WEBVTT 00:00:01.250 --> 00:00:09.550 - I'd like to call the MPO Policy Committee to order and we will begin with introductions and we'll go 00:00:09.550 --> 00:00:18.097 - to start with Jason. Good morning, Jason Bannon representing Indiana University. Hi, Nate Nichols, City 00:00:18.097 --> 00:00:26.315 - of Bloomington Public Works Department serving as proxy for Adam Wason, Director. Becky Packer with 00:00:26.315 --> 00:00:29.438 - Indiana Department of Transportation. 00:00:30.786 --> 00:00:38.687 - Scott Ferris with the Monroe County Planning Commission. Doug Horne with the Bloomington Public 00:00:38.687 --> 00:00:47.493 - Transportation Corporation Board of Directors. Lisa Rich, Monroe County Highway Department. Andrew Seabor, 00:00:47.493 --> 00:00:55.065 - serving as proxy for Mayor Thompson. Steve Bishop, City of Bloomington Planning Commission. 00:00:55.065 --> 00:00:59.262 - Sam Tobin-Hochstadt, Citizens Advisory Commission. 00:01:00.930 --> 00:01:11.274 - Hopi Stossberg appointment by the Bloomington City Council. Thank you. Moving to approval of the meeting 00:01:11.274 --> 00:01:21.224 - agenda for today. Point of order. Scott. I would like to amend the agenda. And I have two motions. I 00:01:21.224 --> 00:01:30.878 - can't hear me, right? I hate this room because you just can't hear each other. But look up there. 00:01:31.298 --> 00:01:40.338 - So I have really two motions to modify the new agenda which we received yesterday. Specifically, I would 00:01:40.338 --> 00:01:49.723 - like to add under Roman numeral eight, old business, a new A. Can you speak maybe closer to your microphone? 00:01:49.723 --> 00:01:58.763 - That's the problem is that you're far away. I keep trying, but I'm failing in my effort there. How about 00:01:58.763 --> 00:01:59.710 - now? Okay. 00:01:59.874 --> 00:02:08.103 - Okay, I'll say it again. So I have two motions, both the dealing with the agenda and I the first motion 00:02:08.103 --> 00:02:16.095 - deals with Roman numeral eight old business and I'm proposing a new a. And that agenda item would be 00:02:16.095 --> 00:02:24.483 - and let me read it. A new interoperative inter local agreement for the MPO urbanized area for Bloomington 00:02:24.483 --> 00:02:29.310 - and Monroe County. And so I would put a motion on the floor. 00:02:30.530 --> 00:02:44.840 - to adopt that as a new A. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I will second that. Scott, do you want 00:02:44.840 --> 00:02:59.838 - to? I was going to bring this up later. It's really kind of complicated. In our last meeting we talked about 00:02:59.970 --> 00:03:08.055 - source documentation which really created the MPO in the beginning. And in the packet, we have, let 00:03:08.055 --> 00:03:16.220 - me grab it here. You have all of these source documents which the MPO staff provided us. And it goes 00:03:16.220 --> 00:03:24.304 - in detail. There's an MOU, there's an interim understanding, there's documentation that essentially 00:03:24.304 --> 00:03:28.670 - went to the governor from the mayor and at that time, 00:03:28.770 --> 00:03:35.993 - president of the county commissioners and eventually went to the U.S. Department of Transportation and 00:03:35.993 --> 00:03:43.216 - then back down to NDOT and back to us. And that in fact is the paperwork that established the MPO. And 00:03:43.216 --> 00:03:50.509 - the MPO that was established in that letter essentially was for the City of Bloomington Plan Commission 00:03:50.509 --> 00:03:57.662 - to be the MPO for the urbanized area of the Monroe County and the City of Bloomington. And that's it. 00:03:58.370 --> 00:04:06.102 - Some discussion has taken place over time on whether or not, and lately, whether that agreement is still 00:04:06.102 --> 00:04:13.466 - in effect. And that agreement calls for a continuous cooperative discussion between all the various 00:04:13.466 --> 00:04:20.830 - elements of the people who really sit up here at this table and represent whatever communities they 00:04:20.830 --> 00:04:27.678 - come from. The agreement that was referenced leading up to the governor recommending that we 00:04:27.906 --> 00:04:35.367 - have an MPO was an interim agreement. Had a sunset clause, it expired. And that's kind of like where 00:04:35.367 --> 00:04:42.753 - we are right now. So we really don't have a basis for who does what. The roles and responsibilities 00:04:42.753 --> 00:04:50.288 - are not properly defined. I'm making a recommendation that once we get to that topic, even though I'm 00:04:50.288 --> 00:04:57.822 - premature at this point, is that we actually get the folks together and come up with a new agreement. 00:04:58.466 --> 00:05:05.511 - and I have a specific motion for that later when this topic is brought up, but that's why I want it 00:05:05.511 --> 00:05:12.627 - added. This has been a lively discussion for some time, maybe not so much in this room, but in other 00:05:12.627 --> 00:05:19.813 - rooms. Does that answer your question? Jason? Yeah, I could ask a question. So is this something that 00:05:19.813 --> 00:05:27.422 - staff has reviewed? Do they have an opinion? I would like to clarify that the agreement is still in effect. 00:05:27.522 --> 00:05:37.932 - If it was not in effect, we would not be receiving federal funding to this day. And if I can reclama 00:05:37.932 --> 00:05:48.548 - that. I also want to just make clear that the agreement established in 1982 was to place the MPO under 00:05:48.548 --> 00:05:53.598 - the plan commission for the city of Bloomington. 00:05:54.274 --> 00:06:03.014 - That was done simply as a contractor for a number of reasons. The city had the greater population for 00:06:03.014 --> 00:06:12.183 - the urbanized area. The city had contracting ability. The city was the one that started the transportation 00:06:12.183 --> 00:06:21.694 - studies a few years before the designation of the MPO. And there's other reasons why the decisions took place. 00:06:22.210 --> 00:06:31.436 - to make the plan commission the contracting agency. And that was just a formality that had to be done 00:06:31.436 --> 00:06:40.934 - in order for us to become an official urbanized area and thus receive federal funds from the government. 00:06:40.934 --> 00:06:50.974 - Every year that we continue this relationship with Federal Highway and NDOT, submit our TIP, our MTP document, 00:06:51.202 --> 00:06:59.792 - Our UPWP, that is a renewing of that relationship that then gets us the federal funds for the transportation 00:06:59.792 --> 00:07:07.910 - projects. So I just want to add to that. I don't think anybody's questioning, but none of us were here 00:07:07.910 --> 00:07:15.870 - in 1981. And to have a document that's 40 plus years old that hasn't been updated, I think it's just 00:07:15.870 --> 00:07:21.150 - good to update agreements, see where we're at now where we weren't 00:07:21.666 --> 00:07:29.595 - 40 years ago, what's changed, what authorities have changed, what job titles have changed, and I don't 00:07:29.595 --> 00:07:38.062 - see a problem of updating to a current agreement that's 40 years old. That's why I supported that discussions 00:07:38.062 --> 00:07:46.145 - begin on updating an agreement. I'm not aware of many agreements that go on for 40 plus years that don't 00:07:46.145 --> 00:07:50.302 - need tweaked. So in a quick reclama to what you said, 00:07:53.634 --> 00:08:00.951 - The governor or? Debating about whether or not to add an agenda item. And so I think that that's, I 00:08:00.951 --> 00:08:08.341 - would prefer to stick to that point of whether or not we're gonna add this agenda item as opposed to 00:08:08.341 --> 00:08:15.731 - debating the concept of that agenda item right now. Noted. So we had a motion and a second to add it 00:08:15.731 --> 00:08:21.950 - to the agenda. Is there any? I have a point of clarification. The motion said to add 00:08:22.274 --> 00:08:28.033 - a new item A, but what do we do with the item A that is currently there? Is this a replacement motion 00:08:28.033 --> 00:08:33.792 - or is in the motion, is there a proposal to move the current item A to item B? There will be a second 00:08:33.792 --> 00:08:39.720 - motion and that is to move A to a B. That we can combine this. I will not vote yes for that motion until 00:08:39.720 --> 00:08:45.592 - we need to roll those things in together because otherwise we're eliminating something that we actually 00:08:45.592 --> 00:08:51.294 - have to statutorily deal with today for the state of Indiana. If you're willing to amend his motion, 00:08:51.458 --> 00:09:01.079 - to move item A to B and add that to his motion. I accept that friendly amendment. Is it appropriate 00:09:01.079 --> 00:09:11.374 - to have this under old business? This seems rather new. I think it was trying to be tied in to the passing 00:09:11.374 --> 00:09:18.590 - of the UPWP to tie it together. It was also discussed at the last meeting. 00:09:22.050 --> 00:09:30.489 - So the motion on the table, as I understand, would be adding item A of the inter-cooperative agreement 00:09:30.489 --> 00:09:38.683 - discussion and moving item A to item B. Did you second? Do we have a second? I'll second. I will do 00:09:38.683 --> 00:09:47.040 - that. And any more discussion on that motion? Question. This is just a discussion. Correct. We're not 00:09:47.040 --> 00:09:51.710 - going to be giving any directives. It's just discussion. 00:09:52.354 --> 00:09:59.912 - Thank you. Couldn't give it. Any other comments on the motion? Any public comment? Seeing none, Rob, 00:09:59.912 --> 00:10:07.694 - pardon. I do actually have another question about that, and it relates to what somebody just mentioned, 00:10:07.694 --> 00:10:15.401 - is this really old business? And just because we mentioned something at our last meeting, I'm not sure 00:10:15.401 --> 00:10:20.190 - that that constitutes as old business. And I also am wondering, 00:10:20.482 --> 00:10:26.257 - what the precedent is for MPO meetings in terms of these business things, because I think the business 00:10:26.257 --> 00:10:31.864 - that usually gets put on our agenda is something that we have to vote on. And if this is just going 00:10:31.864 --> 00:10:37.472 - to be a discussion, does it belong under business at all or does it belong under communication from 00:10:37.472 --> 00:10:43.247 - committee members on other matters? And that is a process question that I think that I would most like 00:10:43.247 --> 00:10:48.798 - to hear from the chair or from our staff or from other members who have been a part of the MPO for 00:10:49.762 --> 00:10:57.064 - a number of years and have looked at those sorts of process things. When we discuss this item item, 00:10:57.064 --> 00:11:04.585 - I'm going to have a motion that I want to put on the table. So it's more than a discussion. It's going 00:11:04.585 --> 00:11:12.252 - to be, we're going to take and talk more about this document, right? These sets of documents right here. 00:11:12.252 --> 00:11:19.262 - At the last meeting, as you remember, because you were there, I asked the MPO director, Pat, to 00:11:19.362 --> 00:11:25.535 - provide us with the source information on what established the MPO. And the question I had at the time 00:11:25.535 --> 00:11:31.589 - was, if the planned commission is a contracting entity, because back in that timeframe, that was the 00:11:31.589 --> 00:11:37.702 - only body that pretty much existed between the city and county, what was the relationship between the 00:11:37.702 --> 00:11:43.755 - MPO planned commission, I'm sorry, the city of Bloomington planned commission and the MPO staff? And 00:11:43.755 --> 00:11:48.670 - what Pat said, and he can take and embellish if he'd like, he said there is none. 00:11:49.794 --> 00:11:55.430 - And I have documentation from Pat saying if that is the case. So there is absolutely no connection right 00:11:55.430 --> 00:12:01.012 - now between the city of Bloomington plan commission that's outlined in the or letter governor or letter 00:12:01.012 --> 00:12:06.863 - in what you have today. This is why an agreement a new agreement is required. But this is what was discussed 00:12:06.863 --> 00:12:12.553 - at the last meeting. This is key and essential to the foundation for the plan that we're going to discuss 00:12:12.553 --> 00:12:17.920 - later. You've got to have to have as I've mentioned to others and you know how this works. You have 00:12:17.920 --> 00:12:19.262 - to let me finish please. 00:12:19.458 --> 00:12:26.154 - You have to have an agreement that you reference before you have a plan. A plan is not a standalone 00:12:26.154 --> 00:12:32.850 - policy directive. You gotta have an agreement or something that leads into that plan. So that's key 00:12:32.850 --> 00:12:39.881 - and essential to the organizational element of the plan that we're talking about today. Happy? I'm still 00:12:39.881 --> 00:12:46.577 - gonna argue, I don't think that that belongs under old business. Pardon me? I don't think that that 00:12:46.577 --> 00:12:49.054 - belongs under old business and that, 00:12:49.346 --> 00:12:55.093 - I guess in my experience with this meeting and these business categories, we know what we're voting 00:12:55.093 --> 00:13:01.241 - on in advance. And even if there is a motion attached to that, I don't know in advance what it is. There's 00:13:01.241 --> 00:13:07.218 - not the documentation to support that. So that's why I don't think that belongs under the old business. 00:13:07.218 --> 00:13:13.079 - I'm not saying that it's not a conversation, but I'm saying that I don't like that it's gonna be that 00:13:13.079 --> 00:13:18.366 - part of the agenda. We don't need to keep on debating it. I'll just vote no on this motion. 00:13:19.362 --> 00:13:36.565 - We'll see what happens, thank you. Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. No more comments 00:13:36.565 --> 00:13:44.478 - from the board. Roll call vote. Yes. Yes. No. 00:13:52.450 --> 00:14:09.561 - Yes. Yes. Was that me? I can't hear what you're saying. If it's me, I'm sorry. Ferris. Yes. Horn. Yes. 00:14:09.561 --> 00:14:21.854 - Seabor. No. Ridge. Yes. Bishop. No. Tobin. No. Thank you. Stoutsburg. No. 00:14:26.306 --> 00:14:34.888 - That's six yeses. So motion does not pass. How many no's? I'm sorry. How many yeses? How many no's? 00:14:34.888 --> 00:14:44.071 - Five no's. One, two, three, four, five, six yeses. So it passed. That's a majority. Point of order doesn't 00:14:44.071 --> 00:14:52.654 - have to be the majority of the body, not just the majority of those present. I know that that's how 00:14:52.654 --> 00:14:55.486 - council works. So if council has 00:14:56.322 --> 00:15:04.263 - Only five present, even if four vote yes and one votes no, it still doesn't carry. I don't know how 00:15:04.263 --> 00:15:12.204 - that works here though. And I don't remember how many members of the body we have. So. Okay, sorry. 00:15:12.204 --> 00:15:20.383 - Six yeses and five nos. Motion passes. That passes. That's what I said. Okay, moving on to item. Point 00:15:20.383 --> 00:15:24.830 - of order. I just want to make sure that in that motion, 00:15:25.058 --> 00:15:32.817 - You have a new A and a new B. Correct. As part of the agenda. That was part of your motion. Moving on 00:15:32.817 --> 00:15:40.499 - to item three, election of calendar year policy committee officer for vice chair. I'm sorry Lisa, we 00:15:40.499 --> 00:15:48.486 - just voted on an amendment to the agenda and now do we still have to do an approval of the whole meeting 00:15:48.486 --> 00:15:53.278 - agenda or did that vote include that? So we should go back and 00:15:54.050 --> 00:16:06.522 - Make a motion for approval of the modified agenda. I move approval of the amended agenda. Thank you. 00:16:06.522 --> 00:16:19.365 - We have a motion and we have a second. Do we have any discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none, roll 00:16:19.365 --> 00:16:23.934 - call vote. Stasberg? No. Tobin? Yes. 00:16:24.706 --> 00:16:45.035 - Sorry. Bishop. No. Ridge. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Horne. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Packer. Yes. Nichol. Yes. Banach. 00:16:45.035 --> 00:16:51.486 - Yes. Thomas. Yes. Motion passes. 00:16:54.050 --> 00:17:03.926 - Item three, election of vice chair for the upcoming 2026. Do we have any nominations? I just want since 00:17:03.926 --> 00:17:13.992 - I felt like at this point I should perhaps introduce myself since I am replacing the previous vice chair. 00:17:13.992 --> 00:17:23.678 - My name is Sam Tobin-Hockstadt and I'm now the chair of the Citizens Advisory Commission for the MPO. 00:17:24.578 --> 00:17:34.425 - John Kennedy was the previous chair of the CAC and was the vice chair. However, I do not plan to stand 00:17:34.425 --> 00:17:44.367 - for vice chair of this body. Thank you and nice to meet all of you who I haven't met before. Thank you. 00:17:44.367 --> 00:17:48.382 - Do we have any volunteers for vice chair? 00:17:53.154 --> 00:18:00.530 - It's double what you make now for this meeting. I want to be clear, I'm not volunteering right now, 00:18:00.530 --> 00:18:08.569 - but if we could go over again the responsibilities of what vice chair is, maybe that would elicit something. 00:18:08.569 --> 00:18:16.166 - Basically in the absence of the chair would be running this meeting outside of that, maybe signing the 00:18:16.166 --> 00:18:21.182 - resolutions. If they signed a resolution, if the chair wasn't here, 00:18:21.570 --> 00:18:30.280 - not a lot of outside duties outside of running this meeting. When you say not a lot, does that actually 00:18:30.280 --> 00:18:38.906 - mean none? Being the chair, this is probably my biggest responsibility of running this meeting. I have 00:18:38.906 --> 00:18:47.365 - contact with the staff, basically signing resolutions, but there is not much outside of this meeting 00:18:47.365 --> 00:18:51.134 - that is needed from chair or vice chair that 00:18:51.746 --> 00:19:03.069 - And I've done it for a few years now. I'll do that if nobody else will do it. Kind of gradually, 00:19:03.069 --> 00:19:14.743 - but yeah. I nominate Commissioner Stossberg as vice chair. We have a motion and a second. Any other 00:19:14.743 --> 00:19:21.630 - nominations? Seeing none. Any public comment? Seeing none. 00:19:22.338 --> 00:19:32.968 - roll call vote please. Would you like to do all in favor since everybody's in the room? Absolutely. 00:19:32.968 --> 00:19:44.235 - All those in favor for our vice chair being hoppy say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. 00:19:44.235 --> 00:19:51.038 - Moving on to approval of minutes for Friday January 30th, 2026. 00:19:55.618 --> 00:20:07.873 - I have a motion to approve the Friday, January 30th, 2026 minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second. 00:20:07.873 --> 00:20:19.898 - Any discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes of Friday, 00:20:19.898 --> 00:20:24.638 - January 30th, 2026, do so by saying aye. 00:20:25.218 --> 00:20:34.110 - Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Communications from the chair or vice chair. I do not have any at 00:20:34.110 --> 00:20:43.269 - this time. I certainly wasn't prepared to do that today. I said I certainly wasn't prepared to do that 00:20:43.269 --> 00:20:52.428 - today. That's fine. Moving on, reports from officers and or committees. Maybe start with the technical 00:20:52.428 --> 00:20:53.406 - committee. 00:20:54.690 --> 00:21:02.411 - Sure. Technical Advisory Committee met this past Wednesday and reviewed the items that are on our agenda 00:21:02.411 --> 00:21:10.279 - today and recommended all for approval. Thank you. Thank you. Citizens? So the Citizens Advisory Committee 00:21:10.279 --> 00:21:17.706 - met on Wednesday and reviewed all the items that were on the original agenda here. Obviously, we did 00:21:17.706 --> 00:21:24.030 - not hear anything about the new agenda item and recommended all of them for approval. 00:21:25.058 --> 00:21:34.894 - Thank you. Moving on to reports from MPO staff. Item A. Item A is just a resource to share with you 00:21:34.894 --> 00:21:45.026 - that recently came across MyPath. It is called the NDOT Intersection and Interchange Map. And it looks 00:21:45.026 --> 00:21:54.174 - something like this. And they also provide information on the treatments that they have done 00:21:54.754 --> 00:22:03.232 - that you'll see in the map. So that's just kind of interesting to look at, and I just wanted to bring 00:22:03.232 --> 00:22:12.376 - that to your attention for your general education. Any questions? Okay, item B is a public input opportunity. 00:22:12.376 --> 00:22:19.358 - NDOT is currently seeking public comment on their planning public involvement plan. 00:22:20.162 --> 00:22:31.392 - You can review the draft document and provide feedback on it until Friday, March 13th, 2026. And I've 00:22:31.392 --> 00:22:42.732 - provided those links in the packet for you. I think the last time they updated it was 2023. All right, 00:22:42.732 --> 00:22:49.118 - item C on page nine of the packet, this is an overview of 00:22:49.698 --> 00:22:58.434 - this fiscal year of TIP funds. So just to remind everybody, every fiscal year between July and June, 00:22:58.434 --> 00:23:07.083 - we have an allocation, a federal fund allocation that is given to us that we must use by the end of 00:23:07.083 --> 00:23:15.905 - the year. If we cannot use it on local transportation projects, then the options are to try and trade 00:23:15.905 --> 00:23:18.846 - it with another MPO in the state. 00:23:19.522 --> 00:23:28.090 - in order to gain funds for another year or if we can't do that, we can flex the funds to our local transit 00:23:28.090 --> 00:23:36.258 - system. And so we have for this fiscal year, fiscal year 26, we have reached a balance of zero and we 00:23:36.258 --> 00:23:44.266 - have obligated 100% of our funds for this fiscal year. And so this spreadsheet here is kind of just 00:23:44.266 --> 00:23:48.510 - a summary of where we started and where we ended up. 00:23:49.634 --> 00:23:58.399 - It's more information than you necessarily need to know, but I go through how the funding level was 00:23:58.399 --> 00:24:07.165 - 4.6 million as of March of 25 when you all approved the TIP. And that is the funding level that was 00:24:07.165 --> 00:24:14.878 - used to make the initial allocations, the initial awarding of the funds in March of 25. 00:24:15.682 --> 00:24:24.418 - And so at that time, downtown curb ramps, phase five, high street intersection modernization and multi-use 00:24:24.418 --> 00:24:32.583 - path project, the West Second Street project, and the old SR 37 South and Dillman Road intersection 00:24:32.583 --> 00:24:41.074 - improvement project were all allocated funds at that time through our TIP. Of course, the TIP is always 00:24:41.074 --> 00:24:42.462 - evolving, and so 00:24:44.258 --> 00:24:53.764 - The top chart shows you how we had new levels come from NDOT. There were some reductions as NDOT has 00:24:53.764 --> 00:25:03.930 - to balance out what has been used and account for other things. And so we ended with an official allocation 00:25:03.930 --> 00:25:13.342 - of 4.4 million. And then we did an exchange with an MPO last spring. So that brought our total for, 00:25:13.762 --> 00:25:24.956 - this fiscal year to 5.6 million. Now, I will say that in the past, we were able to kind of overspend 00:25:24.956 --> 00:25:36.704 - our amounts for the fiscal year, and that's when INDOT does the balancing. However, that was not possible 00:25:36.704 --> 00:25:42.910 - this year, and we weren't aware of that, and so when we 00:25:43.074 --> 00:25:53.996 - received the new funding levels of 4.4, we did not, we failed to update the tip to reflect that. And 00:25:53.996 --> 00:26:05.243 - so we were short 209,875. And because of that, the last project to request their funds from NDOT during 00:26:05.243 --> 00:26:10.974 - this fiscal year was downtown curb ramps phase five. 00:26:11.458 --> 00:26:19.581 - And so that is why no funding from this fiscal year was allocated to downtown curb ramps phase five. 00:26:19.581 --> 00:26:27.704 - And then because High Street was not able to use their funds this year, zero funds were allocated to 00:26:27.704 --> 00:26:36.229 - High Street this year. The High Street funds were reallocated by staff to the West Second Street project. 00:26:36.229 --> 00:26:40.894 - And then old SR 37 project received their same allocation 00:26:41.890 --> 00:26:51.478 - that was planned originally. So I just wanted to give you a summary of the fiscal year funding since 00:26:51.478 --> 00:27:01.731 - we have successfully reached a zero balance. Any questions? Andrew? I guess just to make sure I'm digesting 00:27:01.731 --> 00:27:07.902 - this information, I appreciate the summary and I appreciate the, 00:27:08.130 --> 00:27:15.163 - communication, MPO staff have recently had with city staff on this, but just because my brain doesn't 00:27:15.163 --> 00:27:22.127 - work that well at the super detailed level. As I'm understanding it, the tip and what was originally 00:27:22.127 --> 00:27:29.159 - programmed was roughly $4.6 million throughout the calendar or fiscal year. That value was reduced by 00:27:29.159 --> 00:27:36.606 - roughly $200,000. So what the funding that actually exists is different than what is programmed in our tip. 00:27:37.282 --> 00:27:44.912 - And simply because of the timing of a city project going after other projects, that project was just 00:27:44.912 --> 00:27:52.768 - not able to receive the federal funding. So if it would have been any other project, it could have been 00:27:52.768 --> 00:28:00.398 - this county or another project that would have simply just not received the funding. Is that typical 00:28:00.398 --> 00:28:06.366 - process or is it usually more distributed amongst other projects or is it just 00:28:06.658 --> 00:28:16.633 - Is there something we can do to avoid this in the future? This was a mistake on the NPO staff's side, 00:28:16.633 --> 00:28:26.706 - and it was due to lack of information. And in the future, it shouldn't happen as long as in-dot levels 00:28:26.706 --> 00:28:34.334 - don't change later throughout the year. But in this case, there was no excuse 00:28:34.466 --> 00:28:44.718 - For that, staff should have made an adjustment to the tip last fall to account for the new levels. And 00:28:44.718 --> 00:28:54.770 - it would have had to involve the reduction of somebody's funds. And at this time, it would have been 00:28:54.770 --> 00:29:03.230 - a discussion between MPO staff and Lisa and Neil and Andrew about how that reduction 00:29:03.938 --> 00:29:12.580 - that $200,000 reduction would have had to play out. But it is a process we'll probably be talking about 00:29:12.580 --> 00:29:20.973 - in the future. So. Thank you for that explanation. I just have a question in terms of those downtown 00:29:20.973 --> 00:29:29.283 - curb ramps, that project, is that project just like totally gone now or will that try to get funded 00:29:29.283 --> 00:29:33.022 - next year and it just has kind of postponed? 00:29:33.954 --> 00:29:40.288 - Um, if Andrew wants to speak to this, he can, but I, according to Neil, um, it is moving forward with 00:29:40.288 --> 00:29:46.622 - design. I can't speak to their local funding part of it. Okay. But in terms of MPO funding, like that 00:29:46.622 --> 00:29:52.956 - project just won't get any MPO funding now, or it would get funding potentially in a subsequent year. 00:29:52.956 --> 00:29:59.165 - Uh, no, it's still in the PE phase. So, uh, I can't remember. I have to look at the tip to see what 00:29:59.165 --> 00:30:03.326 - the years are. It'll still happen then and it'll, okay. All right. 00:30:03.554 --> 00:30:11.032 - timing or funding specifics have just changed them. Okay, thanks. For this year. Scott. So don't we 00:30:11.032 --> 00:30:18.883 - have a process in place now with the LPAs that talks about funding or funded projects that are not being 00:30:18.883 --> 00:30:26.585 - able to spend those dollars in a redistribution or realignment of those dollars? Isn't there a process 00:30:26.585 --> 00:30:29.726 - in place now? Yes. That's what I thought. 00:30:36.098 --> 00:30:48.151 - Okay. Item D is historical designation documentation for the MPO just provided based on conversations 00:30:48.151 --> 00:31:00.795 - at the previous meeting in January. You all can review those in your own time, but it was very interesting 00:31:00.795 --> 00:31:04.222 - for me as well to read that. 00:31:04.546 --> 00:31:15.140 - and see that not much has changed since 1982. This whole effort of the MPO was created as a intergovernmental 00:31:15.140 --> 00:31:24.963 - process with representatives from the city, county, Ellisville, and Indiana University. And it's just 00:31:24.963 --> 00:31:33.630 - fascinating to see that it has always been a cooperative effort since the very beginning. 00:31:33.954 --> 00:31:49.256 - no matter who the contracting agency happens to be. If you guys have any questions about that documentation, 00:31:49.256 --> 00:32:03.294 - please let us know. All right, item E, I just want to share a few updates for some of the projects. 00:32:07.330 --> 00:32:16.404 - So the main update that I have that's new from last time is that the NDOT projects for bridge thin deck 00:32:16.404 --> 00:32:25.566 - overlay on I-69, there's six locations for this project and their project manager reached out and shared 00:32:25.566 --> 00:32:34.553 - that, shared their anticipated detour road closure plan with us. They said that construction for these 00:32:34.553 --> 00:32:36.734 - bridge thin deck overlay 00:32:36.962 --> 00:32:45.412 - locations is anticipated during fall of 2026 or spring of 27, and that the construction at these locations 00:32:45.412 --> 00:32:53.309 - will occur separately. Five of the locations will have shoulder and lane closures, but they will be 00:32:53.309 --> 00:33:01.443 - less than seven days. Two of the locations, West Arlington and Kinser Pike, will use temporary traffic 00:33:01.443 --> 00:33:04.286 - signals, but roads will remain open 00:33:04.514 --> 00:33:11.968 - Roads will remain open, but there may be delays. Other than that, downtown curb ramps phase five is 00:33:11.968 --> 00:33:19.645 - starting design. They're currently negotiating the design contract right now. High Street Project over 00:33:19.645 --> 00:33:27.620 - here is wrapping up right away acquisition. They will be doing some tree clearing before the environmental 00:33:27.620 --> 00:33:30.974 - bat window closes on April 1st of this year. 00:33:31.330 --> 00:33:38.533 - and in advance of the utility relocations in 2026. Project construction letting will occur in October 00:33:38.533 --> 00:33:45.807 - of 26. The construction of this project will likely be broken into segments or phases, segments of the 00:33:45.807 --> 00:33:53.011 - road and phases, and it will most likely become a one-way street. So there will be access, but likely 00:33:53.011 --> 00:34:00.638 - only one direction, but that's still being finalized. So the engineering department will keep us appraised. 00:34:01.666 --> 00:34:11.723 - The 2026 utility locations for High Street will also have flagging and possibly one way, but it will 00:34:11.723 --> 00:34:21.980 - be a shorter duration than 27. The Eagleson Bridge project, I went to construction letting in February 00:34:21.980 --> 00:34:30.046 - and is having pre-construction meeting in March and April, same for the Rockport 00:34:30.178 --> 00:34:45.066 - Rockport Road Bridge and Fairfax High Friction Treatment Project. The pavement cores were completed 00:34:45.066 --> 00:34:59.358 - in January and core reports likely will come back in June. The old 37 South and Dillman Project 00:34:59.970 --> 00:35:13.361 - The early coordination letters for Section 106 review went out in February. Those are the project updates 00:35:13.361 --> 00:35:26.120 - I have and after questions we can move on. Scott? We've talked about this a lot in the past and it's 00:35:26.120 --> 00:35:29.278 - the project that relates 00:35:29.378 --> 00:35:37.786 - the bypass to Pete Ellis Drive and the status of the contract, which I believe was supposed to be let 00:35:37.786 --> 00:35:46.112 - in April. Has any of that changed? No. Is that still the date? As far as I know. That makes sense. I 00:35:46.112 --> 00:35:54.851 - know there's pushback on the tree removal in front of the post office and down some of the IU properties. 00:35:54.851 --> 00:35:57.406 - There's signs posted on trees. 00:35:57.634 --> 00:36:05.427 - Is that changing any of the plans within DOT? We are currently working with Andrew and Neil to look 00:36:05.427 --> 00:36:13.453 - at possible change in the plans. We are unaware. We don't know at this moment how many trees maybe can 00:36:13.453 --> 00:36:21.246 - be saved. We'll know sometime next week, but we are still pushing for the April letting. Thank you. 00:36:25.090 --> 00:36:29.349 - I wanted to follow up on the tree thing because that was one of the things I wanted to bring up too, 00:36:29.349 --> 00:36:33.438 - just because, you know, as I'm the council representative, if people don't know, I'm the council 00:36:33.438 --> 00:36:37.950 - representative for district three, which is where that is. And so I've had several constituents reach out. 00:36:38.018 --> 00:36:43.796 - about their concern of those tree removal things. And while there's an NDOT person here and Andrew as 00:36:43.796 --> 00:36:49.461 - well, publicly saying this, I was at that meeting a couple of years ago, that community information 00:36:49.461 --> 00:36:55.239 - meeting, and I have a recollection of somebody asking about how many trees were gonna be removed. And 00:36:55.239 --> 00:37:01.016 - the answer was essentially hardly any, if any, because there was particular concern at the time about 00:37:01.016 --> 00:37:06.851 - the trees along 10th Street, that on Hinkle Garden, those maple trees that they tap, and those are not 00:37:06.851 --> 00:37:07.984 - slated for removal. 00:37:07.984 --> 00:37:13.911 - particularly concerned about that. But even at that time, the folks there said, you know, maybe a couple 00:37:13.911 --> 00:37:19.725 - at the corner, but that's it. So it feels a really dramatic change right now. And I mean, other people 00:37:19.725 --> 00:37:25.483 - who attended that meeting would have heard that. So I'm really glad to hear that there's some of that 00:37:25.483 --> 00:37:28.926 - negotiation going on. And I hope that the conclusion of that 00:37:29.154 --> 00:37:35.413 - does preserve more of those trees in terms of, you know, really looking closely at what is needed for 00:37:35.413 --> 00:37:41.549 - those costs because my understanding is that Pete Ellis isn't really going to be widened very much. 00:37:41.549 --> 00:37:47.685 - And yet a lot of those trees are scheduled to come down. So I just am glad that that's being looked 00:37:47.685 --> 00:37:53.882 - at closely and my constituents will be glad to hear that as well. Thank you. Follow up to that since 00:37:53.882 --> 00:37:56.030 - I've been intimately involved with 00:37:56.258 --> 00:38:01.719 - with this project going all the way back to 2018. These discussions have been going on for a long time. 00:38:01.719 --> 00:38:07.022 - And some of us actually went down to NDOT Seymour and had conversations with them about this. And if 00:38:07.022 --> 00:38:12.273 - I remember correctly, and the data points that were put on the table at that time is that the trees 00:38:12.273 --> 00:38:17.733 - that were gonna be removed, they were going to take and move back from where they were removed and they 00:38:17.733 --> 00:38:23.247 - were gonna take and put other trees in place. That's what I remember in those discussions. And I believe 00:38:23.247 --> 00:38:25.662 - I was at that same discussion that you're at. 00:38:26.338 --> 00:38:33.826 - So, yeah, it's a concern. And a lot of those trees are really gorgeous old trees. And I hope that we 00:38:33.826 --> 00:38:41.463 - have a plan in place to not put little twigs in their place, but something that's a little more mature 00:38:41.463 --> 00:38:49.025 - if we're going to replace those trees. Julie? I agree that there were statements made that, you know, 00:38:49.025 --> 00:38:52.510 - and I think the focus was on the garden house. 00:38:52.770 --> 00:39:01.519 - maple trees at the time and it looks like none of them, those are slated. But where should constituents 00:39:01.519 --> 00:39:10.015 - call NDOT at or what should constituents do? How will we see a plan if it's revised? How will we see 00:39:10.015 --> 00:39:18.680 - it? How will the folks in our community see it? And where should they go to ask questions? They should 00:39:18.680 --> 00:39:22.718 - still go through the NDOT for you number that's 00:39:23.586 --> 00:39:32.743 - I-1855. I don't know it off the top of my head. I have it. It spells out INDOT for you. That is our 00:39:32.743 --> 00:39:42.449 - best. Okay. But will the updated plan be posted somewhere or how will they know that if the plans change? 00:39:42.449 --> 00:39:51.422 - Because it will change the visual beauty of that corridor. They're not really old trees actually. 00:39:53.570 --> 00:40:01.554 - mid-aged, they're not towering oaks from 100 years ago, but they have been there a long time, and it 00:40:01.554 --> 00:40:09.696 - does add a sense of the environment going into the residential area. I will have to see. I mean, there 00:40:09.696 --> 00:40:17.759 - will be a revision that'll come out with the plans. So it's just how the contract documents come out, 00:40:17.759 --> 00:40:23.134 - and we probably will not have that until close to the letting date. 00:40:23.426 --> 00:40:30.035 - It'll be like a week probably before letting. Okay. Can we be sure to get a copy of that? I hate to 00:40:30.035 --> 00:40:36.776 - ask that, but is there a way that we can get a copy of that? I will see if I can get a supply. I know 00:40:36.776 --> 00:40:43.384 - Andrew will have a copy because he will get it. You'll have a copy. You'll have one too, right? I'm 00:40:43.384 --> 00:40:50.654 - just obligated to make the comment for those of us who have been playing with this project for some time now. 00:40:51.426 --> 00:40:58.530 - This project has been delayed on any number of occasions, and I would hope that whatever the revision 00:40:58.530 --> 00:41:05.495 - is can meet with some sort of friendly concurrence so that letting date is not shifted to the right 00:41:05.495 --> 00:41:12.250 - again. For those of us who live in that area out there, this is a choke point area, one road in, 00:41:12.250 --> 00:41:19.285 - one road out, and as I've explained on numerous occasions because of all the student population, the 00:41:19.285 --> 00:41:21.374 - bus traffic between the city, 00:41:21.762 --> 00:41:29.233 - and school systems, and also Indiana University and the plethora of apartment complexes up and down 00:41:29.233 --> 00:41:36.705 - that corridor now, we're just saturated with people and cars. And so delaying this project any more 00:41:36.705 --> 00:41:44.848 - than what it's already been delayed, in my opinion, respectfully, is a problem. And that's not the intention 00:41:44.848 --> 00:41:49.630 - of INDOT or the city. We've already had discussions. Thank you. 00:41:53.090 --> 00:41:59.239 - I guess just to add, appreciating this discussion, appreciating that as Rebecca had noted, we've had 00:41:59.239 --> 00:42:04.780 - some really productive conversations in the last few days, even in maybe even this morning 00:42:04.780 --> 00:42:11.051 - through conversations in the email, but in data, certainly in their consultants working to try to save 00:42:11.051 --> 00:42:17.444 - as many of those trees on Pete Ellis as possible. I also just want to note that there will be some trees 00:42:17.444 --> 00:42:20.062 - closer to 10th street that will come down. 00:42:20.482 --> 00:42:27.583 - but trying to find that right balance. And there are active coordination and I do expect some of them 00:42:27.583 --> 00:42:34.614 - to be safe. So thanks to INDOT. And I think we are all working in the spirit of keeping this project 00:42:34.614 --> 00:42:41.158 - on track. There's a lot of wonderful things with it. So I think everybody has that intention. 00:42:41.158 --> 00:42:48.398 - So is there, I know there's a lot of interest in this and letting day, it's, you know, March is Sunday. 00:42:48.398 --> 00:42:49.790 - Is there a way for, 00:42:50.274 --> 00:43:00.699 - this board to be kind of provided an update in the next couple of weeks of if there's been a decision, 00:43:00.699 --> 00:43:11.022 - if there's been a compromise made that assures that the project will still go to letting in April. Is 00:43:11.022 --> 00:43:15.678 - that possible? I'm open, I just, just as I'm, 00:43:15.810 --> 00:43:23.842 - It's an INDOT project. I understand it's an INDOT project, but I understand also that it's a discussion 00:43:23.842 --> 00:43:32.337 - between the city of Bloomington and INDOT for their project. I have my own projects that we have discussions. 00:43:32.337 --> 00:43:40.292 - I'm happy to provide any update of the status of that project moving forward. I'm just asking if we're 00:43:40.292 --> 00:43:44.926 - allowed as a board to be a status update like in two weeks. 00:43:45.506 --> 00:43:51.794 - I don't know that that's really a difficult thing to ask. I'm not asking MPO staff to do it, maybe city 00:43:51.794 --> 00:43:58.022 - of Bloomington, just kind of where the negotiations ended up. So we don't get into the middle of March 00:43:58.022 --> 00:44:04.371 - and then everyone's, or we get into April 1st and sorry, there was no, you know, there was no compromise 00:44:04.371 --> 00:44:10.660 - and the project's been pulled. I'm just trying to have communication. We'll make a contact with INDOT's 00:44:10.660 --> 00:44:15.134 - communications office down in the Seymour district. Have that initiative. 00:44:16.962 --> 00:44:22.800 - Okay. Tell them there's a great interest in the community and therefore we'd appreciate any updates. 00:44:22.800 --> 00:44:28.754 - And they're always very cooperative. And I'll just, as a city, we're talking specifically about a part 00:44:28.754 --> 00:44:35.112 - of the project that is on a city road and so we're actively coordinating and appreciate INDOT's coordination. 00:44:35.112 --> 00:44:40.892 - And I don't want to overstep and share things on a project we're not managing, but if people wanted 00:44:40.892 --> 00:44:46.846 - to offhand reach out, I'm happy to always provide updates if you've got questions, but I don't want to 00:44:47.106 --> 00:44:54.542 - feel appropriate to do a mass distribution on a project we're not managing. All righty. Copy. Is it 00:44:54.542 --> 00:45:02.052 - appropriate, Andrew, to ask you to, when there is an update from your negotiations with the city, to 00:45:02.052 --> 00:45:09.562 - pass that on to our MPO staff? And then our MPO staff, are you able to then send it to us as a body? 00:45:09.562 --> 00:45:16.254 - Is that a compromise that you feel would not overstep what your job responsibilities are? 00:45:17.634 --> 00:45:24.299 - that? Honestly, big picture. I don't care. I'm happy to. I'm more just one. I'm more looking at Becky. 00:45:24.299 --> 00:45:31.029 - I'm wanting for NDOT to have a chance to weigh in. We'll work through the NDOT for you process, because 00:45:31.029 --> 00:45:37.759 - that's the proper channel to. Yes. I mean, pack and reach out to us. I mean, yeah. But yeah, we'll also 00:45:37.759 --> 00:45:44.424 - do it formally through the NDOT process. Yeah. At this time, we won't know anything until probably the 00:45:44.424 --> 00:45:46.430 - end of next week, to be exact. 00:45:50.466 --> 00:46:01.598 - Thank you. Seeing no more questions, moving on to old business. Item A that was added to our agenda. 00:46:01.598 --> 00:46:13.282 - Do you want me to restate it? Sure. I mean, yeah. I don't know if you wrote it down or not. What I stated 00:46:13.282 --> 00:46:18.462 - was a new interoperative, interlocal agreement 00:46:18.914 --> 00:46:27.717 - for the MPO. We can't hear you again. I'm sorry. We really need to get this fixed. Or I need to speak 00:46:27.717 --> 00:46:37.210 - into the mic. Okay, a new interoperative slash interlocal agreement for the MPO urbanized area of Bloomington 00:46:37.210 --> 00:46:45.927 - and Monroe County. That's the discussion item. Okay, any comment? The only comment that I would make 00:46:45.927 --> 00:46:47.998 - is what I already said. 00:46:48.482 --> 00:46:55.765 - It's really based upon this stack of source documents, which is in the packet. If you haven't looked 00:46:55.765 --> 00:47:03.264 - at it, it pretty much steps through everything that I said. The bottom line is that what is stated here 00:47:03.264 --> 00:47:10.690 - is, like Lisa said, it's really, really old, 40 years or so, and it needs to be updated. The fact that 00:47:10.690 --> 00:47:13.214 - the MPO is the city of Bloomington 00:47:13.634 --> 00:47:19.828 - And even in that letter, even though it's mentioned in other places as a contracting entity, it's not 00:47:19.828 --> 00:47:26.083 - in the governor or letter that was sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation back to NDOT and then 00:47:26.083 --> 00:47:32.277 - back to the city. And incidentally, back in those days, this is Frank McCluskey and Charlotte Zitlow, 00:47:32.277 --> 00:47:38.410 - they're the ones who were behind all this. And on behalf of the planning department, I talked to the 00:47:38.410 --> 00:47:42.782 - former county attorney in that timeframe on Wednesday, and he said that 00:47:43.362 --> 00:47:51.062 - The city of Bloomington planning department was much more robust than what we had at that point in time 00:47:51.062 --> 00:47:58.909 - in the county. So it was a logical place for it to be. That contracting entity has shifted to, I believe, 00:47:58.909 --> 00:48:06.535 - to the transportation and planning department of the city. And if you look at the websites, you'll see 00:48:06.535 --> 00:48:12.606 - that Pat has been identified as the MPO director embedded inside that department. 00:48:13.346 --> 00:48:21.110 - or division, and none of this stuff is explained anywhere, and I'm not aware that it was ever discussed 00:48:21.110 --> 00:48:28.651 - in this body. Now, some will make the argument that some of the other documents that are produced by 00:48:28.651 --> 00:48:36.116 - this body, such as the plan we're gonna talk about next, the references in that document is in fact 00:48:36.116 --> 00:48:42.238 - the codifying event establishing the agreement. And as I've said before, I've got 00:48:42.594 --> 00:48:48.439 - I've got eight years in the Pentagon and I've worked with the U.S. government interagency process. I've 00:48:48.439 --> 00:48:54.172 - been a member of a U.S. delegation in Geneva doing arms control. I'm very familiar with the processes 00:48:54.172 --> 00:48:59.848 - on how to get this stuff done. An agreement feeds into a plan. The plan is not the agreement. You've 00:48:59.848 --> 00:49:05.693 - got to start with a source first. That's why I asked the question at the last meeting, give us a source 00:49:05.693 --> 00:49:10.302 - so we can have this debate. This just needs to be redone. That's the bottom line. 00:49:10.946 --> 00:49:17.965 - I can't add anything else to the discussion of what I've already said. Thank you, Scott. Hi. Sorry, 00:49:17.965 --> 00:49:25.265 - I'd just like to clarify. Responsibility has not shifted to the Planning and Transportation Department. 00:49:25.265 --> 00:49:32.635 - The Plan Commission was named as the contracting agency in the 1982 letter to the governor, and it also, 00:49:32.635 --> 00:49:33.758 - the same letter 00:49:34.306 --> 00:49:41.957 - stated that the City of Bloomington Planning Department will be the lead local agency primarily responsible 00:49:41.957 --> 00:49:49.467 - for the conduct of the transportation studies that are done. Just wanted to clarify that. Point of order. 00:49:49.467 --> 00:49:56.764 - Go back to the letter and put it on the screen and read it. I hereby designate the City of Bloomington 00:49:56.764 --> 00:50:01.086 - Plan Commission as a planning agency for the urbanized area. 00:50:05.954 --> 00:50:14.998 - That's it. So would it be appropriate if maybe we said we suggest that the city of Bloomington legal 00:50:14.998 --> 00:50:24.132 - team and the Monroe County legal team get together to maybe update the agreement that's 40 years old. 00:50:24.132 --> 00:50:33.625 - I'm not sure what the next step is. I have a motion that I'd like to put on the table once the discussion 00:50:33.625 --> 00:50:35.326 - is complete. Okay. 00:50:36.386 --> 00:50:43.152 - So if the discussion is complete, I'll put a motion on the table. You're more than welcome to put a 00:50:43.152 --> 00:50:49.986 - motion on the table and that could be up for discussion. The motion would be the Office of the Mayor 00:50:49.986 --> 00:50:57.023 - and the Office of the County Commissioners will prepare a new intercooperative. I used intercooperative 00:50:57.023 --> 00:51:01.150 - because that's what was mentioned in the original documents. 00:51:01.794 --> 00:51:09.298 - with a new terminology of interlocal agreement for the MPO urbanized area of Bloomington Middle County. 00:51:09.298 --> 00:51:16.586 - Legal counsel from the city and county will lead the effort and provide administrative support. This 00:51:16.586 --> 00:51:23.802 - will include any required state federal notification requirements and be presented to the MPOPC for 00:51:23.802 --> 00:51:29.214 - approval. That would be the motion. We have a motion and we have a second. 00:51:29.826 --> 00:51:39.642 - And we will open this up for discussion. This seems like a thing that we would be asking the county 00:51:39.642 --> 00:51:50.048 - and city legal departments to do, not something that this body has the ability to require. We can approve 00:51:50.048 --> 00:51:57.214 - transportation projects, but not tell other people's lawyers what to do. 00:52:00.322 --> 00:52:07.816 - Copy. I similarly have a concern with how that motion is worded. Basically because of that, but that 00:52:07.816 --> 00:52:15.237 - motion also by default kind of says we want a new document at the end of it. And I don't think that 00:52:15.237 --> 00:52:23.102 - I know for sure that I want a new document at the end of it unless I have an attorney's interpretation of 00:52:23.458 --> 00:52:29.374 - the current documents, because if not very much has changed, I mean, you say these documents are 40 00:52:29.374 --> 00:52:35.527 - years old, but I think that there are a lot of documents that are 40 years old or even older than that. 00:52:35.527 --> 00:52:41.443 - And sometimes they need to be updated, and sometimes it's not necessary for them to be updated. And 00:52:41.443 --> 00:52:44.638 - I would like an attorney's recommendation about this. 00:52:44.738 --> 00:52:50.564 - And one thing that comes to mind just in terms of language actually has to do with the engineering 00:52:50.564 --> 00:52:56.567 - department. One of the things that I've looked at in the last couple of years with regard to language 00:52:56.567 --> 00:53:02.511 - has to do with how the state defines a traffic engineer and then how the city of Bloomington defines 00:53:02.511 --> 00:53:08.514 - a traffic. Who fulfills that state role and what title do they have here? And so I don't know at this 00:53:08.514 --> 00:53:14.046 - point, there's that concern about, well, what does the plan commission in this document mean? 00:53:14.242 --> 00:53:24.058 - Honestly, is it the same plan commission that we have? I don't know that it is, because I was not here 00:53:24.058 --> 00:53:34.160 - in the early 80s, not in Indiana, not paying attention to government at all. And so I would want a robust 00:53:34.160 --> 00:53:36.638 - legal opinion about this. 00:53:37.506 --> 00:53:46.730 - I would have an alternate motion about requesting a legal opinion as was mentioned by somebody else 00:53:46.730 --> 00:53:56.231 - earlier from county and city legal to look into these founding documents and their advice over whether 00:53:56.231 --> 00:54:06.654 - there should be an effort to update them. Doug. Thank you. Each of us here represents a body of decision makers. 00:54:07.458 --> 00:54:17.070 - This is a rather sweeping motion that puts a lot of onus on each one of us as individuals to speak for 00:54:17.070 --> 00:54:26.869 - our body. I don't feel comfortable doing that and would entertain that we table this motion for at least 00:54:26.869 --> 00:54:35.454 - one month while we can have the opportunity to bring it to our respective organizations for 00:54:36.002 --> 00:54:47.588 - their own discussions and perhaps recommendations on the path forward. Thank you. Julie? I do want to 00:54:47.588 --> 00:54:59.061 - thank Colonel Farris for his work on this. He's dug through some old documents. And I, as the one of 00:54:59.061 --> 00:55:02.014 - the county commissioners, 00:55:02.594 --> 00:55:11.354 - can state, and I don't know if the mayor's representative can do so, that I agree that this should happen. 00:55:11.354 --> 00:55:19.786 - This is something we've been talking about internally for a bit. And it really came to light when that 00:55:19.786 --> 00:55:28.054 - fund swapping thing happened last year, fund swapping 2025. And we didn't have a policy. We find out 00:55:28.054 --> 00:55:31.902 - about it after the fact. We're asked too late. 00:55:32.450 --> 00:55:42.991 - This, my understanding is this is the only MPO in the state of Indiana that operates out of a city's 00:55:42.991 --> 00:55:53.637 - planning department. And if it's not the only one, there's only a few. I know there's a metro version 00:55:53.637 --> 00:55:58.334 - that does that, but we are, I think it puts, 00:55:59.458 --> 00:56:07.033 - I think it puts staff in a terrible position and it's unfair to staff to have their boss is City of 00:56:07.033 --> 00:56:14.760 - Bloomington employees who are ostensibly, I believe this is true and Ms. Dostberg, you can correct me 00:56:14.760 --> 00:56:22.411 - if I'm wrong, that the plan commission hires and is in charge of the planning department. That's not 00:56:22.411 --> 00:56:27.486 - true. Okay. It is true in county. That's how we work it in county. 00:56:27.970 --> 00:56:36.184 - Our poor planning department has nine bosses. So that's not true. But either way, they are they are 00:56:36.184 --> 00:56:44.398 - answering to city employees. But yet this is supposed to be county and city and town of Ellitsville 00:56:44.398 --> 00:56:53.022 - and IU, everybody working together. Right. And that and it really puts the staff in a terrible position. 00:56:53.506 --> 00:57:03.294 - And I don't think that's fair to staff. I'm just going to say that, and the staff may disagree. But 00:57:03.294 --> 00:57:13.572 - my take on it is they really should be led by an executive committee of this body, as they do elsewhere, 00:57:13.572 --> 00:57:23.262 - that helps ensure that everything is being directed and managed as this policy committee sees fit. 00:57:23.394 --> 00:57:30.200 - So so that's so I'm glad to have this. I can tell you that the county is willing to engage 00:57:30.200 --> 00:57:37.829 - in that conversation. I don't know if we should also include Ellitsville, IU and others. I think that 00:57:37.829 --> 00:57:45.533 - should be part of that discussion. I will just I'm not even going to ask to amend the motion. I'm just 00:57:45.533 --> 00:57:52.190 - going to say we'll definitely keep that in mind because that's part of this MPO as well. 00:57:52.546 --> 00:58:00.845 - It's not just the county and the city. It is this group, right? It's all of us. So I really appreciate 00:58:00.845 --> 00:58:08.903 - it. And thank you again, Colonel Ferris, for bringing this to light in an organized manner. Andrew? 00:58:08.903 --> 00:58:17.282 - Yeah. I guess just first wanting to clarify a few things. Like I know I voted against this agenda item. 00:58:17.282 --> 00:58:21.150 - And in the current motion on the table, I would 00:58:21.314 --> 00:58:28.115 - likely vote against as well, but I also wanna make it clear that I very much appreciate this discussion 00:58:28.115 --> 00:58:34.655 - and appreciate the questions being asked. I appreciate the comments we just heard from Commissioner 00:58:34.655 --> 00:58:41.259 - Thomas. I think there's a lot to this and it's a discussion worth having. I also appreciate, I think 00:58:41.259 --> 00:58:47.930 - MPO staff in particular are in an awkward position, I would assume and expect, and I know they do the 00:58:47.930 --> 00:58:49.630 - best as possible, if any, 00:58:49.954 --> 00:58:57.598 - to try to be as fair and consistent as possible. So they are in a very tough position. So I just appreciate 00:58:57.598 --> 00:59:04.676 - this. I think going forward, I think, I don't know if it would be appropriate for the office of the 00:59:04.676 --> 00:59:11.754 - mayor to be a part of this. That's one of the reasons, but I think as a body, like it's fair for us 00:59:11.754 --> 00:59:14.302 - to ask of MPO staff specifically to 00:59:14.626 --> 00:59:20.796 - further engage, I'd be curious to frame, what are some of the fundamental questions we're wanting to 00:59:20.796 --> 00:59:27.088 - discover? This is old. That's fair. And are there particular parts of it that we have questions about? 00:59:27.088 --> 00:59:33.258 - One is maybe just the organizational structure. Where are staff housed? How are they funded? What do 00:59:33.258 --> 00:59:39.611 - other MPOs in the state look like? And how are they functioning? And how are they funded? I think those 00:59:39.611 --> 00:59:42.910 - might be good questions. And then maybe to ask staff, 00:59:43.010 --> 00:59:49.598 - along with our CAC and TAC to investigate this further and to keep us up to date, but maybe it's our 00:59:49.598 --> 00:59:56.577 - job to help frame, like, what are the key questions that we want to explore to help frame what a potential 00:59:56.577 --> 01:00:03.295 - new agreement would look like? Again, just some initial off the cuff thoughts, but do want to echo the 01:00:03.295 --> 01:00:06.622 - appreciation for the discussion. Happy? Thank you. 01:00:07.842 --> 01:00:13.986 - I appreciate those comments and they were so interesting that now I've lost track of what I was gonna 01:00:13.986 --> 01:00:20.189 - say to some degree. I guess I also wanna clarify that I'll vote no on this particular motion but would 01:00:20.189 --> 01:00:26.453 - hope for a different motion that starts getting legal to look into it but I also wanted to address some 01:00:26.453 --> 01:00:32.717 - of that staffing stuff that Commissioner Thomas brought up because those are good questions but I think 01:00:32.717 --> 01:00:37.054 - that it doesn't matter so much where staff is housed but it's what the, 01:00:37.474 --> 01:00:48.111 - org structure looks like within that. And it's also not fair, I think, and not appropriate to ask our 01:00:48.111 --> 01:00:50.718 - current staff to give us 01:00:50.882 --> 01:00:56.581 - this information because that puts them in an incredibly awkward position of us saying so is this thing 01:00:56.581 --> 01:01:02.279 - like working okay right now and then that's like in this really weird hot seat, but I think that that's 01:01:02.279 --> 01:01:08.033 - the kind of thing that you know we can consider best practices and then we can consider job descriptions 01:01:08.033 --> 01:01:10.334 - and literally things like like reporting. 01:01:10.530 --> 01:01:16.785 - disciplinary procedures, feedback and assessment procedures. And so it doesn't matter, you know, if 01:01:16.785 --> 01:01:23.352 - they have offices in the City of Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department, if what's happening 01:01:23.352 --> 01:01:29.607 - is they're in there as like co-equals, as opposed to reporting to somebody, getting permission from 01:01:29.607 --> 01:01:35.486 - somebody to do something, feeling like what they do is gonna be criticized by somebody who is 01:01:35.682 --> 01:01:41.879 - who should not structurally be their, their supervisor. And so, you know, and thinking about any kind 01:01:41.879 --> 01:01:48.015 - of new agreement that might happen is it doesn't matter so much to me where they're housed, but it's 01:01:48.015 --> 01:01:54.334 - how that reporting mechanism works and the structure of mechanism and honestly the hiring like, I mean, 01:01:54.818 --> 01:02:00.334 - how is our staff hired? I don't know that, I've only been here for a couple of years. And that's the 01:02:00.334 --> 01:02:06.232 - thing, Commissioner Thomas mentioned the other planning staff and plan commission. Plan commission approves 01:02:06.232 --> 01:02:11.747 - an appointment for the planning director for the city of Bloomington of the mayors. So it's like the 01:02:11.747 --> 01:02:17.591 - mayor comes forward with a recommendation and then plan commission approves it. But we have no involvement 01:02:17.591 --> 01:02:22.014 - with any other hires related to the planning department and it would be kind of, 01:02:22.466 --> 01:02:28.121 - it would be really, really bizarrely disruptful probably for the plan commission after the mayor has 01:02:28.121 --> 01:02:33.776 - gone through a whole appointment process to then say, no, like, what do we do then? Because the plan 01:02:33.776 --> 01:02:39.543 - commission itself is not really in a place to vet a director role. So we had to do that last year with 01:02:39.543 --> 01:02:45.255 - Director Hiddle and it was really awkward because I was like, what happens if we say no to this? This 01:02:45.255 --> 01:02:49.790 - feels like a question that shouldn't be a question. And that I think is the only 01:02:50.146 --> 01:02:56.973 - There are very few directors, I think, within the org structure that are appointed by the mayor that 01:02:56.973 --> 01:03:03.733 - also then have to be approved by some other body. I don't want to say that that's the only one, but 01:03:03.733 --> 01:03:10.965 - there are very few of them. So that, I think, matters to me more than where somebody is physically housed. 01:03:10.965 --> 01:03:17.725 - Thanks. Scott? So thinking outside the box a little bit, this is a very complicated- Can you please 01:03:17.725 --> 01:03:19.550 - speak into the microphone? 01:03:21.250 --> 01:03:27.157 - I can say the same thing for you folks down there as well. I will do my best. I've heard this several 01:03:27.157 --> 01:03:33.121 - times now. Thank you. Okay. Thinking outside the box here and based upon comments that I've heard, I'm 01:03:33.121 --> 01:03:38.912 - not changing my motion at this point, but this would be something to think about because this is so 01:03:38.912 --> 01:03:44.877 - complicated and it has so many moving parts. And obviously people have different opinions on it. Maybe 01:03:44.877 --> 01:03:48.062 - we call a special session of this body with one topic. 01:03:49.282 --> 01:03:56.572 - and we have legal counsel from the city and we have legal counsel from the county and they can come 01:03:56.572 --> 01:04:03.861 - in and they can talk to us based upon their assessment of this stack right here of source documents 01:04:03.861 --> 01:04:11.443 - and what their assessment is. That could start off the discussion and then we can go into some of these 01:04:11.443 --> 01:04:17.566 - other things we're talking about now. A special session, this body, one topic only, 01:04:18.146 --> 01:04:26.088 - and leave enough time for us to have a well thought out, collegial give and take on what might be the 01:04:26.088 --> 01:04:33.875 - best approach as we move forward. To me, that seems rational. If people are agreeable with that and 01:04:33.875 --> 01:04:41.818 - it's possible we can actually call a special session, then I would change my motion and that would be 01:04:41.818 --> 01:04:46.334 - the motion. Hi, can I ask something? Can I ask something? 01:04:47.586 --> 01:04:57.322 - So just as an example, the Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County is an MPO. They are an independent 01:04:57.322 --> 01:05:06.964 - entity. I don't know exactly how that works legally. However, they are housed in their county, and the 01:05:06.964 --> 01:05:16.606 - county pays the full 20% local share match for them. However, they serve Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, 01:05:16.738 --> 01:05:28.560 - Carroll County, Delphi, Camden, and Flora. So I guess my question as staff is, what is the concern with 01:05:28.560 --> 01:05:40.837 - the current way that things are organized? Because there is a difference between how something is organized 01:05:40.837 --> 01:05:44.702 - and how staff perform on the job. 01:05:45.410 --> 01:05:54.677 - just because staff happen to be housed within the city does not mean that those staff are biased towards 01:05:54.677 --> 01:06:03.591 - the city in any manner. And so I'd like to know, I guess I'd like to know more information about why 01:06:03.591 --> 01:06:08.798 - this is a topic of concern when the real concerns are kind 01:06:09.474 --> 01:06:20.033 - looking at policies and procedures with how we do things in the MPO and trying to make those as collaborative 01:06:20.033 --> 01:06:29.823 - and transparent as possible, we have some processes that we want to redo and we need to work on those 01:06:29.823 --> 01:06:37.694 - before the next tip is done. And I feel that a discussion about our current setup 01:06:38.978 --> 01:06:46.798 - which makes sense because the city of Bloomington pays that full 20% local share. And so, you know, 01:06:46.798 --> 01:06:54.696 - they're providing the equipment, they're providing the HR, administrative support. So, I don't know, 01:06:54.696 --> 01:07:02.985 - I guess I'm curious about what the real intention is behind this and behind this request and what purpose 01:07:02.985 --> 01:07:04.158 - will it serve? 01:07:04.354 --> 01:07:12.349 - What benefits will it bring about? What positive changes will occur that can't already occur in its 01:07:12.349 --> 01:07:20.503 - current setup? I absolutely welcome discussion for change. I am a huge proponent of change. I go into 01:07:20.503 --> 01:07:29.057 - a job and I change. I do everything I can to make things better and change them. I'm not afraid of change, 01:07:29.057 --> 01:07:34.174 - but I don't see that any of the current needs will be served by 01:07:34.658 --> 01:07:42.627 - redoing this organization, at least at this time. Now, if it's something you want to do this spring 01:07:42.627 --> 01:07:50.676 - before the approval of the UPWP, that will delay our funding. We just won't get federal funding next 01:07:50.676 --> 01:07:58.646 - year. It'll probably take months to redo this arrangement and get it approved through the state and 01:07:58.646 --> 01:08:00.638 - through federal highway. 01:08:01.570 --> 01:08:11.569 - So if you want to have this conversation, by all means have it, but you will probably, I mean it's probably 01:08:11.569 --> 01:08:21.476 - in everybody's best interest to agree to do it over the course of the next year and not delay the approval 01:08:21.476 --> 01:08:31.198 - of the UPWP for fiscal year 27 because then we just won't get any federal funds. Did you have a comment? 01:08:31.394 --> 01:08:39.979 - point I mean every MPO is set up as with a host body, an entity that just takes care of to her point, 01:08:39.979 --> 01:08:47.806 - the staff the HR the benefits the payroll so those are all covered by the city's department. 01:08:48.066 --> 01:08:56.089 - guess unless the county has the ability to shoulder all that financial and human capital, that it seems 01:08:56.089 --> 01:09:04.420 - like we're recreating a process that's already in place and working to a fine degree. So yeah, the question 01:09:04.420 --> 01:09:12.135 - would be is like, what is the necessity to move all of the people and resources and funding sources 01:09:12.135 --> 01:09:14.526 - that just simply takes care of 01:09:14.658 --> 01:09:20.769 - presenting these meetings and organizing the meetings because everything else is then delegated down 01:09:20.769 --> 01:09:27.183 - to the interlocal agreements between all the different bodies of people sitting up here. And then they're 01:09:27.183 --> 01:09:33.657 - really just handling, running all of this and providing us with all the materials and space and everything 01:09:33.657 --> 01:09:38.558 - else. And I'm not asking for an answer at this point. That's just something that 01:09:39.010 --> 01:09:49.573 - you know, to consider in the future and also to try and move us forward into the voting of the UPWP 01:09:49.573 --> 01:10:00.242 - for fiscal year 27. Thank you. Julie? As I noted, there's a lack of transparency around supervision, 01:10:00.242 --> 01:10:08.798 - funding, budgets, decision making, how decisions are made. And it's included in, 01:10:10.018 --> 01:10:17.957 - the work plan as just sort of this throwaway sentence. And I think the public deserves to know. 01:10:17.957 --> 01:10:26.476 - Could you, Claire? And I'm not asking staff to respond to me. Please don't. In fact, I will say please 01:10:26.476 --> 01:10:34.911 - don't. I'm just offering my commentary for this board. I don't want to have the debate right now, but 01:10:34.911 --> 01:10:38.302 - I think we need to have that discussion. 01:10:39.106 --> 01:10:46.631 - One of my questions for the next item is when we have to have that work plan approved. That's a question. 01:10:46.631 --> 01:10:54.014 - This is not about just shifting it to the county. There are entities where it is an independent office. 01:10:54.014 --> 01:11:01.112 - The city and the county and the other entities all chip in and pay for it and cover the staff costs 01:11:01.112 --> 01:11:04.094 - that are not covered through NPO funding. 01:11:04.226 --> 01:11:09.911 - There are other ways to do it. I'm not trying to ship this to the county, but certainly what I think 01:11:09.911 --> 01:11:15.765 - we do want to do is answer those questions that have been posed by staff, but answer the questions that 01:11:15.765 --> 01:11:21.451 - have been posed here, and just get more information. And we don't have that information, and I don't 01:11:21.451 --> 01:11:27.474 - want to sit up here and guess at that information. I think I don't want to ask staff for that information. 01:11:27.474 --> 01:11:32.990 - I want to ask attorneys for that information. I want to ask a city attorney and a county attorney 01:11:33.474 --> 01:11:41.073 - What is this? And so I appreciate Mr. Ferris's amendment. And if it hasn't been seconded, I will second 01:11:41.073 --> 01:11:48.891 - it. But I don't know. Anyway. So do I need to change my amendment to have a special session with attorneys 01:11:48.891 --> 01:11:56.416 - or counsel present providing their assessments so we as a body for one agenda item can talk about this 01:11:56.416 --> 01:12:02.846 - in detail? And all these things we're talking about here can be discussed and hopefully 01:12:03.394 --> 01:12:09.035 - out of that discussion, we can have a way ahead and we can do this in a timely manner. I appreciate 01:12:09.035 --> 01:12:14.676 - what Katie is saying about funding and the timeline. You've got a hard date, but this needs to take 01:12:14.676 --> 01:12:20.317 - place. So I would argue within the next couple of weeks if you can facilitate a special meeting and 01:12:20.317 --> 01:12:26.296 - the city can take and put the city attorney and the county can take and put the county attorney on notice 01:12:26.296 --> 01:12:31.486 - that they need to take and do this analysis and report back to us and we'll use that as the 01:12:31.874 --> 01:12:39.018 - beginning topic on the discussion. Real or perceived, there is an element of miscommunication here. 01:12:39.018 --> 01:12:46.519 - I've seen it, I've been participating either as a citizen or other with respect to this body since 2018. 01:12:46.519 --> 01:12:53.662 - There's a transparency issue right now. So I will change my motion if the person who did the second 01:12:53.662 --> 01:12:56.734 - would also allow me to change that motion. 01:12:57.378 --> 01:13:05.397 - Okay, and this motion would be exactly what I just said, that we convene a special session of the MPOPC, 01:13:05.397 --> 01:13:13.034 - hopefully within the next couple of weeks, to address whether or not we need to move forward with a 01:13:13.034 --> 01:13:16.318 - new agreement, however we want to call it. 01:13:16.834 --> 01:13:22.235 - that would lay out the roles and responsibilities of this body, the MPO staff, how we all work together, 01:13:22.235 --> 01:13:27.431 - how we take and communicate with one another, and how we have more transparency on the products that 01:13:27.431 --> 01:13:32.935 - are presented to us and have an ability to take and review them in a manner in which we can ask questions. 01:13:32.935 --> 01:13:38.181 - Some of the stuff we see for the first time, you didn't have a chance to absorb what in fact it means 01:13:38.181 --> 01:13:43.583 - without digging into two or three layers. I personally have time to do that because I'm retired. I can't 01:13:43.583 --> 01:13:46.206 - imagine some of the folks here who have other jobs 01:13:46.434 --> 01:13:54.435 - having the time to do that. So that would be my motion absent the last part, which was more of a comment. 01:13:54.435 --> 01:14:02.284 - Yeah. And I will second that and I will add the qualifier that maybe we also want to move the next item 01:14:02.284 --> 01:14:09.304 - to that meeting as well. But I leave that for the board to decide later. Planning that seed. 01:14:09.304 --> 01:14:15.870 - First of all, I want to say there's 13 minutes left in this meeting and I have a noon. 01:14:16.258 --> 01:14:21.593 - So I would like to get along with the work program meeting. I'm not opposed to a special session. I 01:14:21.593 --> 01:14:26.980 - don't know if we need to have a vote for it. But when I asked last month when this plan needed to be 01:14:26.980 --> 01:14:32.422 - approved, the answer was at this meeting today. So we need to get this moving today so that we can be 01:14:32.422 --> 01:14:37.810 - assured that it gets through all of the state processes that it has to get through before it gets to 01:14:37.810 --> 01:14:43.251 - the federal processes that it has to go through so that we actually get the money. And if we don't do 01:14:43.251 --> 01:14:45.438 - that today, then we won't get the money. 01:14:45.666 --> 01:14:51.478 - Mr. Ferris made a motion Commissioner Thomas seconded it but then added an addendum on to it saying 01:14:51.478 --> 01:14:57.289 - pushing this next thing off to that and I want to make sure that that's not part of the motion. No, 01:14:57.289 --> 01:15:03.392 - I just made my comment that that's and then secondly, do we even have to have a motion to have a special 01:15:03.392 --> 01:15:07.518 - session? How do meetings of the MPO get scheduled? Are there ever like 01:15:07.714 --> 01:15:14.753 - other meetings of the MPOs. I mean if this was council right now, it would just be like we're having 01:15:14.753 --> 01:15:21.792 - another meeting and we'll figure it out and we all as a body know what we want to talk about in that 01:15:21.792 --> 01:15:28.900 - meeting. I think it's important. I would like to hear that from staff in terms of procedural. Special 01:15:28.900 --> 01:15:35.869 - session period. So but but we like approved the meetings at the beginning so. I mean you can make a 01:15:35.869 --> 01:15:37.054 - motion to. Okay. 01:15:37.922 --> 01:15:45.141 - Okay. But you'll have to tell us what the agenda is. Right. And the date, who is responsible for figuring 01:15:45.141 --> 01:15:52.225 - out what date that special session needs to go on? Well, we'll have to poll everybody because everybody 01:15:52.225 --> 01:15:59.035 - else has other responsibilities. Okay. I mean, is it appropriate to ask legal staff to elevate this 01:15:59.035 --> 01:16:00.670 - on their priority list? 01:16:04.002 --> 01:16:09.466 - I don't know who wants to answer that. I mean, having worked with city legal staff, they do not, they 01:16:09.466 --> 01:16:15.036 - deal with many things that are all important. And so asking them to elevate something is, I mean, maybe 01:16:15.036 --> 01:16:20.821 - they can get it done and maybe they can't. I mean, I understand Mr. Ferris wants to do this rather quickly, 01:16:20.821 --> 01:16:26.285 - but I don't think that we can do this rather quickly. We're a whole body. There's a ton of us up here 01:16:26.285 --> 01:16:31.802 - and there are people missing that have to somehow schedule something extra in the next couple of weeks 01:16:31.802 --> 01:16:32.766 - with legal staff. 01:16:32.866 --> 01:16:40.221 - From two different at least two different entities like we cannot do that in the next couple of weeks, 01:16:40.221 --> 01:16:47.434 - so I guess I guess I would argue to not have a special session at all and to. put this to to another 01:16:47.434 --> 01:16:54.718 - regular session to continue the meeting and ask. City legal county legal etc to come to that meeting. 01:16:54.818 --> 01:17:00.592 - if it's possible for them and consult with them about which meeting that they can come to, because we 01:17:00.592 --> 01:17:06.480 - can't make decisions up here for that. Mr. Seaborg can't make decisions about city legal, even if Mayor 01:17:06.480 --> 01:17:12.141 - Thompson was sitting in that seat, she wouldn't be able to either in terms of those priority lists. 01:17:12.141 --> 01:17:17.859 - I'd also like to point out that there's a difference between a discussion on the legal establishment 01:17:17.859 --> 01:17:24.030 - of the MPO versus the transparency of information and processes, which MPO staff continue to try and improve 01:17:24.194 --> 01:17:37.166 - as we go, but the reorganization of the MPO designation is not going to magically change transparency 01:17:37.166 --> 01:17:44.542 - issues that you may be referencing. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. 01:17:44.738 --> 01:17:52.404 - only have about eight minutes left. I think this is a strong topic for everybody. I think that's obvious. 01:17:52.404 --> 01:17:59.853 - I think there are people that are not here that deserve to have a view in this and a decision in this. 01:17:59.853 --> 01:18:07.230 - I do think it's a topic that should not be tabled indefinite. I think that a special session would be 01:18:07.230 --> 01:18:14.462 - very hard. Everybody's schedules, you have spring break coming up. Legal departments are very busy. 01:18:14.690 --> 01:18:21.663 - urge that we this is a remaining topic on this agenda for this board to discuss. There's different areas 01:18:21.663 --> 01:18:28.571 - that I think there could be improvement on this and and I can't speak for the county I'm not the fiscal 01:18:28.571 --> 01:18:35.411 - body or anything but you know I granted I know it's housed at the City of Bloomington I know it's paid 01:18:35.411 --> 01:18:37.470 - for by the City of Bloomington 01:18:37.666 --> 01:18:45.401 - That was established 40 years ago, doesn't mean that the county can't stand up and contribute to those 01:18:45.401 --> 01:18:53.136 - costs to make it a more unified group. I do know when, you know, this did come about when they did the 01:18:53.136 --> 01:19:00.720 - trade last year and there was a lot of different views, different opinions about the process. When I 01:19:00.720 --> 01:19:06.878 - was called in to discuss the process, it was me as county with four or five city. 01:19:07.586 --> 01:19:14.472 - And NPO staff, did I feel like it was a little one-sided? Absolutely, I had no other representation 01:19:14.472 --> 01:19:21.633 - there. I just, you know, I wanted to be a unified group. Did I feel like it was unified in that meeting 01:19:21.633 --> 01:19:28.587 - and with David Hiddle? I didn't, because, you know, how was he involved? Where was my outside county 01:19:28.587 --> 01:19:35.749 - representation? Because none of this board was involved, except for myself. Andrew was there, NPO staff 01:19:35.749 --> 01:19:37.470 - and planning department. 01:19:37.922 --> 01:19:46.413 - That's the kind of stuff that would be great to iron out of what the process is and who's involved and 01:19:46.413 --> 01:19:54.903 - who makes these decisions in transparency. So moving on, we have a motion on the table. I believe it's 01:19:54.903 --> 01:20:03.806 - for a special session, but I think that's going to be impossible in the next few weeks. So if the motion... 01:20:04.642 --> 01:20:13.675 - If I can amend the motion to state that this would be a discussion at the next regular meeting in March 01:20:13.675 --> 01:20:22.361 - and we all can do our research, get with our legal teams, give Ellitsville, IU, transit opportunity 01:20:22.361 --> 01:20:29.918 - also, that would be my motion that this would be a continued item on the next meeting. 01:20:30.754 --> 01:20:35.958 - So that sounds like a competing motion with what's on the table. So I would request that we just vote 01:20:35.958 --> 01:20:41.110 - on the motion on the table for whether to have a special session. And I mean, there's often, I mean, 01:20:41.110 --> 01:20:46.365 - we have a new business and an old business section here. And I would say that this automatically would 01:20:46.365 --> 01:20:51.772 - end up going to old business if we don't settle it. So in my opinion, and if staff agrees with continuing 01:20:51.772 --> 01:20:56.874 - it on the agenda, I think we can just vote on the special session. And if the no wins, then it just 01:20:56.874 --> 01:21:00.190 - remains on the agenda for next month. Is that accurate to staff? 01:21:00.514 --> 01:21:10.515 - I was also going to say a working group is another tool that could be used for something outside. Do 01:21:10.515 --> 01:21:20.714 - you want a roll call vote? This is to have a second. Who was the second? I think Julie was the second. 01:21:20.714 --> 01:21:23.486 - Sorry, Commissioner Thomas. 01:21:28.642 --> 01:21:38.444 - This is a roll call vote on the motion for a special session. Right. Correct. Okay. It's not a special 01:21:38.444 --> 01:21:48.151 - session. I thought Lisa's amendment said... They withdrew that kind of session. So what are we voting 01:21:48.151 --> 01:21:58.334 - on? To have a special session meeting on this topic. Okay. That is not part of the regular monthly. Right. 01:21:59.202 --> 01:22:28.766 - Thank you. Stossberg. No. Bishop. No. Ridge. No. Seaborg. No. Horne. No. Ferris. 01:22:33.026 --> 01:22:49.718 - Yes. Packer. No. Nickel. No. Banach. No. Thomas. Yes. No. Motion does not pass. So it becomes old business 01:22:49.718 --> 01:23:01.886 - on the next agenda, correct? I just want to make sure we all understand that. 01:23:02.306 --> 01:23:12.571 - So there's no question next month. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to item B, unified working or unified 01:23:12.571 --> 01:23:22.542 - planning work program. Lisa, forgive me. I don't know the rule of order on this, but if this is going 01:23:22.542 --> 01:23:30.558 - to be on old business next time, is it possible that some type of summary of this 01:23:31.522 --> 01:23:40.727 - interaction today could be brought forth rather quickly so that the various entities and representatives 01:23:40.727 --> 01:23:49.670 - here can take them to their bodies and get direction and have discussion so that next month's meeting 01:23:49.670 --> 01:23:59.138 - has some substance to it. Staff would have to go through an hour and a half discussion to try and summarize 01:23:59.138 --> 01:24:00.190 - the points. 01:24:00.866 --> 01:24:07.488 - And then I'm not sure what we summarize would be agreed to. So we'll make our best effort to do that. 01:24:07.488 --> 01:24:14.176 - Yes. I will say that Mr. Ferris has compiled a series of questions that connect back to these founding 01:24:14.176 --> 01:24:20.798 - documents and it includes the founding documents. And I'm sure that if you would like him to, he will 01:24:20.798 --> 01:24:27.615 - send that to you. He's already sent it to staff, but I'm sure he could send that to you, Mr. Horn. Okay. 01:24:27.615 --> 01:24:29.758 - Well, I hope it would be helpful 01:24:29.922 --> 01:24:38.132 - people just beyond me or public transit to have. So those comments you're referring to are actually 01:24:38.132 --> 01:24:46.342 - attached to this package. So I would really like to move on to the work program right now because I 01:24:46.342 --> 01:24:54.798 - literally have another meeting upstairs in two minutes. I don't need. So the answer to my question is. 01:24:54.798 --> 01:24:57.918 - More kind of summary. Thank you. Hey. 01:25:01.122 --> 01:25:08.514 - Yeah, I will. Page 21 of your packet, page 21, 22, 23, 24, identify the review comments by our funding 01:25:08.514 --> 01:25:15.189 - agencies, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Indiana Department 01:25:15.189 --> 01:25:22.366 - of Transportation. Those comments were minor in that they want us to clarify, well, they want us to 01:25:22.366 --> 01:25:29.758 - erase the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, repeal the executive orders, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 01:25:30.210 --> 01:25:38.635 - The work program itself is a balanced document. $396,000 is what it comes to with the federal and local 01:25:38.635 --> 01:25:46.897 - match. Federal funds are approximately $298,000. The tasks were reordered based on where we spend our 01:25:46.897 --> 01:25:54.998 - time and where we've spent our time in the last two years is answering questions, answering emails, 01:25:54.998 --> 01:25:58.238 - holding meetings. The document fulfills 01:25:58.754 --> 01:26:05.916 - The Indiana Department of Transportation told us the document fulfills all the requirements, all the 01:26:05.916 --> 01:26:13.007 - federal aid requirements under 23 CFR, part port 450, which governs the operation of the MPO. So if 01:26:13.007 --> 01:26:20.169 - there's any question about are we legitimate, the answer is yes. And we have been for something like 01:26:20.169 --> 01:26:27.614 - 40 some odd years. The only, well, there's a lot of nuance in here. The individual tasks are identified. 01:26:27.714 --> 01:26:35.552 - We have 11 funding tables in here which identify where the level of order is going to be in terms of 01:26:35.552 --> 01:26:43.623 - our emphasis. The individual responsible agency and end products are all identified thoroughly in every 01:26:43.623 --> 01:26:51.694 - one of the elements. We also identify whether this is an ongoing or whether it's a special item of some 01:26:51.694 --> 01:26:56.350 - type or another. We've reduced the budget in the long range 01:26:57.090 --> 01:27:04.156 - long-range area of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan because that was approved in January of last 01:27:04.156 --> 01:27:11.503 - year. Therefore, we won't have to approve a new one for another four years. We've beefed up the emphasis 01:27:11.503 --> 01:27:18.569 - is on, like I said, administration, public involvement. The second emphasis is on the Transportation 01:27:18.569 --> 01:27:24.446 - Improvement Work Program because those are the capital projects we deliver for you. 01:27:24.994 --> 01:27:32.614 - And the third emphasis is on active transportation, safe streets for all, the SS4A element. And then 01:27:32.614 --> 01:27:40.310 - we go down from there. I'll be happy to answer any questions you've got in that all of the tables are 01:27:40.310 --> 01:27:48.006 - all there. The tables were all modified from the draft to show a carryover column. This was requested 01:27:48.006 --> 01:27:53.438 - by the Department of Transportation. All of the tables are exactly what 01:27:54.562 --> 01:28:03.360 - Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit, NDOT is requested, and they fulfill 23 CFR Part 450. 01:28:03.360 --> 01:28:12.158 - Carryover columns all say zero, but we were told to add them anyway. Any questions anybody have? Yes. 01:28:12.158 --> 01:28:21.302 - And what is the hard date deadline for this plan? Today. What is NDOT or Federal Highway's date deadline? 01:28:21.302 --> 01:28:24.062 - Normally we would adopt this in 01:28:24.546 --> 01:28:31.718 - April, in April, but the problem is it's been accelerated because of threats to funding. The threats 01:28:31.718 --> 01:28:39.033 - to funding are on the national level in that programs have not been funded, programs, managed programs 01:28:39.033 --> 01:28:46.276 - are grossly under, I shouldn't say grossly, they're understaffed. Federal Highway Administration now, 01:28:46.276 --> 01:28:53.662 - where they had six planners, they now have one. Federal Transit Administration, where they had multiple 01:28:54.178 --> 01:29:02.746 - Planners for each individual state, they now have one. The process, they've asked us, they call it a 01:29:02.746 --> 01:29:11.907 - threat, is what the Department of Transportation called it. So they've asked every MPO to vastly accelerate 01:29:11.907 --> 01:29:20.475 - the approval, I'm sorry, the review and adoption by the policy committee. They've asked us to do all 01:29:20.475 --> 01:29:23.614 - of that. We've met that requirement. 01:29:24.130 --> 01:29:31.861 - Anything postponed beyond this point puts your transportation improvement programs possibly under threat 01:29:31.861 --> 01:29:39.445 - in that we would not receive a Notice of Proceed by July 1st. We don't receive a Notice of Proceed for 01:29:39.445 --> 01:29:47.176 - planning, which is a federal requirement. If we don't receive it by January 1st, then all transportation 01:29:47.176 --> 01:29:53.950 - improvement projects with federal aid would stop, period. That's the same part right there. 01:29:54.114 --> 01:30:01.130 - the timeline I was wanting to hear. And I do know that the month of May is very hard for federal aid 01:30:01.130 --> 01:30:08.147 - projects. The closer you get to May 1st, because they don't do a lot, they don't approve a lot, they 01:30:08.147 --> 01:30:15.302 - don't move money around. May 1st is the lockdown. Yeah, I understand the urgency of the timing to save 01:30:15.302 --> 01:30:22.110 - the projects in the tip. And I can't emphasize enough, it meets the requirements of 23 CFR report 01:30:22.242 --> 01:30:29.878 - Part 450, I mean, it meets all the federal requirements and they're very happy with us because we're 01:30:29.878 --> 01:30:37.589 - number one so far, so far. Okay, thank you. Any questions on the plan? Scott? I apologize for my next 01:30:37.589 --> 01:30:45.225 - comments before I make them because I understand the time. I have serious questions of the MPO staff 01:30:45.225 --> 01:30:50.366 - following the last meeting. It was the week after the last meeting. 01:30:50.626 --> 01:30:57.884 - I did not receive a response from those questions until after close of business last Friday, Saturday 01:30:57.884 --> 01:31:05.427 - was the cutoff date for comments. I was not allowed to talk to my colleagues with respect to the feedback 01:31:05.427 --> 01:31:12.543 - that I received by MBO staff. I did make an inquiry on beginning of this week wanting to know if my 01:31:12.543 --> 01:31:16.670 - comments would be included. I was told they would not be. 01:31:17.954 --> 01:31:24.596 - This list that I see in front of us to which we're talking about is great. It talks about the feds, 01:31:24.596 --> 01:31:31.436 - it talks about the state, but it doesn't talk about my comments. And I am disturbed over the fact that 01:31:31.436 --> 01:31:38.476 - the MPO staff made a unilateral decision not to take and list them so we could at least have a discussion 01:31:38.476 --> 01:31:45.118 - about them. What they have done is attach them to this package in the back of it as public comment. 01:31:45.986 --> 01:31:53.169 - but not discussing what in fact I was asking questions about in some of the comments I made. 01:31:53.169 --> 01:32:00.970 - The clarification, the first email that we received, I noted that the 30-day comment period was open 01:32:00.970 --> 01:32:08.694 - until February 21st. Therefore, the assumption was that you could place those comments, place those 01:32:08.694 --> 01:32:15.646 - initial comments in the public record for a legal notice if you so wish, if you so chose. 01:32:16.130 --> 01:32:24.567 - That didn't happen. Therefore, we received your communication on January 25th. That was after the deadline. 01:32:24.567 --> 01:32:32.379 - Nonetheless, we posted it in the document. It's on page 65, 63, 64. I'm sorry, 62, 3, 4, and 5. All 01:32:32.379 --> 01:32:40.192 - of those were entered in there, which sets a precedent in that we entered something in there beyond 01:32:40.192 --> 01:32:44.254 - the legal period. So all of your comments that were 01:32:44.514 --> 01:32:52.922 - that were said on that date of January 25th are all included there. And we also provided responses to 01:32:52.922 --> 01:33:01.576 - those comments that were made. And to be repetitively redundant, my favorite phrase. None of this stuff. 01:33:01.576 --> 01:33:10.231 - You provided feedback to me close to business last Friday prior to this deadline for providing comments, 01:33:10.231 --> 01:33:11.550 - not allowing me 01:33:12.322 --> 01:33:18.222 - in the wee hours of Friday evening to actually go through your comments and respond with additional 01:33:18.222 --> 01:33:24.239 - comments will be worthy of a public comment on Saturday by close of business, which is a weekend. And 01:33:24.239 --> 01:33:30.434 - we're splitting, but getting beyond that, we're absolutely splitting hairs. My comments are still valid. 01:33:30.434 --> 01:33:36.569 - They deal with what we talked about previously with the agreement. And more importantly, the other part 01:33:36.569 --> 01:33:42.174 - that I'm concerned about is a quote, deliberate, underlying, bold print budget review process. 01:33:42.722 --> 01:33:50.151 - which there is not much transparency on, which needs to be explained. Would you like us to add everything 01:33:50.151 --> 01:33:57.439 - from February 23rd up until February 20, I'm sorry, from February 3rd to February 25th? We can add that 01:33:57.439 --> 01:34:04.657 - into the document. We can add in anything you wish. We wanted you to wish, we wanted everybody to have 01:34:04.657 --> 01:34:08.862 - the opportunity to comment within the legal comment period. 01:34:09.826 --> 01:34:15.828 - I was asking for changes inside the work plan itself, which would explain these things. I wasn't going 01:34:15.828 --> 01:34:21.656 - to write that paragraph for you. I was asking the NPO staff to write that paragraph and then put it 01:34:21.656 --> 01:34:27.483 - in front of us so we could nod our head. When I go to the portion of the work plan that talks about 01:34:27.483 --> 01:34:33.369 - the organization and how all this fits together, it doesn't really take and explain the transparency 01:34:33.369 --> 01:34:34.942 - on how this process works. 01:34:35.298 --> 01:34:40.856 - What I have seen since I've observed this body going back to 2018 is that products are presented to 01:34:40.856 --> 01:34:46.580 - us and there's no discussion. As a matter of fact, when you ask the question about the public comment, 01:34:46.580 --> 01:34:52.360 - the response has been there is no public comment. That demonstrates to me that people really don't even 01:34:52.360 --> 01:34:58.085 - understand what we're talking about. Roles and responsibilities are important and the agreement should 01:34:58.085 --> 01:35:03.198 - talk about that and more importantly, the work plan should take and make reference to that. 01:35:03.426 --> 01:35:09.771 - The org chart that you have in here is very rudimentary if you take a look at it on who reports to and 01:35:09.771 --> 01:35:16.115 - how it works. It's in the bylaws or it's in the work plan itself. So I respectfully disagree with what 01:35:16.115 --> 01:35:22.521 - you just said and it's just a matter of record at this point. I am disturbed over the fact that we have 01:35:22.521 --> 01:35:28.804 - a laundry list of Fed and state comments but we don't have anything in there addressing comments that 01:35:28.804 --> 01:35:32.254 - I raised. I am a member of this body and whether or not 01:35:32.418 --> 01:35:38.333 - I missed a timeline and I just explained how that happened. The comments still should have been addressed 01:35:38.333 --> 01:35:44.024 - and where I said a change needs to be made or included in the document, that should have been on this 01:35:44.024 --> 01:35:49.883 - sheet here and we could have had a discussion about that and not you, but this body would decide whether 01:35:49.883 --> 01:35:55.686 - there's something that's relevant to be included in the plan. And I apologize for talking so long about 01:35:55.686 --> 01:36:01.489 - this when people wanna leave, but this is important. It's missing from the document. I will not support 01:36:01.489 --> 01:36:02.270 - this document 01:36:02.594 --> 01:36:10.289 - Could you clarify? Let me finish. Wait a second. It's my time. Regardless of the time on the clock here 01:36:10.289 --> 01:36:18.133 - or the time that we have with respect to get this in to receive funding, it's an incomplete, not properly 01:36:18.133 --> 01:36:25.606 - staffed document at this point. I will vote no when it comes to a vote. I end my conversation now. I 01:36:25.606 --> 01:36:28.862 - just want to say that it is in your opinion 01:36:28.994 --> 01:36:35.497 - all of those things that you just said about this document being incomplete and not proper and not accurate. 01:36:35.497 --> 01:36:41.522 - And those other comments that you put in here as suggestions, they are of your opinion. Just because 01:36:41.522 --> 01:36:48.084 - you suggest something that's your opinion, that does not mean MPO staff, any one of us can suggest something. 01:36:48.084 --> 01:36:54.169 - And in my mind, that does not mean that MPO staff has to do exactly what any one of us said wanted to 01:36:54.169 --> 01:36:58.942 - be done. I don't disagree that, yeah, maybe we should all have talked about it. 01:36:59.042 --> 01:37:06.212 - Right, maybe maybe those things should be brought up, but I also think that it's unreasonably timed 01:37:06.212 --> 01:37:13.525 - to ask them to do that, even in preparation for this meeting, like, and similarly, similarly, there's 01:37:13.525 --> 01:37:15.102 - been another extended 01:37:15.714 --> 01:37:21.794 - topic of conversation that we also had to discuss that was brought up by you tonight. And yes, and I 01:37:21.794 --> 01:37:27.995 - know that like I need to leave right now because there is another topic of conversation happening that 01:37:27.995 --> 01:37:34.135 - I also needed to have input on right now. So yeah, I'm getting a little bit heated about that because 01:37:34.135 --> 01:37:40.275 - there are pieces of this that our staff have been working on for an extended period of time. And what 01:37:40.275 --> 01:37:44.670 - I have seen so far today is a good deal of disrespect for our MPO staff. 01:37:46.466 --> 01:37:55.928 - And that has gotten me a little bit steamed this week because I am a little bit tired of seeing people 01:37:55.928 --> 01:38:05.389 - sitting up here in these positions disrespecting staff. So I would like to approve this, move this on. 01:38:05.389 --> 01:38:14.576 - I'm honestly, I don't like that there's this appendix in here from you because this is a stack full 01:38:14.576 --> 01:38:15.678 - of opinions 01:38:16.226 --> 01:38:25.250 - that may or may not have any actual validity to the legal elements of the document that they are required 01:38:25.250 --> 01:38:34.614 - to meet per INDOT. And those requirements per INDOT are ridiculously complex. I don't know those requirements 01:38:34.614 --> 01:38:35.550 - per INDOT. 01:38:35.746 --> 01:38:41.633 - In detail from MPO I have talked much more extensively with the city controller about the requirements 01:38:41.633 --> 01:38:47.349 - per in dot related to budget stuff because or not in dot but the state of Indiana related to budget 01:38:47.349 --> 01:38:53.179 - stuff because the state of Indiana has ridiculously complex complex requirements for how those things 01:38:53.179 --> 01:38:55.294 - are presented to Some of this is not 01:38:55.714 --> 01:39:01.126 - necessarily applicable because as a body, the MPO, so that we can get this money, we have to jump through 01:39:01.126 --> 01:39:06.282 - these pre-designed hoops. Yeah, we're jumping through them and they're producing things that are not 01:39:06.282 --> 01:39:11.438 - very readable to the public, that are not particularly transparent. Should we do better with that in 01:39:11.438 --> 01:39:17.054 - terms of explaining things to the public and understanding? Yes, but that can't be done within this document. 01:39:17.346 --> 01:39:22.305 - Within many documents, that can't be done. That is an additional task that then we're saying, okay, 01:39:22.305 --> 01:39:27.462 - in addition to preparing this really complex thing for the state of Indiana, I also want you to prepare 01:39:27.462 --> 01:39:32.520 - a thing for dummies, even though there is nobody from the public at this meeting who ever comes. Now, 01:39:32.520 --> 01:39:37.628 - I have said to them, maybe if we did do that, then maybe more people would come. I think that it would 01:39:37.628 --> 01:39:42.685 - be great to have more people engaged in MPO work because it's a whole lot of money and a whole lot of 01:39:42.685 --> 01:39:47.198 - projects for this community. And I think it's really, really important. But at this point, 01:39:47.362 --> 01:39:58.081 - We're well past our closing meeting time. I would like to, I guess I need to find the place and the 01:39:58.081 --> 01:40:09.443 - thing to move to approve the work document as presented. Is that the right motion? Or is it a resolution? 01:40:09.443 --> 01:40:14.910 - Let me find the thing. It's a motion for the plan. 01:40:21.410 --> 01:40:38.048 - Is it appendix? There it is. I would like to move to approve adoption resolution FY2020606. We have 01:40:38.048 --> 01:40:51.358 - a motion and we have a second. Any more discussion? I'm going to be very quick. 01:40:51.618 --> 01:40:59.090 - We spent a lot of time here talking and you've had plenty of time on the floor and I understand we are 01:40:59.090 --> 01:41:06.489 - all pressed for time. I'm pressed for time right now. I would hope that the bulk of this work plan is 01:41:06.489 --> 01:41:14.033 - focused on getting our funding. And I don't have any issue with that. I believe that this is a document 01:41:14.033 --> 01:41:19.038 - we could amend because we could amend the process part of it without 01:41:19.522 --> 01:41:31.887 - impacting any part of our funding in the future. So I will vote yes for that reason that I plan to work 01:41:31.887 --> 01:41:44.134 - through amendments on the processes. Thank you. Any public comment? Do you like to do a roll call vote 01:41:44.134 --> 01:41:48.414 - or? Horn? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. Fairs? 01:41:53.346 --> 01:42:00.431 - Is that me? Ferris? Ferris? So my comment, I want to make a quick comment. I accept what Commissioner 01:42:00.431 --> 01:42:07.586 - Thomas said. I don't really take issue with funding elements as they were described. I take issue with 01:42:07.586 --> 01:42:14.602 - the process and the organization, which I've stated. Those things need to be addressed and they need 01:42:14.602 --> 01:42:22.174 - to be, if they're going to be included in this document, if you've got a section on organization, et cetera, 01:42:22.466 --> 01:42:34.088 - It all needs to be explained. If you got an order chart in there, it needs to be explained. So I will 01:42:34.088 --> 01:42:46.279 - change my position in order just to take and move the funding along, funding request along to yes. Packer? 01:42:46.279 --> 01:42:52.318 - Yes. Nicol? Yes. Stasberg? Yes. Bishop? Yes. Banach? 01:42:52.514 --> 01:43:03.363 - Yes. Thomas? Yes. Ridge? Yes. Motion passes. Moving on to new business, the fiscal year 2026-2030 tip 01:43:03.363 --> 01:43:14.424 - amendments. Basically it is Bloomington Transit purchase of new buses. Thank you, Lisa. So as you know, 01:43:14.424 --> 01:43:19.742 - the MPO doesn't have any authority over where the 01:43:19.906 --> 01:43:29.248 - funds from Federal Transit Administration, how those are given out to our local transit agencies. However, 01:43:29.248 --> 01:43:38.154 - sometimes, however, projects for the transit agencies do have to be in our local TIP document. So you 01:43:38.154 --> 01:43:46.274 - do have purview over that. And so what you see is a request to add a new project to the TIP. 01:43:46.274 --> 01:43:49.854 - In the TIP, currently there is a project 01:43:50.082 --> 01:43:58.714 - for the purchase of electric buses. However, this is just a general purchase of buses. They will be 01:43:58.714 --> 01:44:07.692 - diesel and they will be articulated buses to use for the university. I believe they'll be getting three 01:44:07.692 --> 01:44:16.670 - of them. And the funding that you see is actually funds, MPO federal funds that were flexed to transit. 01:44:18.178 --> 01:44:27.915 - at the end of fiscal year 22, 23, and 24. And so these funds that we flexed over to Transit, they are 01:44:27.915 --> 01:44:38.130 - able to hold onto them for a few years, unlike us. And it sounds like Federal Transit would like everybody 01:44:38.130 --> 01:44:47.390 - to use the funds that they have prior to the expiration of the transportation bill in September. 01:44:47.650 --> 01:45:02.257 - And so they are trying to get their pots used funding. Does anybody have any questions? Do we have a 01:45:02.257 --> 01:45:16.286 - motion? I move approval of the tip amendments resolution 2026-05. We have a motion and a second. 01:45:16.482 --> 01:45:27.593 - Any board discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none. All those in favor for resolution adoption of 01:45:27.593 --> 01:45:39.254 - a resolution fiscal year 2026-05, do so by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on public 01:45:39.254 --> 01:45:45.854 - comment on matters not included on the agenda. Seeing none. 01:45:46.594 --> 01:45:54.944 - Communications from committee members on matters not included in the agenda. Seeing none. Upcoming meetings, 01:45:54.944 --> 01:46:03.141 - the Technical Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, March 25th at 10 a.m. Citizens Advisory Committee 01:46:03.141 --> 01:46:11.722 - will meet Wednesday, March 25th at 5 30. And the next policy committee meeting will be March 27th at 10 30 a.m. 01:46:11.722 --> 01:46:13.790 - This meeting is adjourned.