a memo notifying you of a modification to the tip that was made, did not require a
- committee review. $490,000 in federal funds were removed from the High Street Project and applied to
- the West Second Street Project in 2026.
- The federal funds that were allocated to High Street couldn't be used this year, and so they were reallocated
- to West Second. Just give us a second for questions if they come up. And that was all for construction
- in January. That was submitted to NDOT in mid... Mid-January. Item D is, I don't have anything in the
- packet about this, but
- This is just to let you know that the city of Bloomington is starting to make some changes related to
- public meetings, open door, and Zoom. The state's open door law allows public meeting attendees now
- to record meetings and to transcribe them. Previously, we weren't required to allow attendees online
- to do that.
- But now the city ITS department is extending that capability to virtual attendees. And so ITS has enabled
- the attendee recording feature in Zoom meetings only for public meetings. And this will allow them to
- record the meeting they attend through the Zoom application. It's available without the meeting host
- doing anything, having to make any changes. And then also meeting hosts
- are to allow in the future, are to allow transcription agents, AI bots, into all public and non-executive
- meetings as participants. We do have a attendee, a citizen who attends many of the MPO committees who
- has asked in the past to bring an AI transcription service into the meeting. And so that will be allowed
- in the future.
- What's the cost? The cost? The cost to expand this feature to allow them to do that. It's likely just
- a checkbox in the settings. Is it just a thing? I think it is, yeah. Does this include both audio and
- visual? That's a good question.
- Well, there's two items. One was specifically saying they're allowed to record the meeting and they're
- allowed to allow transcription agents into the meeting. So to me that implies yes, they can record video
- and then they can also get the text. Because we've always made the video publicly available anyway,
- but we have never made transcription of the exact words in the meeting available.
- And then staff at the city is also working with all the departments to make all board committee documents
- accessible to those with disabilities. That's something we have to do by April. Okay, the next item.
- Is it possible for us to be made aware by the
- attendee that they are indeed recording the meeting? Is there a checkbox for that? I mean, I guess we
- can make it a point to ask at the beginning of every meeting. Well, as a member of the committee, I'd
- just like to know that my image or my voice is being recorded by someone other than the public domain.
- I can ask if there's any protocol for that. Sorry to make trouble. No, it's definitely a concern. We
- have an individual who's done that for TSC, CAC, and Policy Committee. That bot isn't online.
- Well, it's a transcription one. What I don't know is if the recording feature allows video and voice
- recording. So yeah, we can check on that. If I could add, typically you'll see the name of the AI bot
- listed as an attendee. Well, you know, there's NIL money involved.
- I'm sorry. That came from Love Field. No, but really seriously. Would you like to withdraw that comment?
- Personal comment, yeah. Personal. You never know. We might have a member on the committee at some point
- that... Who it is about. Yeah. A whole new world.
- The next item is just a few updates on some of the projects that are receiving NPO federal funds. And
- I'm sorry, the link in the agenda here doesn't seem to work. That was my mistake. But if you just go
- to the tip page on our website, that link is there. So regarding the INDOT project on SR 45 and 10th
- Street from the bypass to P. Dallas Drive,
- That project letting date, as we did discuss last month, has changed from February 11th, 2026 to April
- 8th, 2026. The road work is currently expected to start in 2027 after the utility relocations and trees
- are removed. Trees within INDOT's right of way were marked in the past couple weeks.
- and those trees are expected to be removed in early February pending some discussions with the city.
- There is a property, there has been some concern, folks contacting the city of Bloomington Urban Forester
- because they're nice large oak trees. There is a property within the project limits that does have a
- replanting agreement for the removed trees
- And the contractors, at least for that property, will be replacing some trees. But INDOT doesn't have
- plans at this time for replanting any other trees throughout the project, as that's not necessarily
- a priority for them. That's it for this project. Did you have a comment, Scott? They have marked the trees.
- Yeah, and they really are big trees right there by the post office there and wow. The other comment
- is about 2027. Are you saying that they're going to let that contract in 2027 versus FY 31 now? Did
- I hear that right? Because I don't know, I think the one that changed confused. Well, it depends on
- the phase you're talking about. I heard construction in 2027.
- That's what I heard you say. That's for the intersection from the bypass. Got it. Including the intersection.
- We're not talking about Russell Road. Got it. No, no, no. Two different contracts. Yeah. I got it.
- I got it. I got it. I had that messed up. Yeah, Russell Road's fiscal year 30, I believe, right now.
- Is that fiscal or calendar? That's fiscal, right? Fiscal. Yes. OK, so it's this year. Yeah.
- Fiscal year 27 starts July. Fiscal 27 this year. This calendar year. Yeah. Because you get the fiscals
- and the calendar years, whatever. And it's state fiscal year. State fiscal year. I got it. I got it.
- Yeah, I got it. OK. The city of Wilmington's High Street project, the construction letting date for
- that project has been moved from March of 26 to September of 26.
- which is a different fiscal year. We'll discuss that more later. The Old S.R. 37 and Dillman
- Road intersection improvement project, that letting date is changed from October of 27 to March of 28,
- but those are both in the same federal fiscal year, so funding is not impacted for that project.
- And then the superstructure per Paul Satterly, the superstructure replacement on Eagleson Avenue. The
- construction letting took place a couple weeks ago or this month. And road closure for that project
- is expected to be from September of 26 to July of 27.
- Moving on to old business, NDOT calendar year 2026 safety targets. I apologize for the fact that I wasn't
- here in December. Took the staff memo, which was before you in December, added additional information
- to that regarding the background of how the numbers were derived.
- It's not only the number of fatalities, fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, the number
- of serious injuries, the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and the number
- of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries. It's a five-year rolling average that
- began in 2022, so 2022, three, four, five, and then six.
- calendar year 2026 would be the fifth year of the rolling average, and then Federal Highway Administration
- would be examining whether the safety performance targets were met or not in fiscal year 20, I'm sorry,
- in calendar year 27. What I included in here was Indiana's strategic highway safety plan,
- which identifies a 2% reduction in the fatal rate, fatal and serious injury crash rate, the FSI rate.
- There were some questions apparently about why 2%, why not 5% or two and a half or other rates and the
- answer is it must be data driven, it must reflect realistic targets, it must have attainability and
- it should align with
- management framework assigned by the congressional intent. And in prior years from, I believe it's 2016
- to 2021, the data showed for the state of Indiana at least, it showed that a 2% reduction, annual reduction,
- could be achieved, all things considered, and all things held constant. And then this was adopted by
- the governor
- himself, it was recommended by and adopted by Criminal Justice Institute, also adopted by the governor.
- And it shows that, oh, the other question that came up, too, was about zero deaths. And the state of
- Indiana, along with a number of other states in the union, subscribed to the toward zero deaths.
- objective, which is also recognized by the Federal Highway Administration. This sets out zero deaths
- by the year 2050, and that's in the memo two. The adoption targets remain the same from what we had
- in December. There were several questions too about
- what states are meeting the targets, what states are not meeting the targets. This was the best we could
- find was up to calendar year 23. This is from the Federal Highway Administration as of October of 2025.
- We don't have anything better than that. But if you look on the left, those are the states meeting.
- On the right is the states not meeting as of 2023. And then scroll down, yeah.
- Here we go. The X means you're not meeting the targets. And if you look from 2018 through 2023, see
- a lot of Xs going all the way down. And gives you an idea of what they're shooting for. The ones that
- are meeting their targets are Nevada. I think Nevada was in there, Utah.
- I think Iowa was in there too, as the ones that were notable. Yeah, but the bottom line is a vast majority
- of the states were not meeting the targets as of calendar year 2023. And now there was another question
- where we really got off into the deep end, if you can pull up that other one. The big one. I think so.
- Yeah, the big Excel file. This shows, this is from the Federal Highway Administration also, in terms
- of the performance measures by individual states, showing the performance measure, the highlight in
- yellow is Indiana, by the way. 2017 through 2023, what the baseline was in 17 through 21, which established
- the 22 goals
- carried forward to 2026. And you can see, well, you might go over to the methodology. There was a question
- about the methodology. How did NDOT come up with this? Here's how NDOT came up with this. We can send
- you the link if anybody wants to look at this in detail. I don't want to get into the deep dive on this.
- shows the rationale for all the targets, the target years, I should say. Some of that's changed in 2022.
- The rationale for the target was largely based on economic performance. In other words, more people
- working, more people driving, higher volumes or vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, you have a higher
- probability of
- crashes and not only crashes, but also fatality and serious injuries. Then in 2023, they changed that
- basis for their targets, 23, 24, and 25. They refined it considerably. And if you look at the performance
- that they're having for 24 and what we have so far in 2025 up to the end of November, we don't have
- the December data yet. It's showing a
- downward trend in 24 and so far in 25, up through November of 25. Then here was another one. Sure. They
- changed how they determined the numbers and so since they changed the methodology, now they say decrease.
- They're showing actual performance decrease.
- Which is a good thing. Yes. But they changed the methodology in order to do it. No, they changed the
- methodology of forecasting methodology about. How are we forecasting this? Because when they based the
- forecasting unemployment. It was inaccurate, totally inaccurate. Everything changed after 2020 with
- COVID. Everything changed because in 2020 the model didn't work.
- 2021, the model didn't work either because it was still the residual of COVID. The economy-based model
- predicted that 2020 and 2021 would have been lower fatality rates and in actuality, they were higher.
- The reason is that people were speeding on less congested freeways.
- in highways. I hate to use the term yeehaw, but that's exactly what happened. So given that, the fact
- that the economy model wasn't working, they instead adjusted the model for 2023, 24, 25, and 26. And
- it's a better fit now, is what I want to say. Not that
- you can accurately predict weather, pavement, human behavior, all the different variables that are out
- there. And so as a result of your email yesterday morning, put this together this morning to showing
- what the actual numbers were for total deaths, suspected serious injuries, traffic
- Injury crashes, suspected serious injuries means that an ambulance was required. They went to the hospital
- or they went somewhere for medical purposes. Injury crashes means that they were, this is independent,
- means that they were injured but it might have been something that didn't require medical attention.
- walked away or drove away or whatever. Work zone desks, that's included in there simply because that's
- a high priority of Indot. This was unacceptably high and then legislature agreed to the use of cameras
- in construction zones in four, I believe it was four construction zones in Indiana. And that is,
- The jury's still out on that except that there was a decline so far in 2025 when they instituted the
- camera option. The work zone injuries, it's unacceptably high and I can't explain 2023 as an anomaly.
- The work zone crashes, how do you have that many crashes in a work zone area where the speeds are reduced
- down to 30 miles an hour, but that's what it is.
- Pedestrian deaths, you can see a dramatic drop there in 2024, 2025. Pedestrian injuries, that's still
- unacceptably high. Bicycle deaths is more or less all over the place. The same with the bicycle injuries.
- Why 2023 was only 93, I double checked that and it's truly 93, that was what they had reported.
- And then NDOT also is continually concerned about highway railroad grade crossings, even though NDOT
- has, to use the term, armored up a vast majority of the crossings. Armored up meaning flashers and gates,
- or flashers at least. There's still an unacceptably high number of deaths and injuries and crashes across
- the entire state.
- I did not get into the weeds in terms of alcohol and drug crashes because I felt like that was just
- too much right there. In terms of where the deaths are happening, they're predominantly in rural areas
- of the state, not the urban areas, the rural areas.
- And the rural area crashes are predominantly left the roadway, which would suggest speed, pavement
- conditions, things like that, but probably speed more than anything else. The traffic deaths and serious
- injuries that are occurring in urban areas are predominantly right angle crashes.
- probably intersection crashes of all type. And again, the suspect there is speed. In terms of the age
- of the drivers, if it's a person under the age of 22, the probability is high in terms of the driver
- and the occupants being killed. There's also somewhat of a correlation
- of older drivers over the age of 65, but that still hasn't been totally proven. I don't know where else
- to go with this. Yes. I have a question. So you have targets that's been established and you've demonstrated
- that we have missed those targets. Are there compliance or funding issues with respect to the government on
- how we're penalized if we don't meet those targets. Yeah. Penal Highway Administration will examine
- in 2027 if you've met the targets or not. And then if they did not meet the targets, then part of the
- what I would call capacity expansion type money would be reallocated to safety funds, safety projects
- instead, or safety money.
- So you're not pulling the fund and you're just reallocating it. No, it's not. There's no reduction.
- There's no penalty reduction in terms of total dollars. It's just taking it from the expansion pocket
- to the safety pocket. It was the only way I can best describe it. Now, this is under, oh, yeah, I'll
- let you explain this. This is under current legislation, Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act,
- which expires on September 30th of this calendar year. If that, and the likelihood is, if that bill
- continues under, if that legislation is under a continuing resolution, then that would keep everything
- in terms of the status quo. Now, Congress could change the whole intent
- They could change the targets. They could change everything if they wanted to with new legislation.
- But that remains to be seen, whether that's pure conjecture on that part. Yeah, go ahead. I got an email
- this morning from somebody that works at MDOT on the question of what happens if the state fails to
- meet these goals. And the sentence there is,
- as I got it in this email was, a failure to meet targets results in a requirement to spend all safety
- funds on safety. So that's just an interesting. I don't know what means if you don't meet them. Is it
- like lower S safety and capital S safety? It's hard to say. Go ahead.
- Sure, sure. Question clarifying about the screen that you were on before in terms of just reading the
- spreadsheet. Oh, yeah. So those targets say the target for 2023 being 894.2 traffic deaths, and then
- the actual for 2023 was 927. So that was a failure to meet. But in 2024, that particular metric was
- met. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes. OK.
- but then the targets for suspected serious injuries, it doesn't look like we're met at all by any of
- it. And that's been a trend. And so this 2%, whether or not you meet the 2% as a state, and I'm hoping
- that we have some local targets coming next maybe, combines those two things together. So it's like,
- so in 2023,
- 2024 it was like half-met, but that still is just like not met. Is that how they count that? Not met.
- Okay. Yeah, and the suspected serious injury trend across the nation has been increasing. All those
- people speeding on empty roads that are no longer empty.
- But they're not going to look at it on a year-to-year basis. They'll look at the five-year average.
- They're looking at the five-year rolling average. At the end of 2016. And the five-year rolling average
- is 22, 23, 4, 5, and 6. Yeah. When they roll that average, do they also roll that average target, then,
- too? I don't know. Maybe one of the things I learned in the email was when I've previously seen the
- targets, like for 2025, the target was 812.4.
- I mean, they come out and like, well, how do you have a 0.4? That is not the target for that year. It
- is the target for the five-year average. So that was sort of- So the target number is actually the average
- already. Correct. So it counts for it. So it's not looking at- so that was just a new perspective I
- wasn't aware of. So the 2024 average up there, say, of the 876 is actually what that five-year average
- is supposed to be.
- Trending down. Oh. Hold on. It's trending down. Sorry, that's like a combination of like a math nightmare
- and an exciting one. It's a nightmare for us, yeah. The math teacher path is also kind of exciting.
- Yeah, I know. OK, does that answer? Yeah, it's an excellent application, by the way. Next time you're
- a high schooler, it says, what am I ever going to use math for?
- It's self-explanatory, I was just throwing it up on the screen. Katie put this together, while I was
- putting together that, Katie put this together this morning, and that was an answer to your email yesterday
- also, showing a breakdown. The question we had in an email is, how are the other urbanized areas doing?
- The answer was we don't keep the data. State of Indiana doesn't keep the data by urbanized area or MPO.
- They keep the data based on county is what they do. So we've put this together in terms of the entire
- county showing where the county is and then broke it out into the other. Or Katie did that. I'm not
- going to take credit for that. That's her hard work. And this comes from
- crash dashboard, the Monroe County crash dashboard. And these are actual annual annual counts rather
- than the rolling averaged figure. These are hard numbers. And so do we have any local targets at all?
- I mean last year we approved that 2% decline but are there any local targets at all and how hard would
- it be to like create local targets? I guess it's like
- I mean, I brought up a lot of questions about this last time. It's like, great, so we have to approve
- our own decrease, but are we actually looking back and going, how well are we doing it? The only target
- that we have right now is the SS4A target, which was adopted in December of 2024. Yeah, and that's just
- for the city. Which is zero deaths by 2039. Yes, right. It really is important to note
- If you really study the data here, look at the number of, between bicycles and pedestrians between the
- county and the city. Look at the high number there. In comparison to the other areas on the chart. In
- terms of how many the city has? In terms of how many there are in the city? Yes, I mean, it's
- a significant... Well, there's just a lot more people riding bikes in the city. I got the density issue.
- I'm just saying that it's a very noteworthy number.
- All the other ones are like that, too. Steinsville was placed in there just to keep it equal. Yeah,
- I guess I would really love to have some local targets. I don't know. I'm looking at Andrew Seabor over
- there. I don't know how easy that would be to do mathematically in terms of trying to make it. I don't
- even know if we have to make it equivalent to the state in terms of that kind of rolling average for the MPO.
- Just kind of to know how we're doing. It's like, I appreciate that the raw numbers are here, but then
- it's like, how are we doing in terms of whether or not we've met that target locally? That would be
- Ryan Roblin, too. Because of the SS4A. Yeah. Where would you codify that? I don't think that you'd codify
- it at all. What do you mean? So let's say you have a requirement to take
- and come up with local targets on whatever category, where would you list that information? Would you
- put it in a dashboard or would you put it in a document or would it be provided to anybody? I guess
- I was just thinking like, I mean, so if this year and one of the things we're supposed to do as an MPO
- right now is approve this 2% decrease and I want to know next year when we have to look at it again,
- did we actually achieve that this year? So it's that idea of, you know, so we're
- So we're kind of putting a goal out there. And then I think that we need to ask ourselves later, are
- we actually achieving that goal? And from what I understand from all the work that you guys just had
- to do is that the state looks at this on a state level, but doesn't look at it at all on the local level.
- So as a local entity, we should be looking at it on the local level one way or another. And I know,
- I mean, the city, and Ryan probably is on behalf of the city, to some degree, looking at this conceptually because
- the Safe Streets for All because council did legislate that, that we want to have zero deaths and serious
- injuries by 2039. So I'm sure back there he has something going on, you know, and I mean, that's what
- some of these studies are in the high injury networks and looking at College Walnut and looking at 10th
- Street and looking at Indiana as a corridor and looking at all of those things. And I'm sure he's doing
- some of those numbers back there. But as an MPO, it's slightly different than the city. It's a broader area.
- And I guess I just partly don't see the point in us having a goal if we're not gonna look back and go,
- did we ever meet the goal? My understanding is officially the NPO doesn't have a goal. What we're potentially
- here voting on is the statewide goal. The city of Bloomington has a goal, but I don't think we as an
- NPO have a goal.
- We are essentially boarding on the state's goal. We're supporting the state's goal. Isn't that our goal,
- though, too? Because in theory, if every MPO achieved the 2%, then the state would achieve the 2% too.
- Right? The state sets the goals, and the MPOs are required to either adopt the same goals as the state
- of Indiana, or the MPO would have to come up with its own methodology
- approved by the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transportation to establish its
- own goals. And the research we did this week was no Indiana MPO has ever done its own independent goal
- setting. They've always adopted NDOT goals. There was a thought about doing it, but nobody ever did it.
- And this is going back decades. So. I mean, I'm not suggesting that we do that. I'm just suggesting
- that we put some local numbers on that 2% of the state and see how we're doing. I mean, and I think
- I did math last time to be like, yeah, if we do the 2%, then that does not manage to get us to the zero
- by 2039, which is what the city wants to do. But it also seems like quite a headache
- something different right now in terms of this official kind of act. Would it be up to then each jurisdiction
- to work on that for their jurisdiction and this MPO policy committee would support that. I don't think
- we're in a position to mandate that a jurisdiction do anything like that but we could definitely support it.
- So it has to kind of happen at the grassroots jurisdictional level. So we have the city that's discussed
- it. I'm not sure, forgive me, I haven't heard comment by the county, but I'm sure that safety is certainly
- an optimal target. It may not be quantified as tightly as
- as other jurisdictions, but maybe we send out an encouraging statement to the jurisdictions to take
- that on. Did we make a statement last year that the state, the federal government, where the state comes
- out with a target, but because of 0% in 2039, did we make a statement saying that something would affect that
- Ours was different than what the state had decided? Well, it was an encouragement for Vision Zero, adoption
- of Vision Zero. And in reality, state of Indiana, Federal Highway Administration were already embraced
- toward zero deaths is what it's called. You can look this up, toward zero deaths. And with toward zero
- deaths, state of Indiana set a goal of only 550.
- goal target. 550 deaths by the year 2042. But their toward zero deaths is zero by the year 2050. How
- you get from 550 in 2042 to zero in 2050, I don't know. Automation, maybe. Autonomous vehicles or
- something else, technology, I just don't know. But that's written into the state's state highway safety
- plan. So where I was going with this, and I don't know the history of what this body has done in the
- past, are we in a position to challenge the target, this MPO? Not really. And I don't think so. That's
- why I'm asking the question. I don't think you can challenge what the state has put down as a target.
- Even though you won 0% by 2039, et cetera. But we're not in a position to challenge what, in fact, their
- target is. We had the same exact discussion at the TAC level. And I think it's fair to say that everyone
- on the TAC was just equally as uncomfortable with looking at some of the targets, because they're pretty
- sobering numbers. But what the TAC would always do when we came up with these, when we were faced with
- these targets is
- kind of a disclaimer from language that we put in. I think we are in a position where we can't really
- challenge or change this. But at the same time, we can kind of note our frustration or however we want
- to word it. But the TSC has always done that. I know we've passed that recommendation along with the
- policy committee with our recommendations. So that language in the past is something the policy committee
- has approved along with.
- the safety targets, that could be an option for us too. Pat has it. It's essentially just say, well,
- we acknowledge the endowed targets. We strive for zero deaths. And we can work on the wording. But we
- have done that in the past. You're correct. Yeah. So we're not challenging. We're just making a statement.
- Yes. That's all you're doing. OK. Yes. Is that what people want to do now? Is that where we're going
- with this discussion? Well, that's what we would recommend.
- What the committee wants to do is the committee, but staff recommendation is you recommend adoption
- of the targets. Pat, do you have the language that we've included on the TAC in the past? I've sent
- it to you before with our approval language, but it's something we've kind of recycled on the policy
- committee over the years. And that might be a good place to start, or we can just use that same language.
- We'll leave it.
- There's something in the vicinity of we adopt the targets in DOTS targets, however, we strongly urge
- the Department of Transportation to seek a vision zero, zero deaths or something like that was what
- it was. I can't remember. Well, we adopt the targets, but we will also seek to exceed the targets or
- something like locally.
- exceed because I mean I guess that's we've not done that before but yeah that's I guess that would be
- what I would prefer to do because it's not about and and especially because in theory the state has
- already adopted the vision zero right I mean they just won't get there if they're only doing a two percent
- decline like it just won't happen um but the
- And locally, we have to, and we won't get there if we only do the 2%, which means that we have to try
- to have more than 2%. But I think that it would be way too tedious to actually have a data-driven way
- to have a higher percent. And so adopting them is easy, and then saying, but our real goal is way more
- than that, like a way bigger job. When do we actually have to do this by? February. February what?
- Next week. This week, this year. Yeah, next week. So you could actually have it in the motion, though.
- Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, that was no doubt. I think that's what we've done in the past. I couldn't
- remember. Yeah, well, that's why you had it in December. Yeah. Yeah. And they give us the targets. They
- give us the targets. We have 120 days from when they give us the targets to achieve adoption, but they
- We received the targets late. That's why you didn't use the committees didn't receive them until November,
- December. November for the TSC CAC, which means that we got him in October. And then since policy committee
- was on a different meeting cycle, it was December. So is there time left for
- If someone were to put a motion on the table to add a comment that says, even though this is the target
- established by NDOT, our community, our MPO still strives toward 0% by 2039. If we were to put a motion
- on a table to add that comment at this late state in the game knowing when this thing is due.
- You could do that, but I wouldn't recommend MPO because that includes Ellitsville. OK, whatever the
- body is, whatever the body you want to insert in there. Jurisdiction. Whatever the verbiage you want
- to use. OK. I'm just trying to get to the next point on what people are trying to move toward here.
- We're trying to get into options. Does somebody have the language that the TAC has voted on? I just
- pulled it up. I can read it if anyone's interested. And here's what we've sent to the policy committee
- in the past.
- generally a language that we've used at the policy committee when we've been faced with these numbers
- before too. It's kind of a mouthful, so bear with me here. Fatalities and serious injuries that result
- from crashes on public streets can and should be prevented. The TAC believes that zero fatalities and
- zero serious injuries is a more appropriate goal or target for NDOT and MPOs to pursue.
- However, the TAC understands that endowed safety target declaration numbers are intended to convey only
- an incremental change towards safer streets and are not an ultimate goal. Furthermore, the TAC understands
- that these safety performance targets primarily affect distribution of federal funding and would not
- be used to justify fatal or serious injury crashes or as being acceptable. As such, the TAC recommends
- that the MPO adopt the endowed safety performance standards.
- So it's a nice all-around disclaimer, saying we recognize INDOT's goals here, but we're still throwing
- the challenge flag. So you can take out the word CAC and put jurisdiction or something. Policy committee,
- maybe? Whatever body you want to plug in there. Well, we would have to plug in the MPO because that
- statement encourages the state to have a higher bar.
- And I was encouraging us to locally have a higher bar, even if it's not an official higher bar. Because
- I don't think there's time to have an official higher bar right now. So do you want to modify that language?
- We can do something along the lines of the policy committee. Can we approve with the caveat that
- In the near future, the body will produce a local policy that would act in tandem with this. You could,
- if you so wish. Yeah. I don't know what that means. You'd have to explain what that means. Well, I think,
- first off, we have to decide if they're mutually exclusive, if these
- if the goals that we are setting for our own MPO area with the participation of the various jurisdictions
- within that area are different than the states. And if they are, then it's a separate evaluation.
- or not. I appreciate the TAC's language. It just does not... It says, you know, we're thinking about
- it and we're not sure what to say, but we prefer to be toward zero. And we're not sure what to do about it.
- I'm personally not suggesting any language myself. I mean, I'm not in favor, I'm not in agreement or
- disagreement with a motion. I mean, I would probably support whatever is on the table as long as it
- was concise. But you're talking to a state agency, just put a target out there, and regardless of what
- we say or do as an MPOPC, it's still going to be out there.
- We within our community, whatever documents that we have, whether it be the city of Bloomington, Monroe
- County, et cetera, we're going to stipulate whatever we think that should be. So at some point, I'm
- not so sure it really makes a difference. Well, the methodology was approved by Federal Highway
- Administration, Indiana Division. And then the targets were approved by
- various state safety committees and then ultimately it was approved by the governor. So what difference
- does it make what we say? Those bodies and those are big bodies and I'm sure we had representation from
- people from our area on those bodies. In an indirect way we did. Right and so
- I can't add anything else other than what I just said, so. So how about this? You can call this a draft
- motion if y'all want. I move to approve the state targets as presented and strive locally to exceed
- those targets. Furthermore, over the next year, I move the MPO pursue local goals related to serious
- injury and fatality crashes to work toward a goal of zero injuries and fatal crashes.
- zero serious injury. It's on the screen right there. The only thing I can say there is the MPO includes
- Ellitsville and it includes Monroe County. Okay. I know. I mean, but in theory, like we have representation
- from all of those bodies on the MPO and if they're not present right now, then that's- We can't mandate
- anything to those jurisdictions. We can encourage the jurisdictions.
- to do that. That's why I said pursue local goals. I think that that slides into. And I think Monroe
- County is happy to set goals and work in coordination. Not having an engineer after next Friday can
- kind of hurdle that for Monroe County. So that's why I've kind of set back. And then I don't think we
- can speak for Ellitsville and that they want to
- I'm not saying not participate, but what's the timeline on this and are you writing an actual policy?
- I didn't put the timeline on there. I guess part of it, it's like, I don't think that you would talk
- to anybody and say, oh yeah, fatal injuries or serious injuries and fatality is like, we're all good
- with that. I think that the problem is the timeline, the problem is funding, the problem is how it like
- the reality of
- of it cannot happen. It wouldn't have the same goals to exceed the state goals. Right. Sorry, Pat, but
- could we encourage staff to develop a mechanism by which jurisdictions under this MPO could meet together
- and develop a local set of goals? Set aside a working committee. Yeah. Working committees.
- Well, the jurisdiction's represented in the MPO. And does that fall under the language, the MPO pursue
- local goals related to serious injury in terms of my motion, in terms of the formality? I believe so,
- as long as we direct staff to action, to a form of action. As long as there's an action I'm associated
- with it, I think you're OK.
- Do I need to add staff in there somewhere to pursue the M? Well, somebody needs to be responsible for
- it. I don't know. Who tells you guys what to be responsible for? You guys. I mean, the policy committee
- is recognized as the MPO. We're just the staff for the year. OK. So over the next year, I move the MPO
- staff pursue local goals related. Is that?
- It has to happen at a jurisdictional level, otherwise it has no real teeth. Should I say jurisdictional
- goals as opposed to local goals? We are a jurisdiction. This MPO is an agency. So if we're voting, it's
- us asking ourselves for this collective body to establish a goal. We're not asking
- the county or Ellitsville or the city of Bloomington or Steinsville, like we are asking ourselves and
- we're representing that. So just the point. I mean, that's what I'm trying to say. I think, yeah. But
- unless those jurisdictions participate individually, it's not pointed. But because we are the MPO right
- now and like this body has control over money that gets spent in those throughout our urbanized area.
- And so we can identify safety issues in those different parts of it and go, OK, this is a safety issue.
- There's lots of stuff here. Let's funnel some money into a project here that is going to address some
- of a crash issue. I don't even think it always has to be money funneling. I think sometimes it's time funneling
- raise awareness to different areas and draw attention. So after saying all of that, it would be the
- BMC MPO would be the official, the body taking, you know, the action. And then the jurisdiction would
- be the MPA, the Metropolitan Planning Area.
- which is our official approved designation, our jurisdiction. It's called an MPA. It's the Metropolitan
- Planning Area. So that's the urbanized area boundary plus a little bit more area for anticipated growth
- in the next 20 years.
- It's not going to work unless you bring in a broad representation across the jurisdictions. A buy-in
- type of thing, yeah. So can the motion be a motion to approve the state targets as presented and strive
- locally to exceed these targets over the next year?
- I move the BMC MPO staff pursue metropolitan planning area goals related to serious injury and fatality
- crashes to work toward a goal of zero serious injury and fatal crashes. Is that? Firstly, I would be
- okay with that. I would probably just strike staff actually, because the committee as a whole should
- probably be the one that adopts it, not staff. The agency is going to collect it and actually present
- the data. Staff would have to generate it, but ultimately the committee should
- take action on it. That's what we wanted. So does this become the responsibility of the chair to drive
- it? Any committee member can bring it up. I mean, I just don't know how anything's going to happen.
- I think that Pat mentioned a subcommittee. A working committee. A working committee. So then the chair
- would establish a working committee.
- I don't know. I mean, we already meet monthly, but. Yeah, you know where we live. I think the thing
- is like this this motion would commit us to figuring it out, but it doesn't dictate how we need to figure
- it out right now. It's just saying as a group, we're going to figure it out. And who's going to report
- on status of that? I'm just.
- Yeah, it can be a standing item that we report on or discuss each meeting. I mean, I feel personally
- like this is asking me to do something as a member of the NPO. And I don't know what to do about that
- and where I'm going to get direction on that.
- I guess to me, I'd say we get direction, honestly, from staff on that. I don't know how much responsibility
- you guys want to have for that. But I mean, I think that there's a good start already by the spreadsheets,
- by the crash database, because I mean, it's a motion to pursue goals working toward a Vision Zero outcome.
- So in terms of that pursuing, I mean, what needs to happen, we need to
- use those numbers that we already have and figure out what the target would be. And we can start with
- that 2% reduction, you know, and go like, okay, if we want to do it the same way as the state, then
- we have to look at the rolling five year average in order to get the goals. And maybe even going back
- a few years and looking at those five year averages and going, you know, have we met a 2% goal? Cause
- it's been a 2% straight line goal, right? Like how many years has the state had the 2% like 2022? Yeah.
- So it's a while it's been 2%. So like,
- like simply doing that like math and like, like talking about that kind of thing would fulfill in theory
- that pursuing local goals. Because like this year, we don't have, you know, it would be like how,
- I mean, this year I feel like we have to, the very first thing to do is figure out what that has actually
- looked like over the last few years.
- in the same way that the state had those numbers that they showed up here earlier. It's like, locally,
- we should have those figures too. And so. So then, much the same as the state is asking us to approve
- a set of numbers, we would go to each of the jurisdictional elements that make up this planning area
- and ask them to approve those numbers that we come up with. I think it's kind of making it
- difficult. I think we have our data. I know the city does their crash data. The county puts together
- a three-year crash report. They pull a lot of those numbers together and I think it's just I don't I'm
- not sure what Ellisville does but we still have those numbers out in the county and I think it's just
- pulling those just you know city engineering and Monroe County together in town of Ellisville and staff
- Let's just sit down, look at where our numbers have been over the years and what's our goal, and bring
- that back to the policy committee. I think the data's already all there. It's just, what's our goal?
- I think we're making it maybe a little more complicated than it really needs to be because we do have
- our data. The data are there for, you know, through 2024. Right. 2025 data will not be complete until
- April or May.
- of this calendar year simply because we have to proof the data, and it takes a long time to go through
- the proofing of the data. And the state won't have their data for December, yeah, for December until
- probably March or April also. So there's a lag time there. But yeah, we will have the data up to 2024.
- Correct. Yeah.
- The crash dashboard looks at the entire county. We can geofence, geofence in the urbanized area for
- the MPO if you want to look at it that way. But yeah, that's up to the county. Yeah, I think that's
- a good point. Are you wanting the county, are you just wanting the MPO area, what this board oversees,
- I guess. Yeah.
- But I agree. I think we have the data there. It's just making it all come together and reaching a goal.
- And I think outside of the policy committee over the next six months, our entities can get together
- and reach that goal to present to the board. Do you, Andrew, do you? I agree with what you're saying.
- So the only thing I would bring up, and I bring this up in other forums, this is putting another burden
- on the MPO staff. Right.
- And it's just something the NPO staff is kind of short of. We're strong. Well, this ties into some other
- work that needs to be done anyway. So it's actually a good thing that's happening. And to your point,
- Doug, about what you don't know what you can do, or you feel like you should be doing something, but
- you don't know what to do. You already have done something, you stated
- You stated it earlier, and I'm blanking on what you said. But essentially, I mean, part of it is that
- you just don't know what to ask for, maybe. So one thing that other MPOs do is they do put in some local
- performance targets that they have in their TIP document and in their MTP, which is
- the MPOs long range planning document says they do track that information. And that's something that
- we can start to do in our next tip document, for example. Well, and then once this set of criteria is
- developed locally, how will that affect the various municipal entities
- associated in the area and how they look at projects. Will there be a change in funding allocations
- or project allocations specific to these targets? Do we see a change happening? The folks are here.
- Beyond what you're already doing.
- I can only say for the county we use our crash data and that's what that's what derived the old 37 Dilman
- Road roundabout. That's what how it qualified for HSIP funds. You know you went through all your steps
- over probably for the last five or six years of getting a road safety audit and monitoring the crash
- reports and that's what brings you to develop a project. I'm sure the city of Bloomington is very similar
- on things like that. So I think we
- I think we already kind of do what you feel like we should be doing, which just we haven't set a in
- cities set a goal. Has the county set a goal? No, we look at our crash data. We look at our trouble
- areas. That's our next goal for improving that area. And I felt and our numbers are better, you know,
- and that's what we use that crash report or three year of data for. So that is our
- window of opening up for those projects to be funded. And what you're talking about is cause and effect.
- You have events that are occurring from a safety standpoint, and based upon those events that are occurring
- from a safety standpoint, you're assessing an area based upon an assessment. You're creating a requirement
- which equates to a project, which equates to funding, and so on. Correct. I mean, there's a... Correct.
- So we are informally doing, at least in the two major jurisdictions, we're informally doing
- what we're trying to figure out how to do already. Well, what the state is putting a number on, right?
- Like, I mean, the 2% is the state putting a number on something, like city council put a number,
- sort of put, we put a deadline number at the end and left it to staff to figure out what needs to be
- done along the way. And I mean, what I'm doing is encouraging us to,
- as an MPO, not just adopt the state's number and not just adopt the state's number with some kind of
- caveat that we don't think it's enough, but to pursue figuring out what our own number should actually
- be. And not only that, but how well are we actually meeting any kind of target at all? Actually,
- that works. Right. Yeah, that's a good way to frame it. You're close in the city of Bloomington jurisdiction.
- You're close to that now.
- I'm not sure that I would call us close to that, Andrew. That format, that modeling. The modeling, yeah.
- So what we're really doing in this is encouraging the county to adopt a similar modeling. Well, I think
- that what we're doing as an MPO, as a jurisdiction ourselves, is we're saying we're going to adopt a
- modeling for that. Like we don't totally know what it is yet, hence the
- The motion that I proposed is like, we're going to pursue it. We're going to figure it out. I'm not
- putting a deadline on it. But none of us want to have serious injury crashes and fatalities on our roadways.
- So let's actually try to put numbers on that. And the first stage of putting numbers on it is honestly
- to see how we're doing already. And honestly, the sheet that you made up of local crashes,
- it does look like there's been some declines in fatalities. Well, fatalities are kind of steady, but
- serious injuries. And of course, like one of the things the state does with that number is base it on
- miles driven, right? Of like users, which makes sense in some ways, because like the more miles that
- you drive, the more likely you might have an accident. And that's not in our local, in the local page
- so far. And I don't know.
- I assume that there's the data out there to figure that out, but that would be part of that because
- the raw numbers maybe have declined. The vehicle miles traveled for the system, that would be a swag
- for us. It would be a what for you? A swag, some wild assumed guess.
- So then maybe in that pursuing, it's like, well, we can't do it quite like the state does it because
- it doesn't work. Yeah, in terms of vehicle miles traveled and the rate per vehicle miles traveled, no,
- it would be challenging. But in terms of the raw numbers, yeah, we could pursue that with assuming you're doing
- automatically 25 proven countermeasures approved by the Federal Highway Administration, which is whenever
- there's an action, you have an appropriate reaction from the jurisdictions based on the type of crash
- it was. So we're building a watch now. Yes. That's what we're doing. We're building a watch. It is getting
- complicated. I'd make the argument politely.
- is that now we're talking methodology. And I'd want to see the methodology myself before I would agree
- with the methodology, because not all of us are going to agree on data and the type of data that you're
- taking and pulling into the methodology. And that is a complicated process in itself. We're building
- a watch here. Well, can we really have the functional authority to,
- influence the Seymour district of Endot. They're influencing us. Say again? They're influencing us right
- now. Right, right. Because I mean their roadways would not be, that run through the jurisdiction, the
- various jurisdictions would not be subject to what we're talking about.
- Except that if we can then say we have this local goal that goes toward the state's goal of zero deaths,
- and we've identified this intersection as highly problematic, and that is a state intersection, then
- that is an argument that can be used for collaboration with the Seymour District, with all of the entities
- that you might need to cooperate with. But until we actually have that data, we can't use it.
- The state goes through an annual review every year of significant intersection locations, and they break
- it statewide, and then they break it down into the district. And then we meet, staff meets with the
- district staff, usually in February, mid-February, something like that. And we go through the individual
- locations within our jurisdiction, say, here's what we're seeing, are we missing anything?
- This is what we want to do. This is what we're going to do. Boom, we go from there. And then we follow
- up usually three to five years after that on a constant basis and a constant manual basis. I mean, I
- think the more data that we can locally bring to that kind of meeting, the more influence that you can
- have because they've got it. I mean, there's a lot of
- There's a lot of crashes. There's a lot of roadway issues and a lot of places fighting for the same
- amount of funds. Just to throw it out there, I get really hungry at lunchtime. I don't know if somebody
- wants to make a motion. I know we're talking about a goal of making a goal. We're not even saying what
- our goal is. I'm happy to do whatever, but I also know
- I don't do so good when I get hungry. He's getting hungry. And so I'm just throwing that out there.
- And I'm glad you did. And I know we want to get that to adoption. I think everybody has the same goal
- and what we want to add to it. I think the next step is working towards our local goals, but that's
- not a decision for today on how we get there. But I think we all have the same, I hate to keep saying
- the word goal,
- I think we all have the same direction of where we want to be. But I don't think it's going to get decided
- exactly how we're going to get there today. But I know we need to get that part passed. And then go
- to the next step. Would it be appropriate for us to look to the technical advisory committee for advice
- on moving forward with this goal? Sure. That would be totally appropriate, yeah.
- Should I go ahead and make the motion then officially? Great. So I move to approve the state targets
- as presented and strive locally to exceed these targets. Furthermore, over the next year, I move the
- BMC MPO pursue metropolitan planning area goals related to serious injury and fatality crashes to work
- toward a goal of zero serious injury and fatality crashes. Second. We have a motion and a second.
- Do we have any more discussion? There's no mention of the technical advisory committee in that. We'll
- just do it. We'll just do it? That's the generality of pursuing it. We can pursue it any way we want
- to pursue it. Any public comment? For the record, Julie Thomas did have to leave for another meeting.
- Not seeing any roll call vote. Seaboard? Yes. Stossburg? Yes.
- Kennedy? Yes. Ridge? Yes. Nichol? Yes. Horne? Yes. Banach? Yes. Ferris? Yes. Wellings? Interesting.
- All right, moving to new business. 2026-2030 tip amendment resolution, fiscal year 2026-04. The first
- item is City of Bloomington High Street intersection.
- I will note that the title of the resolution is incorrect. Sorry about that. Should be 26. The first
- amendment is the removal of federal funds from the High Street Project for fiscal year 26 and the shifting of the
- construction phases of that project to fiscal year 2027. And this was due to right away acquisition
- challenges. The second proposed amendment is a new INDOT project called sign installation and repair
- in various locations in the Seymour district.
- This is a price tag not specific to our jurisdiction or county, but the larger Seymour district. And
- it is primarily repair and replacement. Nothing, no new notable signs. I move adoption of resolution
- FY. Oh, one more amendment. Sorry about that. The third one is a new end up project called SR 45 small
- structure replacement.
- This is almost six miles east of the SR 4546 junction. This is the replacement of a small muddled culvert
- with a precast reinforced concrete box and erosion control work. And this has a construction date of
- 2028. Move the adoption of resolution FY 2026-4. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
- Any public comment? Seeing none, roll call vote. Horne? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. Kennedy? Yes. Stasberg? Yes.
- Vanek? Yes. Ferris? Yes. Wellings? Yes. Horne? Yes. I voted twice. Oops. Nickel? Yes. Ridge? Yes.
- And no, Thomas is gone. OK.
- Motion passes. All right, moving on item B, 2027 to 2028, the UPWP document and 30 day public comment
- period. This is our draft annual planning program. We're required to prepare for the Department
- of Transportation. I'm sorry, yeah, for NDOT, Federal Highway Administration funding and Federal Transit
- Administration funding. I'll cut to the chase. Nothing's changed in terms of what our
- goal, what our focus areas are, transportation planning factors on page 32 of your packet, those have
- not changed. The planning focus on page 35 of your packet, those have not changed either. We've received
- no direction from the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Transit, or FTA, Federal Transit
- Administration.
- The tasks all remain the same with the exception of shifting of funding and that shift of funding on
- staff time reflects what our level of effort has been over the past year to the past two years. In other
- words, how do we bill our time? The one major change we have is on page 69 of your packet under the
- active transportation
- 2.5% set aside for complete streets. The third paragraph down there, what I noted was the city of Bloomington
- received $1.4 million safe streets and roads for all planning demonstration grant from the US Department
- of Transportation on December 23rd, 2025 to conduct demonstration or other supplemental planning activities.
- City of Bloomington, as the recipient of the grant, will use this award to complete multiple corridor
- studies, public engagement, begin concept designs for the corridor study. Demonstration activities include
- a project using hardened center lines to reduce speeds and temporary conversions of up to five traffic
- signals to all-way stop control and also temporary single-lane roundabouts or both options.
- In other words, we left it all open.
- Actually, the application left it all open. We will, we, the staff, will be focusing more of our time
- on this one activity just by virtue of the fact of the receipt of the $1.4 million grant. I do have
- a question. Yes. And again, this is more education for me. Okay. Does the 2.5% only apply to transit
- in the city of Bloomington? It only applies to
- what's called SS4A, Safe Streets and Roads for All. It doesn't apply to Bloomington Transit or Transit-Orient
- Development at all, but we threw it into that box because that's where we were directed to throw it
- into that task, what's called the Task 500 of Active Transportation of Bloomington Transit. So, again,
- education. Yeah. Can it be applied to Alpha County?
- As long as it's within the urbanized area, yes. If it's outside the urbanized area, no. And then on
- page 74 of the packet is the budget for that specific task and we were required 2.5% means we must spend 2.5%
- of our federal funds
- on active transportation or safe streets and roads for all type activities. So the budget on page 74
- specifically outlines we're spending $7,453. Well, this is what we have allocated. What we spend is
- two different things. We're spending minimum requirement of $7,453 in federal funds.
- with local matching funds of $1,863. Actually, that amount of money doesn't get you very far. And the
- other thing of note here is the overall budget itself. The allocation to our MPO in 2024 was $405,000.
- For 2027, our allocation is $198,000.
- full 50% cut, and the reason for the cut is the money is allocated on a per capita basis, and the per
- capita basis is based on the 2020 census. In March of 2020, 45,000, 46,000 students went home.
- April 1st, census came in, and so we lost population.
- Lafayette, West Lafayette also lost population. Ours was, I think, larger, if not proportionally, ours
- was larger. So we're looking at a situation where funding for our planning activities will be greatly
- reduced over the course of the next four to five years until there's another census that corrects the
- ship. And we're running a deficit.
- I'm projecting that we'll run a deficit this year for fiscal year 27. With that, with the deficit situation,
- we've stripped out all the contract service agreements. In other words, we won't have a contract service
- agreement with City of Bloomington Public Works for asset management. We will not have a contract service
- agreement with Monroe County for asset management within the urbanized area. We will not have any
- allocation of funds to Bloomington Transit, it'll all be kept within the staff itself. So since you
- call this a budget, the numbers that you put in here for federal and local, who comes up with those
- numbers? Who develops that budget? The federal numbers are given to us and then we develop the budget.
- And who in the local budget does that? You guys, the staff, the MPO staff? The local budget comes from
- the City of Bloomington.
- Local match all comes from the city of Wilmington. Again, education. How is that approved? Or is this
- the approval right here? Well, it's approved in the city's budget. The match is built into the city's
- budget. In other words, planning transportation department gets an allocation of so much money. And
- there's a line there for a view of staff. Well, yes. Something like that. Yeah, we're calculated. Our
- costs are calculated into the planning
- and transportation department. And then our fringe and overhead, which are approved, or cost allocation,
- is prepared annually, and that's approved by the Federal Highway Administration and Indiana Department
- of Transportation. Will you approve this document, which is you're asking us to approve? Bloomington's
- providing the match. Right, but with this document right here. This is a draft, yes. I got it, but when
- we approve it next month, or that's what you're asking us to do.
- What are we approving? We're approving the funding, or approving the plan on how they're going to take,
- how you're going to spend the money? Both. We're approving the whole document. Okay, so the City of
- Bloomington, within whatever budget they put for planning and transportation for the NPO staff, which
- is going through another process, and eventually it soon goes to the City Council for approval. They're
- already done? Already done. Yeah. But not for FY 27-28. Well, but
- 27 starts in the middle of the year for them. So like, so yeah, so the first half of the year is approved
- under one budget and then the second half of the year is approved. It's already been approved by the
- city. And you're asking us as a larger body now to approve it. What if we don't approve it? Well,
- approve it. Then we lose certification. So we're not approving it, we're certifying it.
- Is that what we're doing? We lose the four and a half million that we get every year from the Federal
- Highway. We lose all our capital money. And Lamington Transit loses all its federal funding. Yeah, so
- what I'm getting at is it's a fator complete. Well, but we can suggest edits or modifications to the
- document as it stands right now, right? Yes, and the TAS. The TAS. So when you have the... Oh, go ahead.
- Go on. So when you have a deficit to that significance,
- Half, 50%. Well, I know the deficit is actually going through the calculation of the entire fiscal year,
- 27, we'll have a deficit of around $11,000, $12,000. That's the first time we've ever had a deficit.
- We've always had a surplus. So throwing out what you're cutting. You're cutting Monroe County asset,
- city of Bloomington. Who makes those decisions on what gets cut? SAF did, but that was a recommendation.
- We can put those back in, but then the deficit would be even larger. See, that's where I'm going with
- it. There should be a dialogue there. And maybe there is a dialogue. I'm just not aware of it. So there
- should be a dialogue. If you're cutting dollars, and I'm a county person, not the city person. So if
- you're cutting money and funding from the county, but there's no discussion, and maybe there is, there
- should be a discussion. Well, we get a certain amount allocated for
- administration of the MPO every year. And part of that money goes towards staff salaries. And then the
- leftover can be placed wherever the staff and the policy committee agree to place it. And what is that
- vehicle where that takes place? Is it this thing? Yes. So this is where we That's where we set it up. Yeah.
- This is education. I'm just trying to understand the process. The budget in all the previous years has
- been $13,000 for public works, $13,000 from Monroe County. What they actually billed us and what we've
- reimbursed was substantially larger than the $13,000. In other words, the surplus money that we had
- left over from staff costs
- went to asset management. But that kind of ran out this year because we didn't get total reimbursements.
- It was already spent, correct? Because I was told when we put in for our last reimbursement, the money
- was gone. For fiscal year 2026, the projection I ran is that we would have an $8,000
- deficit and actually that $8,000 deficit would be larger if we reimbursed beyond the $13,000 each.
- To date, we've reimbursed Public Works $26,000. We've reimbursed Monroe County $26,000, but the budgets
- were $13,000 apiece. So we've already exceeded what we said we were going to do.
- and then the model projection based on the salary increases and the cost of living and the overhead
- and the fringe showed that we're going to run right at zero or a slight deficit for this fiscal year.
- Yeah, there was a billing submitted to us for $47,000 and we only had $13,000 in the contract. So you've
- got a budget. You've got some
- You've got some federal dollars, and you've got local dollars. Those local dollars have been budgeted
- through a city body called the City Council, and there's a funding line in there for planning
- and transportation, et cetera, for the MPO staff. Is that correct, or did I get that almost correct?
- The staff is considered part of the planning and transportation department budget. Yeah, and you have
- a portion of that budget here marked for MPO staff, correct?
- if it's just planning and transportation. It's staff is part of planning and transportation. It's earmarked
- specifically for our salaries. In other words, city of Bloomington planning and transportation get an
- 80% reimbursement for our salaries. And then they're required to come up with a 20% match. Yeah. So
- is there a disconnect?
- Lisa with respect to. I just wondered who makes the decisions on we're going to cut this and we're going
- to cut that. Well, staff made the decision based on the draft, but if somebody wants to add that back
- in, they can do that. And then if you keep getting a deficit, what happens? Who makes up that deficit?
- Just to make sure I'm understanding so right now we're reviewing the draft plan so hypothetically the
- commit this body could vote to suggest changes so we could hypothetically vote to reinstate something
- but we would probably also at the same time need to vote to cut something but that's why this is being
- presented as a draft test there is that time to engage before we need to adopt it so I think just
- I think that's a base thing. And then I think just from my experience working in other communities or
- with other MPOs, in this part work plan, there's a local share that's basically helping to fund the
- MPO. My understanding just is that the city of Bloomington covers the entire expense and fronts it for
- the greater MPOs good, where other MPOs tell me if this is really wrong,
- Typically, there's a cost share agreement where multiple agencies that benefit from there being an MPO
- contribute to that local share. So in a way, the city is lifting up this ability for transit and for
- the county to have access to federal funds. And if we did not do that, those funds would go away. Correct.
- Okay. Thank you. And this is the way it's been for the, for the MPO since 1981.
- other MPOs do it as a joint. They both like, hypothetically split based on... They split it and then
- it's a joint staff. That staff is everybody's. It's not just a city of Bloomington staff. Correct. Some
- MPOs are an independent body that everybody pays into. There's maybe more overhead costs because of
- space, but that is how a lot of places do work. So we're dealing with a perception here. Yeah.
- City control body Let me let me finish okay, it's a perception I didn't say it's reality. I said it's
- just a perception that it's it's something that's managed by the city of Bloomington and not by the
- joint of the NPO PC Actually, we're not management Yes, even though you're part of the planning
- of transportation because the upfront cost I
- We have a staff of two. We can't support our own HR department, our own technology. And the city's plan
- commission is who was designated as the MPO. And thus, that's why they cover the costs. I read that.
- But they didn't take and delineate it down to the planning and transportation department. I haven't
- found that source anywhere. So if you have it, I'd like to see it.
- You have the contracting entity as the planning commission, but the body that you are housed, the MPO
- staff is housed as the planning and transportation department. Where is that delineated? It's the planning
- staff for the planning commission. I won't debate it any further. I'm just saying that one could make
- a compelling argument here that there's maybe a disconnect there.
- We would disagree. Okay, but that's that's what we have a debate. So, yeah. Yeah. Anyway, that's my
- only point. I will go back to where I started. What are we actually approving when we in February? Oh,
- you're not approving anything today. I got that. In February, when we look at the final version, as
- we're asked to vote on it, what are we actually voting on? We are voting to approve the plan. The tax
- and the budget. The entire document. The entire. The entire document. Any single piece of the document
- that you don't like, like,
- Either this is the opportunity to bring it up or what I would beg everybody at this point, maybe on
- behalf of Andrew, is that if we have any further questions about this document or interest in different
- modifications to talk to them about it over the next couple of weeks so that then we can get to the
- end of this meeting because it's lasted much longer than MPO meetings usually do. And when this is approved
- by the MPO policy committee, this goes to
- Department of Transportation, Federal Highway, and Federal Transit Administration as our contract. What
- we're doing is saying... Do they have to go back to the Planning Commission? Because that's a contracting
- entity? Do they get involved at all? The Planning Commission doesn't get involved with the NBO stuff
- at all. Even though it's a contracting entity, I don't know what that means. The contracting entity
- is the City of Bloomington and
- the MPO staff in Monroe County and the Ellisville and it's the whole urbanized area. I think he's referring
- to the Planned Commission's role. Planned Commission isn't involved in this. The Planned Commission
- doesn't have an actual role in anything, like nothing from the MPO goes to them. I understand that.
- Just bear with that. Everybody's hungry. This is important. Because nobody ever challenges this document.
- from year to year, they just pretty much say, it looks good to me. And some of us actually read it from
- page to page. But I'm trying to find the reference. And you know the one I'm talking about that establishes
- the plan commission as the entity. It's on page four. That was how the MPO was formed. It just says
- the MPOPC consists of a three-part intergovernmental steering group committee with the city of Bloomington
- plan commission
- as the contracting entity, and then goes on to say, and the city of Bloomington Planning and Transportation
- Department is the lead staff agency. I found nowhere where it says, and again, this is where I need,
- you need to help me with this, is that where does it say that the city of Bloomington Planning
- and Transportation Department is the lead staff agency? Who determined that? Did the plan commission
- do that? Because they're the contracting entity?
- I don't know. That's where I'm going with that. You want me to have the legal staff contact you?
- You what? I could have the legal staff contact you. I wasn't here. It's evolved from the planning department
- to the planning. I don't want to belabor the point here, but I'm a roles and responsibilities person.
- So I'm looking at what is the role of the plan commission when it's specifically stated in here as a
- contracting entity. It has been there for years. What does that mean?
- But does that mean that everything that you do from an MPO staff, because they're the contracting agency,
- you have to go through the city's plan commission to do that? We do not. Because you don't do that.
- I mean, that's what you've explained. So that relationship, I mean, that's, I was going to provide this
- in writing to you, but that's what that'd be one of my questions. What is the relationship here? I mean,
- we're- I can hire somebody from the legal staff. I mean, there's, I'm sure there's a source document
- going back to the governor back in 1981. 1981. 1981 that stipulated some of this stuff.
- I did quite a bit of research because I'm retired, I have this thing called the internet and I couldn't
- find anything. All right. Write it down and I will send it to the legal department. All right,
- thank you. Okay, sure. Do we have any public comment on matters not included on the agenda?
- None. Any communications from committee members on matters not on the agenda? Just passed something
- along. I said at the TAC meeting on Wednesday, but great job to Endot, Ellsville, Monroe County, City
- of Bloons, and everybody who was out there. Moving all the snow we had, it was a long 72 plus hours
- for everybody. So thanks everybody that had participated.
- upcoming meetings technical advisory committee February 25th at 10 a.m. citizens advisory committee
- February 25th at 530 and policy committee meeting February 27th at 1030 and we are adjourned.