- I'd like to call the MPO Policy Committee to order and we will begin with introductions and we'll go
- to start with Jason. Good morning, Jason Bannon representing Indiana University. Hi, Nate Nichols, City
- of Bloomington Public Works Department serving as proxy for Adam Wason, Director. Becky Packer with
- Indiana Department of Transportation.
- Scott Ferris with the Monroe County Planning Commission. Doug Horne with the Bloomington Public
- Transportation Corporation Board of Directors. Lisa Rich, Monroe County Highway Department. Andrew Seabor,
- serving as proxy for Mayor Thompson. Steve Bishop, City of Bloomington Planning Commission.
- Sam Tobin-Hochstadt, Citizens Advisory Commission.
- Hopi Stossberg appointment by the Bloomington City Council. Thank you. Moving to approval of the meeting
- agenda for today. Point of order. Scott. I would like to amend the agenda. And I have two motions. I
- can't hear me, right? I hate this room because you just can't hear each other. But look up there.
- So I have really two motions to modify the new agenda which we received yesterday. Specifically, I would
- like to add under Roman numeral eight, old business, a new A. Can you speak maybe closer to your microphone?
- That's the problem is that you're far away. I keep trying, but I'm failing in my effort there. How about
- now? Okay.
- Okay, I'll say it again. So I have two motions, both the dealing with the agenda and I the first motion
- deals with Roman numeral eight old business and I'm proposing a new a. And that agenda item would be
- and let me read it. A new interoperative inter local agreement for the MPO urbanized area for Bloomington
- and Monroe County. And so I would put a motion on the floor.
- to adopt that as a new A. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I will second that. Scott, do you want
- to? I was going to bring this up later. It's really kind of complicated. In our last meeting we talked about
- source documentation which really created the MPO in the beginning. And in the packet, we have, let
- me grab it here. You have all of these source documents which the MPO staff provided us. And it goes
- in detail. There's an MOU, there's an interim understanding, there's documentation that essentially
- went to the governor from the mayor and at that time,
- president of the county commissioners and eventually went to the U.S. Department of Transportation and
- then back down to NDOT and back to us. And that in fact is the paperwork that established the MPO. And
- the MPO that was established in that letter essentially was for the City of Bloomington Plan Commission
- to be the MPO for the urbanized area of the Monroe County and the City of Bloomington. And that's it.
- Some discussion has taken place over time on whether or not, and lately, whether that agreement is still
- in effect. And that agreement calls for a continuous cooperative discussion between all the various
- elements of the people who really sit up here at this table and represent whatever communities they
- come from. The agreement that was referenced leading up to the governor recommending that we
- have an MPO was an interim agreement. Had a sunset clause, it expired. And that's kind of like where
- we are right now. So we really don't have a basis for who does what. The roles and responsibilities
- are not properly defined. I'm making a recommendation that once we get to that topic, even though I'm
- premature at this point, is that we actually get the folks together and come up with a new agreement.
- and I have a specific motion for that later when this topic is brought up, but that's why I want it
- added. This has been a lively discussion for some time, maybe not so much in this room, but in other
- rooms. Does that answer your question? Jason? Yeah, I could ask a question. So is this something that
- staff has reviewed? Do they have an opinion? I would like to clarify that the agreement is still in effect.
- If it was not in effect, we would not be receiving federal funding to this day. And if I can reclama
- that. I also want to just make clear that the agreement established in 1982 was to place the MPO under
- the plan commission for the city of Bloomington.
- That was done simply as a contractor for a number of reasons. The city had the greater population for
- the urbanized area. The city had contracting ability. The city was the one that started the transportation
- studies a few years before the designation of the MPO. And there's other reasons why the decisions took place.
- to make the plan commission the contracting agency. And that was just a formality that had to be done
- in order for us to become an official urbanized area and thus receive federal funds from the government.
- Every year that we continue this relationship with Federal Highway and NDOT, submit our TIP, our MTP document,
- Our UPWP, that is a renewing of that relationship that then gets us the federal funds for the transportation
- projects. So I just want to add to that. I don't think anybody's questioning, but none of us were here
- in 1981. And to have a document that's 40 plus years old that hasn't been updated, I think it's just
- good to update agreements, see where we're at now where we weren't
- 40 years ago, what's changed, what authorities have changed, what job titles have changed, and I don't
- see a problem of updating to a current agreement that's 40 years old. That's why I supported that discussions
- begin on updating an agreement. I'm not aware of many agreements that go on for 40 plus years that don't
- need tweaked. So in a quick reclama to what you said,
- The governor or? Debating about whether or not to add an agenda item. And so I think that that's, I
- would prefer to stick to that point of whether or not we're gonna add this agenda item as opposed to
- debating the concept of that agenda item right now. Noted. So we had a motion and a second to add it
- to the agenda. Is there any? I have a point of clarification. The motion said to add
- a new item A, but what do we do with the item A that is currently there? Is this a replacement motion
- or is in the motion, is there a proposal to move the current item A to item B? There will be a second
- motion and that is to move A to a B. That we can combine this. I will not vote yes for that motion until
- we need to roll those things in together because otherwise we're eliminating something that we actually
- have to statutorily deal with today for the state of Indiana. If you're willing to amend his motion,
- to move item A to B and add that to his motion. I accept that friendly amendment. Is it appropriate
- to have this under old business? This seems rather new. I think it was trying to be tied in to the passing
- of the UPWP to tie it together. It was also discussed at the last meeting.
- So the motion on the table, as I understand, would be adding item A of the inter-cooperative agreement
- discussion and moving item A to item B. Did you second? Do we have a second? I'll second. I will do
- that. And any more discussion on that motion? Question. This is just a discussion. Correct. We're not
- going to be giving any directives. It's just discussion.
- Thank you. Couldn't give it. Any other comments on the motion? Any public comment? Seeing none, Rob,
- pardon. I do actually have another question about that, and it relates to what somebody just mentioned,
- is this really old business? And just because we mentioned something at our last meeting, I'm not sure
- that that constitutes as old business. And I also am wondering,
- what the precedent is for MPO meetings in terms of these business things, because I think the business
- that usually gets put on our agenda is something that we have to vote on. And if this is just going
- to be a discussion, does it belong under business at all or does it belong under communication from
- committee members on other matters? And that is a process question that I think that I would most like
- to hear from the chair or from our staff or from other members who have been a part of the MPO for
- a number of years and have looked at those sorts of process things. When we discuss this item item,
- 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
- to be, we're going to take and talk more about this document, right? These sets of documents right here.
- At the last meeting, as you remember, because you were there, I asked the MPO director, Pat, to
- provide us with the source information on what established the MPO. And the question I had at the time
- was, if the planned commission is a contracting entity, because back in that timeframe, that was the
- only body that pretty much existed between the city and county, what was the relationship between the
- MPO planned commission, I'm sorry, the city of Bloomington planned commission and the MPO staff? And
- what Pat said, and he can take and embellish if he'd like, he said there is none.
- And I have documentation from Pat saying if that is the case. So there is absolutely no connection right
- now between the city of Bloomington plan commission that's outlined in the or letter governor or letter
- in what you have today. This is why an agreement a new agreement is required. But this is what was discussed
- at the last meeting. This is key and essential to the foundation for the plan that we're going to discuss
- later. You've got to have to have as I've mentioned to others and you know how this works. You have
- to let me finish please.
- You have to have an agreement that you reference before you have a plan. A plan is not a standalone
- policy directive. You gotta have an agreement or something that leads into that plan. So that's key
- and essential to the organizational element of the plan that we're talking about today. Happy? I'm still
- gonna argue, I don't think that that belongs under old business. Pardon me? I don't think that that
- belongs under old business and that,
- I guess in my experience with this meeting and these business categories, we know what we're voting
- on in advance. And even if there is a motion attached to that, I don't know in advance what it is. There's
- not the documentation to support that. So that's why I don't think that belongs under the old business.
- 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
- part of the agenda. We don't need to keep on debating it. I'll just vote no on this motion.
- We'll see what happens, thank you. Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. No more comments
- from the board. Roll call vote. Yes. Yes. No.
- Yes. Yes. Was that me? I can't hear what you're saying. If it's me, I'm sorry. Ferris. Yes. Horn. Yes.
- Seabor. No. Ridge. Yes. Bishop. No. Tobin. No. Thank you. Stoutsburg. No.
- That's six yeses. So motion does not pass. How many no's? I'm sorry. How many yeses? How many no's?
- Five no's. One, two, three, four, five, six yeses. So it passed. That's a majority. Point of order doesn't
- have to be the majority of the body, not just the majority of those present. I know that that's how
- council works. So if council has
- Only five present, even if four vote yes and one votes no, it still doesn't carry. I don't know how
- that works here though. And I don't remember how many members of the body we have. So. Okay, sorry.
- Six yeses and five nos. Motion passes. That passes. That's what I said. Okay, moving on to item. Point
- of order. I just want to make sure that in that motion,
- You have a new A and a new B. Correct. As part of the agenda. That was part of your motion. Moving on
- to item three, election of calendar year policy committee officer for vice chair. I'm sorry Lisa, we
- just voted on an amendment to the agenda and now do we still have to do an approval of the whole meeting
- agenda or did that vote include that? So we should go back and
- Make a motion for approval of the modified agenda. I move approval of the amended agenda. Thank you.
- We have a motion and we have a second. Do we have any discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none, roll
- call vote. Stasberg? No. Tobin? Yes.
- Sorry. Bishop. No. Ridge. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Horne. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Packer. Yes. Nichol. Yes. Banach.
- Yes. Thomas. Yes. Motion passes.
- Item three, election of vice chair for the upcoming 2026. Do we have any nominations? I just want since
- I felt like at this point I should perhaps introduce myself since I am replacing the previous vice chair.
- My name is Sam Tobin-Hockstadt and I'm now the chair of the Citizens Advisory Commission for the MPO.
- John Kennedy was the previous chair of the CAC and was the vice chair. However, I do not plan to stand
- for vice chair of this body. Thank you and nice to meet all of you who I haven't met before. Thank you.
- Do we have any volunteers for vice chair?
- It's double what you make now for this meeting. I want to be clear, I'm not volunteering right now,
- but if we could go over again the responsibilities of what vice chair is, maybe that would elicit something.
- Basically in the absence of the chair would be running this meeting outside of that, maybe signing the
- resolutions. If they signed a resolution, if the chair wasn't here,
- not a lot of outside duties outside of running this meeting. When you say not a lot, does that actually
- mean none? Being the chair, this is probably my biggest responsibility of running this meeting. I have
- contact with the staff, basically signing resolutions, but there is not much outside of this meeting
- that is needed from chair or vice chair that
- And I've done it for a few years now. I'll do that if nobody else will do it. Kind of gradually,
- but yeah. I nominate Commissioner Stossberg as vice chair. We have a motion and a second. Any other
- nominations? Seeing none. Any public comment? Seeing none.
- roll call vote please. Would you like to do all in favor since everybody's in the room? Absolutely.
- All those in favor for our vice chair being hoppy say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries.
- Moving on to approval of minutes for Friday January 30th, 2026.
- I have a motion to approve the Friday, January 30th, 2026 minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second.
- Any discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes of Friday,
- January 30th, 2026, do so by saying aye.
- Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Communications from the chair or vice chair. I do not have any at
- this time. I certainly wasn't prepared to do that today. I said I certainly wasn't prepared to do that
- today. That's fine. Moving on, reports from officers and or committees. Maybe start with the technical
- committee.
- Sure. Technical Advisory Committee met this past Wednesday and reviewed the items that are on our agenda
- today and recommended all for approval. Thank you. Thank you. Citizens? So the Citizens Advisory Committee
- met on Wednesday and reviewed all the items that were on the original agenda here. Obviously, we did
- not hear anything about the new agenda item and recommended all of them for approval.
- Thank you. Moving on to reports from MPO staff. Item A. Item A is just a resource to share with you
- that recently came across MyPath. It is called the NDOT Intersection and Interchange Map. And it looks
- something like this. And they also provide information on the treatments that they have done
- that you'll see in the map. So that's just kind of interesting to look at, and I just wanted to bring
- that to your attention for your general education. Any questions? Okay, item B is a public input opportunity.
- NDOT is currently seeking public comment on their planning public involvement plan.
- You can review the draft document and provide feedback on it until Friday, March 13th, 2026. And I've
- provided those links in the packet for you. I think the last time they updated it was 2023. All right,
- item C on page nine of the packet, this is an overview of
- this fiscal year of TIP funds. So just to remind everybody, every fiscal year between July and June,
- we have an allocation, a federal fund allocation that is given to us that we must use by the end of
- the year. If we cannot use it on local transportation projects, then the options are to try and trade
- it with another MPO in the state.
- in order to gain funds for another year or if we can't do that, we can flex the funds to our local transit
- system. And so we have for this fiscal year, fiscal year 26, we have reached a balance of zero and we
- have obligated 100% of our funds for this fiscal year. And so this spreadsheet here is kind of just
- a summary of where we started and where we ended up.
- It's more information than you necessarily need to know, but I go through how the funding level was
- 4.6 million as of March of 25 when you all approved the TIP. And that is the funding level that was
- used to make the initial allocations, the initial awarding of the funds in March of 25.
- And so at that time, downtown curb ramps, phase five, high street intersection modernization and multi-use
- path project, the West Second Street project, and the old SR 37 South and Dillman Road intersection
- improvement project were all allocated funds at that time through our TIP. Of course, the TIP is always
- evolving, and so
- The top chart shows you how we had new levels come from NDOT. There were some reductions as NDOT has
- to balance out what has been used and account for other things. And so we ended with an official allocation
- of 4.4 million. And then we did an exchange with an MPO last spring. So that brought our total for,
- this fiscal year to 5.6 million. Now, I will say that in the past, we were able to kind of overspend
- our amounts for the fiscal year, and that's when INDOT does the balancing. However, that was not possible
- this year, and we weren't aware of that, and so when we
- received the new funding levels of 4.4, we did not, we failed to update the tip to reflect that. And
- so we were short 209,875. And because of that, the last project to request their funds from NDOT during
- this fiscal year was downtown curb ramps phase five.
- And so that is why no funding from this fiscal year was allocated to downtown curb ramps phase five.
- And then because High Street was not able to use their funds this year, zero funds were allocated to
- High Street this year. The High Street funds were reallocated by staff to the West Second Street project.
- And then old SR 37 project received their same allocation
- that was planned originally. So I just wanted to give you a summary of the fiscal year funding since
- we have successfully reached a zero balance. Any questions? Andrew? I guess just to make sure I'm digesting
- this information, I appreciate the summary and I appreciate the,
- communication, MPO staff have recently had with city staff on this, but just because my brain doesn't
- work that well at the super detailed level. As I'm understanding it, the tip and what was originally
- programmed was roughly $4.6 million throughout the calendar or fiscal year. That value was reduced by
- roughly $200,000. So what the funding that actually exists is different than what is programmed in our tip.
- And simply because of the timing of a city project going after other projects, that project was just
- not able to receive the federal funding. So if it would have been any other project, it could have been
- this county or another project that would have simply just not received the funding. Is that typical
- process or is it usually more distributed amongst other projects or is it just
- Is there something we can do to avoid this in the future? This was a mistake on the NPO staff's side,
- and it was due to lack of information. And in the future, it shouldn't happen as long as in-dot levels
- don't change later throughout the year. But in this case, there was no excuse
- For that, staff should have made an adjustment to the tip last fall to account for the new levels. And
- it would have had to involve the reduction of somebody's funds. And at this time, it would have been
- a discussion between MPO staff and Lisa and Neil and Andrew about how that reduction
- that $200,000 reduction would have had to play out. But it is a process we'll probably be talking about
- in the future. So. Thank you for that explanation. I just have a question in terms of those downtown
- curb ramps, that project, is that project just like totally gone now or will that try to get funded
- next year and it just has kind of postponed?
- Um, if Andrew wants to speak to this, he can, but I, according to Neil, um, it is moving forward with
- design. I can't speak to their local funding part of it. Okay. But in terms of MPO funding, like that
- project just won't get any MPO funding now, or it would get funding potentially in a subsequent year.
- 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
- the years are. It'll still happen then and it'll, okay. All right.
- timing or funding specifics have just changed them. Okay, thanks. For this year. Scott. So don't we
- have a process in place now with the LPAs that talks about funding or funded projects that are not being
- able to spend those dollars in a redistribution or realignment of those dollars? Isn't there a process
- in place now? Yes. That's what I thought.
- Okay. Item D is historical designation documentation for the MPO just provided based on conversations
- at the previous meeting in January. You all can review those in your own time, but it was very interesting
- for me as well to read that.
- and see that not much has changed since 1982. This whole effort of the MPO was created as a intergovernmental
- process with representatives from the city, county, Ellisville, and Indiana University. And it's just
- fascinating to see that it has always been a cooperative effort since the very beginning.
- no matter who the contracting agency happens to be. If you guys have any questions about that documentation,
- please let us know. All right, item E, I just want to share a few updates for some of the projects.
- So the main update that I have that's new from last time is that the NDOT projects for bridge thin deck
- overlay on I-69, there's six locations for this project and their project manager reached out and shared
- that, shared their anticipated detour road closure plan with us. They said that construction for these
- bridge thin deck overlay
- locations is anticipated during fall of 2026 or spring of 27, and that the construction at these locations
- will occur separately. Five of the locations will have shoulder and lane closures, but they will be
- less than seven days. Two of the locations, West Arlington and Kinser Pike, will use temporary traffic
- signals, but roads will remain open
- Roads will remain open, but there may be delays. Other than that, downtown curb ramps phase five is
- starting design. They're currently negotiating the design contract right now. High Street Project over
- here is wrapping up right away acquisition. They will be doing some tree clearing before the environmental
- bat window closes on April 1st of this year.
- and in advance of the utility relocations in 2026. Project construction letting will occur in October
- of 26. The construction of this project will likely be broken into segments or phases, segments of the
- road and phases, and it will most likely become a one-way street. So there will be access, but likely
- only one direction, but that's still being finalized. So the engineering department will keep us appraised.
- The 2026 utility locations for High Street will also have flagging and possibly one way, but it will
- be a shorter duration than 27. The Eagleson Bridge project, I went to construction letting in February
- and is having pre-construction meeting in March and April, same for the Rockport
- Rockport Road Bridge and Fairfax High Friction Treatment Project. The pavement cores were completed
- in January and core reports likely will come back in June. The old 37 South and Dillman Project
- The early coordination letters for Section 106 review went out in February. Those are the project updates
- I have and after questions we can move on. Scott? We've talked about this a lot in the past and it's
- the project that relates
- the bypass to Pete Ellis Drive and the status of the contract, which I believe was supposed to be let
- in April. Has any of that changed? No. Is that still the date? As far as I know. That makes sense. I
- know there's pushback on the tree removal in front of the post office and down some of the IU properties.
- There's signs posted on trees.
- Is that changing any of the plans within DOT? We are currently working with Andrew and Neil to look
- at possible change in the plans. We are unaware. We don't know at this moment how many trees maybe can
- be saved. We'll know sometime next week, but we are still pushing for the April letting. Thank you.
- I wanted to follow up on the tree thing because that was one of the things I wanted to bring up too,
- just because, you know, as I'm the council representative, if people don't know, I'm the council
- representative for district three, which is where that is. And so I've had several constituents reach out.
- about their concern of those tree removal things. And while there's an NDOT person here and Andrew as
- well, publicly saying this, I was at that meeting a couple of years ago, that community information
- meeting, and I have a recollection of somebody asking about how many trees were gonna be removed. And
- the answer was essentially hardly any, if any, because there was particular concern at the time about
- the trees along 10th Street, that on Hinkle Garden, those maple trees that they tap, and those are not
- slated for removal.
- particularly concerned about that. But even at that time, the folks there said, you know, maybe a couple
- at the corner, but that's it. So it feels a really dramatic change right now. And I mean, other people
- who attended that meeting would have heard that. So I'm really glad to hear that there's some of that
- negotiation going on. And I hope that the conclusion of that
- does preserve more of those trees in terms of, you know, really looking closely at what is needed for
- those costs because my understanding is that Pete Ellis isn't really going to be widened very much.
- And yet a lot of those trees are scheduled to come down. So I just am glad that that's being looked
- at closely and my constituents will be glad to hear that as well. Thank you. Follow up to that since
- I've been intimately involved with
- with this project going all the way back to 2018. These discussions have been going on for a long time.
- And some of us actually went down to NDOT Seymour and had conversations with them about this. And if
- I remember correctly, and the data points that were put on the table at that time is that the trees
- that were gonna be removed, they were going to take and move back from where they were removed and they
- were gonna take and put other trees in place. That's what I remember in those discussions. And I believe
- I was at that same discussion that you're at.
- So, yeah, it's a concern. And a lot of those trees are really gorgeous old trees. And I hope that we
- have a plan in place to not put little twigs in their place, but something that's a little more mature
- if we're going to replace those trees. Julie? I agree that there were statements made that, you know,
- and I think the focus was on the garden house.
- maple trees at the time and it looks like none of them, those are slated. But where should constituents
- call NDOT at or what should constituents do? How will we see a plan if it's revised? How will we see
- it? How will the folks in our community see it? And where should they go to ask questions? They should
- still go through the NDOT for you number that's
- 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
- best. Okay. But will the updated plan be posted somewhere or how will they know that if the plans change?
- Because it will change the visual beauty of that corridor. They're not really old trees actually.
- mid-aged, they're not towering oaks from 100 years ago, but they have been there a long time, and it
- does add a sense of the environment going into the residential area. I will have to see. I mean, there
- will be a revision that'll come out with the plans. So it's just how the contract documents come out,
- and we probably will not have that until close to the letting date.
- It'll be like a week probably before letting. Okay. Can we be sure to get a copy of that? I hate to
- 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
- Andrew will have a copy because he will get it. You'll have a copy. You'll have one too, right? I'm
- just obligated to make the comment for those of us who have been playing with this project for some time now.
- This project has been delayed on any number of occasions, and I would hope that whatever the revision
- is can meet with some sort of friendly concurrence so that letting date is not shifted to the right
- again. For those of us who live in that area out there, this is a choke point area, one road in,
- one road out, and as I've explained on numerous occasions because of all the student population, the
- bus traffic between the city,
- and school systems, and also Indiana University and the plethora of apartment complexes up and down
- that corridor now, we're just saturated with people and cars. And so delaying this project any more
- than what it's already been delayed, in my opinion, respectfully, is a problem. And that's not the intention
- of INDOT or the city. We've already had discussions. Thank you.
- I guess just to add, appreciating this discussion, appreciating that as Rebecca had noted, we've had
- some really productive conversations in the last few days, even in maybe even this morning
- through conversations in the email, but in data, certainly in their consultants working to try to save
- as many of those trees on Pete Ellis as possible. I also just want to note that there will be some trees
- closer to 10th street that will come down.
- but trying to find that right balance. And there are active coordination and I do expect some of them
- to be safe. So thanks to INDOT. And I think we are all working in the spirit of keeping this project
- on track. There's a lot of wonderful things with it. So I think everybody has that intention.
- So is there, I know there's a lot of interest in this and letting day, it's, you know, March is Sunday.
- Is there a way for,
- this board to be kind of provided an update in the next couple of weeks of if there's been a decision,
- if there's been a compromise made that assures that the project will still go to letting in April. Is
- that possible? I'm open, I just, just as I'm,
- It's an INDOT project. I understand it's an INDOT project, but I understand also that it's a discussion
- between the city of Bloomington and INDOT for their project. I have my own projects that we have discussions.
- I'm happy to provide any update of the status of that project moving forward. I'm just asking if we're
- allowed as a board to be a status update like in two weeks.
- I don't know that that's really a difficult thing to ask. I'm not asking MPO staff to do it, maybe city
- of Bloomington, just kind of where the negotiations ended up. So we don't get into the middle of March
- and then everyone's, or we get into April 1st and sorry, there was no, you know, there was no compromise
- and the project's been pulled. I'm just trying to have communication. We'll make a contact with INDOT's
- communications office down in the Seymour district. Have that initiative.
- Okay. Tell them there's a great interest in the community and therefore we'd appreciate any updates.
- And they're always very cooperative. And I'll just, as a city, we're talking specifically about a part
- of the project that is on a city road and so we're actively coordinating and appreciate INDOT's coordination.
- And I don't want to overstep and share things on a project we're not managing, but if people wanted
- to offhand reach out, I'm happy to always provide updates if you've got questions, but I don't want to
- feel appropriate to do a mass distribution on a project we're not managing. All righty. Copy. Is it
- appropriate, Andrew, to ask you to, when there is an update from your negotiations with the city, to
- pass that on to our MPO staff? And then our MPO staff, are you able to then send it to us as a body?
- Is that a compromise that you feel would not overstep what your job responsibilities are?
- that? Honestly, big picture. I don't care. I'm happy to. I'm more just one. I'm more looking at Becky.
- I'm wanting for NDOT to have a chance to weigh in. We'll work through the NDOT for you process, because
- that's the proper channel to. Yes. I mean, pack and reach out to us. I mean, yeah. But yeah, we'll also
- do it formally through the NDOT process. Yeah. At this time, we won't know anything until probably the
- end of next week, to be exact.
- Thank you. Seeing no more questions, moving on to old business. Item A that was added to our agenda.
- 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
- was a new interoperative, interlocal agreement
- for the MPO. We can't hear you again. I'm sorry. We really need to get this fixed. Or I need to speak
- into the mic. Okay, a new interoperative slash interlocal agreement for the MPO urbanized area of Bloomington
- and Monroe County. That's the discussion item. Okay, any comment? The only comment that I would make
- is what I already said.
- It's really based upon this stack of source documents, which is in the packet. If you haven't looked
- at it, it pretty much steps through everything that I said. The bottom line is that what is stated here
- is, like Lisa said, it's really, really old, 40 years or so, and it needs to be updated. The fact that
- the MPO is the city of Bloomington
- And even in that letter, even though it's mentioned in other places as a contracting entity, it's not
- in the governor or letter that was sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation back to NDOT and then
- back to the city. And incidentally, back in those days, this is Frank McCluskey and Charlotte Zitlow,
- they're the ones who were behind all this. And on behalf of the planning department, I talked to the
- former county attorney in that timeframe on Wednesday, and he said that
- The city of Bloomington planning department was much more robust than what we had at that point in time
- in the county. So it was a logical place for it to be. That contracting entity has shifted to, I believe,
- to the transportation and planning department of the city. And if you look at the websites, you'll see
- that Pat has been identified as the MPO director embedded inside that department.
- or division, and none of this stuff is explained anywhere, and I'm not aware that it was ever discussed
- in this body. Now, some will make the argument that some of the other documents that are produced by
- this body, such as the plan we're gonna talk about next, the references in that document is in fact
- the codifying event establishing the agreement. And as I've said before, I've got
- I've got eight years in the Pentagon and I've worked with the U.S. government interagency process. I've
- been a member of a U.S. delegation in Geneva doing arms control. I'm very familiar with the processes
- on how to get this stuff done. An agreement feeds into a plan. The plan is not the agreement. You've
- got to start with a source first. That's why I asked the question at the last meeting, give us a source
- so we can have this debate. This just needs to be redone. That's the bottom line.
- I can't add anything else to the discussion of what I've already said. Thank you, Scott. Hi. Sorry,
- I'd just like to clarify. Responsibility has not shifted to the Planning and Transportation Department.
- The Plan Commission was named as the contracting agency in the 1982 letter to the governor, and it also,
- the same letter
- stated that the City of Bloomington Planning Department will be the lead local agency primarily responsible
- for the conduct of the transportation studies that are done. Just wanted to clarify that. Point of order.
- Go back to the letter and put it on the screen and read it. I hereby designate the City of Bloomington
- Plan Commission as a planning agency for the urbanized area.
- That's it. So would it be appropriate if maybe we said we suggest that the city of Bloomington legal
- team and the Monroe County legal team get together to maybe update the agreement that's 40 years old.
- 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
- is complete. Okay.
- So if the discussion is complete, I'll put a motion on the table. You're more than welcome to put a
- motion on the table and that could be up for discussion. The motion would be the Office of the Mayor
- and the Office of the County Commissioners will prepare a new intercooperative. I used intercooperative
- because that's what was mentioned in the original documents.
- with a new terminology of interlocal agreement for the MPO urbanized area of Bloomington Middle County.
- Legal counsel from the city and county will lead the effort and provide administrative support. This
- will include any required state federal notification requirements and be presented to the MPOPC for
- approval. That would be the motion. We have a motion and we have a second.
- And we will open this up for discussion. This seems like a thing that we would be asking the county
- and city legal departments to do, not something that this body has the ability to require. We can approve
- transportation projects, but not tell other people's lawyers what to do.
- Copy. I similarly have a concern with how that motion is worded. Basically because of that, but that
- motion also by default kind of says we want a new document at the end of it. And I don't think that
- I know for sure that I want a new document at the end of it unless I have an attorney's interpretation of
- the current documents, because if not very much has changed, I mean, you say these documents are 40
- years old, but I think that there are a lot of documents that are 40 years old or even older than that.
- And sometimes they need to be updated, and sometimes it's not necessary for them to be updated. And
- I would like an attorney's recommendation about this.
- And one thing that comes to mind just in terms of language actually has to do with the engineering
- department. One of the things that I've looked at in the last couple of years with regard to language
- has to do with how the state defines a traffic engineer and then how the city of Bloomington defines
- a traffic. Who fulfills that state role and what title do they have here? And so I don't know at this
- point, there's that concern about, well, what does the plan commission in this document mean?
- Honestly, is it the same plan commission that we have? I don't know that it is, because I was not here
- in the early 80s, not in Indiana, not paying attention to government at all. And so I would want a robust
- legal opinion about this.
- I would have an alternate motion about requesting a legal opinion as was mentioned by somebody else
- earlier from county and city legal to look into these founding documents and their advice over whether
- there should be an effort to update them. Doug. Thank you. Each of us here represents a body of decision makers.
- This is a rather sweeping motion that puts a lot of onus on each one of us as individuals to speak for
- our body. I don't feel comfortable doing that and would entertain that we table this motion for at least
- one month while we can have the opportunity to bring it to our respective organizations for
- their own discussions and perhaps recommendations on the path forward. Thank you. Julie? I do want to
- thank Colonel Farris for his work on this. He's dug through some old documents. And I, as the one of
- the county commissioners,
- can state, and I don't know if the mayor's representative can do so, that I agree that this should happen.
- This is something we've been talking about internally for a bit. And it really came to light when that
- fund swapping thing happened last year, fund swapping 2025. And we didn't have a policy. We find out
- about it after the fact. We're asked too late.
- This, my understanding is this is the only MPO in the state of Indiana that operates out of a city's
- planning department. And if it's not the only one, there's only a few. I know there's a metro version
- that does that, but we are, I think it puts,
- I think it puts staff in a terrible position and it's unfair to staff to have their boss is City of
- Bloomington employees who are ostensibly, I believe this is true and Ms. Dostberg, you can correct me
- if I'm wrong, that the plan commission hires and is in charge of the planning department. That's not
- true. Okay. It is true in county. That's how we work it in county.
- Our poor planning department has nine bosses. So that's not true. But either way, they are they are
- answering to city employees. But yet this is supposed to be county and city and town of Ellitsville
- and IU, everybody working together. Right. And that and it really puts the staff in a terrible position.
- And I don't think that's fair to staff. I'm just going to say that, and the staff may disagree. But
- my take on it is they really should be led by an executive committee of this body, as they do elsewhere,
- that helps ensure that everything is being directed and managed as this policy committee sees fit.
- So so that's so I'm glad to have this. I can tell you that the county is willing to engage
- in that conversation. I don't know if we should also include Ellitsville, IU and others. I think that
- should be part of that discussion. I will just I'm not even going to ask to amend the motion. I'm just
- going to say we'll definitely keep that in mind because that's part of this MPO as well.
- It's not just the county and the city. It is this group, right? It's all of us. So I really appreciate
- it. And thank you again, Colonel Ferris, for bringing this to light in an organized manner. Andrew?
- Yeah. I guess just first wanting to clarify a few things. Like I know I voted against this agenda item.
- And in the current motion on the table, I would
- likely vote against as well, but I also wanna make it clear that I very much appreciate this discussion
- and appreciate the questions being asked. I appreciate the comments we just heard from Commissioner
- Thomas. I think there's a lot to this and it's a discussion worth having. I also appreciate, I think
- MPO staff in particular are in an awkward position, I would assume and expect, and I know they do the
- best as possible, if any,
- to try to be as fair and consistent as possible. So they are in a very tough position. So I just appreciate
- this. I think going forward, I think, I don't know if it would be appropriate for the office of the
- 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
- to ask of MPO staff specifically to
- further engage, I'd be curious to frame, what are some of the fundamental questions we're wanting to
- discover? This is old. That's fair. And are there particular parts of it that we have questions about?
- One is maybe just the organizational structure. Where are staff housed? How are they funded? What do
- other MPOs in the state look like? And how are they functioning? And how are they funded? I think those
- might be good questions. And then maybe to ask staff,
- along with our CAC and TAC to investigate this further and to keep us up to date, but maybe it's our
- job to help frame, like, what are the key questions that we want to explore to help frame what a potential
- new agreement would look like? Again, just some initial off the cuff thoughts, but do want to echo the
- appreciation for the discussion. Happy? Thank you.
- I appreciate those comments and they were so interesting that now I've lost track of what I was gonna
- say to some degree. I guess I also wanna clarify that I'll vote no on this particular motion but would
- hope for a different motion that starts getting legal to look into it but I also wanted to address some
- of that staffing stuff that Commissioner Thomas brought up because those are good questions but I think
- that it doesn't matter so much where staff is housed but it's what the,
- org structure looks like within that. And it's also not fair, I think, and not appropriate to ask our
- current staff to give us
- this information because that puts them in an incredibly awkward position of us saying so is this thing
- like working okay right now and then that's like in this really weird hot seat, but I think that that's
- the kind of thing that you know we can consider best practices and then we can consider job descriptions
- and literally things like like reporting.
- disciplinary procedures, feedback and assessment procedures. And so it doesn't matter, you know, if
- they have offices in the City of Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department, if what's happening
- is they're in there as like co-equals, as opposed to reporting to somebody, getting permission from
- somebody to do something, feeling like what they do is gonna be criticized by somebody who is
- who should not structurally be their, their supervisor. And so, you know, and thinking about any kind
- of new agreement that might happen is it doesn't matter so much to me where they're housed, but it's
- how that reporting mechanism works and the structure of mechanism and honestly the hiring like, I mean,
- how is our staff hired? I don't know that, I've only been here for a couple of years. And that's the
- thing, Commissioner Thomas mentioned the other planning staff and plan commission. Plan commission approves
- an appointment for the planning director for the city of Bloomington of the mayors. So it's like the
- mayor comes forward with a recommendation and then plan commission approves it. But we have no involvement
- with any other hires related to the planning department and it would be kind of,
- it would be really, really bizarrely disruptful probably for the plan commission after the mayor has
- gone through a whole appointment process to then say, no, like, what do we do then? Because the plan
- commission itself is not really in a place to vet a director role. So we had to do that last year with
- Director Hiddle and it was really awkward because I was like, what happens if we say no to this? This
- feels like a question that shouldn't be a question. And that I think is the only
- There are very few directors, I think, within the org structure that are appointed by the mayor that
- also then have to be approved by some other body. I don't want to say that that's the only one, but
- there are very few of them. So that, I think, matters to me more than where somebody is physically housed.
- Thanks. Scott? So thinking outside the box a little bit, this is a very complicated- Can you please
- speak into the microphone?
- I can say the same thing for you folks down there as well. I will do my best. I've heard this several
- times now. Thank you. Okay. Thinking outside the box here and based upon comments that I've heard, I'm
- not changing my motion at this point, but this would be something to think about because this is so
- complicated and it has so many moving parts. And obviously people have different opinions on it. Maybe
- we call a special session of this body with one topic.
- and we have legal counsel from the city and we have legal counsel from the county and they can come
- in and they can talk to us based upon their assessment of this stack right here of source documents
- and what their assessment is. That could start off the discussion and then we can go into some of these
- other things we're talking about now. A special session, this body, one topic only,
- and leave enough time for us to have a well thought out, collegial give and take on what might be the
- best approach as we move forward. To me, that seems rational. If people are agreeable with that and
- it's possible we can actually call a special session, then I would change my motion and that would be
- the motion. Hi, can I ask something? Can I ask something?
- So just as an example, the Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County is an MPO. They are an independent
- entity. I don't know exactly how that works legally. However, they are housed in their county, and the
- county pays the full 20% local share match for them. However, they serve Lafayette, Tippecanoe County,
- Carroll County, Delphi, Camden, and Flora. So I guess my question as staff is, what is the concern with
- the current way that things are organized? Because there is a difference between how something is organized
- and how staff perform on the job.
- just because staff happen to be housed within the city does not mean that those staff are biased towards
- the city in any manner. And so I'd like to know, I guess I'd like to know more information about why
- this is a topic of concern when the real concerns are kind
- looking at policies and procedures with how we do things in the MPO and trying to make those as collaborative
- and transparent as possible, we have some processes that we want to redo and we need to work on those
- before the next tip is done. And I feel that a discussion about our current setup
- which makes sense because the city of Bloomington pays that full 20% local share. And so, you know,
- they're providing the equipment, they're providing the HR, administrative support. So, I don't know,
- I guess I'm curious about what the real intention is behind this and behind this request and what purpose
- will it serve?
- What benefits will it bring about? What positive changes will occur that can't already occur in its
- current setup? I absolutely welcome discussion for change. I am a huge proponent of change. I go into
- a job and I change. I do everything I can to make things better and change them. I'm not afraid of change,
- but I don't see that any of the current needs will be served by
- redoing this organization, at least at this time. Now, if it's something you want to do this spring
- before the approval of the UPWP, that will delay our funding. We just won't get federal funding next
- year. It'll probably take months to redo this arrangement and get it approved through the state and
- through federal highway.
- So if you want to have this conversation, by all means have it, but you will probably, I mean it's probably
- in everybody's best interest to agree to do it over the course of the next year and not delay the approval
- of the UPWP for fiscal year 27 because then we just won't get any federal funds. Did you have a comment?
- point I mean every MPO is set up as with a host body, an entity that just takes care of to her point,
- the staff the HR the benefits the payroll so those are all covered by the city's department.
- guess unless the county has the ability to shoulder all that financial and human capital, that it seems
- like we're recreating a process that's already in place and working to a fine degree. So yeah, the question
- would be is like, what is the necessity to move all of the people and resources and funding sources
- that just simply takes care of
- presenting these meetings and organizing the meetings because everything else is then delegated down
- to the interlocal agreements between all the different bodies of people sitting up here. And then they're
- really just handling, running all of this and providing us with all the materials and space and everything
- else. And I'm not asking for an answer at this point. That's just something that
- you know, to consider in the future and also to try and move us forward into the voting of the UPWP
- for fiscal year 27. Thank you. Julie? As I noted, there's a lack of transparency around supervision,
- funding, budgets, decision making, how decisions are made. And it's included in,
- the work plan as just sort of this throwaway sentence. And I think the public deserves to know.
- Could you, Claire? And I'm not asking staff to respond to me. Please don't. In fact, I will say please
- don't. I'm just offering my commentary for this board. I don't want to have the debate right now, but
- I think we need to have that discussion.
- One of my questions for the next item is when we have to have that work plan approved. That's a question.
- This is not about just shifting it to the county. There are entities where it is an independent office.
- The city and the county and the other entities all chip in and pay for it and cover the staff costs
- that are not covered through NPO funding.
- There are other ways to do it. I'm not trying to ship this to the county, but certainly what I think
- we do want to do is answer those questions that have been posed by staff, but answer the questions that
- have been posed here, and just get more information. And we don't have that information, and I don't
- want to sit up here and guess at that information. I think I don't want to ask staff for that information.
- I want to ask attorneys for that information. I want to ask a city attorney and a county attorney
- What is this? And so I appreciate Mr. Ferris's amendment. And if it hasn't been seconded, I will second
- it. But I don't know. Anyway. So do I need to change my amendment to have a special session with attorneys
- or counsel present providing their assessments so we as a body for one agenda item can talk about this
- in detail? And all these things we're talking about here can be discussed and hopefully
- out of that discussion, we can have a way ahead and we can do this in a timely manner. I appreciate
- what Katie is saying about funding and the timeline. You've got a hard date, but this needs to take
- place. So I would argue within the next couple of weeks if you can facilitate a special meeting and
- the city can take and put the city attorney and the county can take and put the county attorney on notice
- that they need to take and do this analysis and report back to us and we'll use that as the
- beginning topic on the discussion. Real or perceived, there is an element of miscommunication here.
- I've seen it, I've been participating either as a citizen or other with respect to this body since 2018.
- There's a transparency issue right now. So I will change my motion if the person who did the second
- would also allow me to change that motion.
- Okay, and this motion would be exactly what I just said, that we convene a special session of the MPOPC,
- hopefully within the next couple of weeks, to address whether or not we need to move forward with a
- new agreement, however we want to call it.
- that would lay out the roles and responsibilities of this body, the MPO staff, how we all work together,
- how we take and communicate with one another, and how we have more transparency on the products that
- are presented to us and have an ability to take and review them in a manner in which we can ask questions.
- Some of the stuff we see for the first time, you didn't have a chance to absorb what in fact it means
- without digging into two or three layers. I personally have time to do that because I'm retired. I can't
- imagine some of the folks here who have other jobs
- having the time to do that. So that would be my motion absent the last part, which was more of a comment.
- Yeah. And I will second that and I will add the qualifier that maybe we also want to move the next item
- to that meeting as well. But I leave that for the board to decide later. Planning that seed.
- First of all, I want to say there's 13 minutes left in this meeting and I have a noon.
- So I would like to get along with the work program meeting. I'm not opposed to a special session. I
- don't know if we need to have a vote for it. But when I asked last month when this plan needed to be
- approved, the answer was at this meeting today. So we need to get this moving today so that we can be
- assured that it gets through all of the state processes that it has to get through before it gets to
- the federal processes that it has to go through so that we actually get the money. And if we don't do
- that today, then we won't get the money.
- Mr. Ferris made a motion Commissioner Thomas seconded it but then added an addendum on to it saying
- pushing this next thing off to that and I want to make sure that that's not part of the motion. No,
- I just made my comment that that's and then secondly, do we even have to have a motion to have a special
- session? How do meetings of the MPO get scheduled? Are there ever like
- other meetings of the MPOs. I mean if this was council right now, it would just be like we're having
- another meeting and we'll figure it out and we all as a body know what we want to talk about in that
- meeting. I think it's important. I would like to hear that from staff in terms of procedural. Special
- session period. So but but we like approved the meetings at the beginning so. I mean you can make a
- motion to. Okay.
- Okay. But you'll have to tell us what the agenda is. Right. And the date, who is responsible for figuring
- out what date that special session needs to go on? Well, we'll have to poll everybody because everybody
- else has other responsibilities. Okay. I mean, is it appropriate to ask legal staff to elevate this
- on their priority list?
- I don't know who wants to answer that. I mean, having worked with city legal staff, they do not, they
- deal with many things that are all important. And so asking them to elevate something is, I mean, maybe
- they can get it done and maybe they can't. I mean, I understand Mr. Ferris wants to do this rather quickly,
- 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
- and there are people missing that have to somehow schedule something extra in the next couple of weeks
- with legal staff.
- From two different at least two different entities like we cannot do that in the next couple of weeks,
- so I guess I guess I would argue to not have a special session at all and to. put this to to another
- regular session to continue the meeting and ask. City legal county legal etc to come to that meeting.
- if it's possible for them and consult with them about which meeting that they can come to, because we
- can't make decisions up here for that. Mr. Seaborg can't make decisions about city legal, even if Mayor
- Thompson was sitting in that seat, she wouldn't be able to either in terms of those priority lists.
- I'd also like to point out that there's a difference between a discussion on the legal establishment
- of the MPO versus the transparency of information and processes, which MPO staff continue to try and improve
- as we go, but the reorganization of the MPO designation is not going to magically change transparency
- issues that you may be referencing. Okay. Go ahead. Okay.
- only have about eight minutes left. I think this is a strong topic for everybody. I think that's obvious.
- I think there are people that are not here that deserve to have a view in this and a decision in this.
- I do think it's a topic that should not be tabled indefinite. I think that a special session would be
- very hard. Everybody's schedules, you have spring break coming up. Legal departments are very busy.
- urge that we this is a remaining topic on this agenda for this board to discuss. There's different areas
- that I think there could be improvement on this and and I can't speak for the county I'm not the fiscal
- body or anything but you know I granted I know it's housed at the City of Bloomington I know it's paid
- for by the City of Bloomington
- That was established 40 years ago, doesn't mean that the county can't stand up and contribute to those
- costs to make it a more unified group. I do know when, you know, this did come about when they did the
- trade last year and there was a lot of different views, different opinions about the process. When I
- was called in to discuss the process, it was me as county with four or five city.
- And NPO staff, did I feel like it was a little one-sided? Absolutely, I had no other representation
- there. I just, you know, I wanted to be a unified group. Did I feel like it was unified in that meeting
- and with David Hiddle? I didn't, because, you know, how was he involved? Where was my outside county
- representation? Because none of this board was involved, except for myself. Andrew was there, NPO staff
- and planning department.
- That's the kind of stuff that would be great to iron out of what the process is and who's involved and
- who makes these decisions in transparency. So moving on, we have a motion on the table. I believe it's
- for a special session, but I think that's going to be impossible in the next few weeks. So if the motion...
- If I can amend the motion to state that this would be a discussion at the next regular meeting in March
- and we all can do our research, get with our legal teams, give Ellitsville, IU, transit opportunity
- also, that would be my motion that this would be a continued item on the next meeting.
- So that sounds like a competing motion with what's on the table. So I would request that we just vote
- on the motion on the table for whether to have a special session. And I mean, there's often, I mean,
- we have a new business and an old business section here. And I would say that this automatically would
- end up going to old business if we don't settle it. So in my opinion, and if staff agrees with continuing
- it on the agenda, I think we can just vote on the special session. And if the no wins, then it just
- remains on the agenda for next month. Is that accurate to staff?
- I was also going to say a working group is another tool that could be used for something outside. Do
- you want a roll call vote? This is to have a second. Who was the second? I think Julie was the second.
- Sorry, Commissioner Thomas.
- This is a roll call vote on the motion for a special session. Right. Correct. Okay. It's not a special
- session. I thought Lisa's amendment said... They withdrew that kind of session. So what are we voting
- on? To have a special session meeting on this topic. Okay. That is not part of the regular monthly. Right.
- Thank you. Stossberg. No. Bishop. No. Ridge. No. Seaborg. No. Horne. No. Ferris.
- Yes. Packer. No. Nickel. No. Banach. No. Thomas. Yes. No. Motion does not pass. So it becomes old business
- on the next agenda, correct? I just want to make sure we all understand that.
- So there's no question next month. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to item B, unified working or unified
- planning work program. Lisa, forgive me. I don't know the rule of order on this, but if this is going
- to be on old business next time, is it possible that some type of summary of this
- interaction today could be brought forth rather quickly so that the various entities and representatives
- here can take them to their bodies and get direction and have discussion so that next month's meeting
- has some substance to it. Staff would have to go through an hour and a half discussion to try and summarize
- the points.
- And then I'm not sure what we summarize would be agreed to. So we'll make our best effort to do that.
- Yes. I will say that Mr. Ferris has compiled a series of questions that connect back to these founding
- documents and it includes the founding documents. And I'm sure that if you would like him to, he will
- send that to you. He's already sent it to staff, but I'm sure he could send that to you, Mr. Horn. Okay.
- Well, I hope it would be helpful
- people just beyond me or public transit to have. So those comments you're referring to are actually
- attached to this package. So I would really like to move on to the work program right now because I
- literally have another meeting upstairs in two minutes. I don't need. So the answer to my question is.
- More kind of summary. Thank you. Hey.
- Yeah, I will. Page 21 of your packet, page 21, 22, 23, 24, identify the review comments by our funding
- agencies, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Indiana Department
- of Transportation. Those comments were minor in that they want us to clarify, well, they want us to
- erase the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, repeal the executive orders, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
- The work program itself is a balanced document. $396,000 is what it comes to with the federal and local
- match. Federal funds are approximately $298,000. The tasks were reordered based on where we spend our
- time and where we've spent our time in the last two years is answering questions, answering emails,
- holding meetings. The document fulfills
- The Indiana Department of Transportation told us the document fulfills all the requirements, all the
- federal aid requirements under 23 CFR, part port 450, which governs the operation of the MPO. So if
- there's any question about are we legitimate, the answer is yes. And we have been for something like
- 40 some odd years. The only, well, there's a lot of nuance in here. The individual tasks are identified.
- We have 11 funding tables in here which identify where the level of order is going to be in terms of
- our emphasis. The individual responsible agency and end products are all identified thoroughly in every
- one of the elements. We also identify whether this is an ongoing or whether it's a special item of some
- type or another. We've reduced the budget in the long range
- long-range area of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan because that was approved in January of last
- year. Therefore, we won't have to approve a new one for another four years. We've beefed up the emphasis
- is on, like I said, administration, public involvement. The second emphasis is on the Transportation
- Improvement Work Program because those are the capital projects we deliver for you.
- And the third emphasis is on active transportation, safe streets for all, the SS4A element. And then
- we go down from there. I'll be happy to answer any questions you've got in that all of the tables are
- all there. The tables were all modified from the draft to show a carryover column. This was requested
- by the Department of Transportation. All of the tables are exactly what
- Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit, NDOT is requested, and they fulfill 23 CFR Part 450.
- Carryover columns all say zero, but we were told to add them anyway. Any questions anybody have? Yes.
- And what is the hard date deadline for this plan? Today. What is NDOT or Federal Highway's date deadline?
- Normally we would adopt this in
- April, in April, but the problem is it's been accelerated because of threats to funding. The threats
- to funding are on the national level in that programs have not been funded, programs, managed programs
- are grossly under, I shouldn't say grossly, they're understaffed. Federal Highway Administration now,
- where they had six planners, they now have one. Federal Transit Administration, where they had multiple
- Planners for each individual state, they now have one. The process, they've asked us, they call it a
- threat, is what the Department of Transportation called it. So they've asked every MPO to vastly accelerate
- the approval, I'm sorry, the review and adoption by the policy committee. They've asked us to do all
- of that. We've met that requirement.
- Anything postponed beyond this point puts your transportation improvement programs possibly under threat
- in that we would not receive a Notice of Proceed by July 1st. We don't receive a Notice of Proceed for
- planning, which is a federal requirement. If we don't receive it by January 1st, then all transportation
- improvement projects with federal aid would stop, period. That's the same part right there.
- the timeline I was wanting to hear. And I do know that the month of May is very hard for federal aid
- projects. The closer you get to May 1st, because they don't do a lot, they don't approve a lot, they
- don't move money around. May 1st is the lockdown. Yeah, I understand the urgency of the timing to save
- the projects in the tip. And I can't emphasize enough, it meets the requirements of 23 CFR report
- Part 450, I mean, it meets all the federal requirements and they're very happy with us because we're
- number one so far, so far. Okay, thank you. Any questions on the plan? Scott? I apologize for my next
- comments before I make them because I understand the time. I have serious questions of the MPO staff
- following the last meeting. It was the week after the last meeting.
- I did not receive a response from those questions until after close of business last Friday, Saturday
- was the cutoff date for comments. I was not allowed to talk to my colleagues with respect to the feedback
- that I received by MBO staff. I did make an inquiry on beginning of this week wanting to know if my
- comments would be included. I was told they would not be.
- This list that I see in front of us to which we're talking about is great. It talks about the feds,
- it talks about the state, but it doesn't talk about my comments. And I am disturbed over the fact that
- the MPO staff made a unilateral decision not to take and list them so we could at least have a discussion
- about them. What they have done is attach them to this package in the back of it as public comment.
- but not discussing what in fact I was asking questions about in some of the comments I made.
- The clarification, the first email that we received, I noted that the 30-day comment period was open
- until February 21st. Therefore, the assumption was that you could place those comments, place those
- initial comments in the public record for a legal notice if you so wish, if you so chose.
- That didn't happen. Therefore, we received your communication on January 25th. That was after the deadline.
- Nonetheless, we posted it in the document. It's on page 65, 63, 64. I'm sorry, 62, 3, 4, and 5. All
- of those were entered in there, which sets a precedent in that we entered something in there beyond
- the legal period. So all of your comments that were
- that were said on that date of January 25th are all included there. And we also provided responses to
- those comments that were made. And to be repetitively redundant, my favorite phrase. None of this stuff.
- You provided feedback to me close to business last Friday prior to this deadline for providing comments,
- not allowing me
- in the wee hours of Friday evening to actually go through your comments and respond with additional
- comments will be worthy of a public comment on Saturday by close of business, which is a weekend. And
- we're splitting, but getting beyond that, we're absolutely splitting hairs. My comments are still valid.
- They deal with what we talked about previously with the agreement. And more importantly, the other part
- that I'm concerned about is a quote, deliberate, underlying, bold print budget review process.
- which there is not much transparency on, which needs to be explained. Would you like us to add everything
- from February 23rd up until February 20, I'm sorry, from February 3rd to February 25th? We can add that
- into the document. We can add in anything you wish. We wanted you to wish, we wanted everybody to have
- the opportunity to comment within the legal comment period.
- I was asking for changes inside the work plan itself, which would explain these things. I wasn't going
- to write that paragraph for you. I was asking the NPO staff to write that paragraph and then put it
- in front of us so we could nod our head. When I go to the portion of the work plan that talks about
- the organization and how all this fits together, it doesn't really take and explain the transparency
- on how this process works.
- What I have seen since I've observed this body going back to 2018 is that products are presented to
- us and there's no discussion. As a matter of fact, when you ask the question about the public comment,
- the response has been there is no public comment. That demonstrates to me that people really don't even
- understand what we're talking about. Roles and responsibilities are important and the agreement should
- talk about that and more importantly, the work plan should take and make reference to that.
- The org chart that you have in here is very rudimentary if you take a look at it on who reports to and
- how it works. It's in the bylaws or it's in the work plan itself. So I respectfully disagree with what
- you just said and it's just a matter of record at this point. I am disturbed over the fact that we have
- a laundry list of Fed and state comments but we don't have anything in there addressing comments that
- I raised. I am a member of this body and whether or not
- I missed a timeline and I just explained how that happened. The comments still should have been addressed
- and where I said a change needs to be made or included in the document, that should have been on this
- sheet here and we could have had a discussion about that and not you, but this body would decide whether
- there's something that's relevant to be included in the plan. And I apologize for talking so long about
- this when people wanna leave, but this is important. It's missing from the document. I will not support
- this document
- Could you clarify? Let me finish. Wait a second. It's my time. Regardless of the time on the clock here
- or the time that we have with respect to get this in to receive funding, it's an incomplete, not properly
- staffed document at this point. I will vote no when it comes to a vote. I end my conversation now. I
- just want to say that it is in your opinion
- all of those things that you just said about this document being incomplete and not proper and not accurate.
- And those other comments that you put in here as suggestions, they are of your opinion. Just because
- you suggest something that's your opinion, that does not mean MPO staff, any one of us can suggest something.
- And in my mind, that does not mean that MPO staff has to do exactly what any one of us said wanted to
- be done. I don't disagree that, yeah, maybe we should all have talked about it.
- Right, maybe maybe those things should be brought up, but I also think that it's unreasonably timed
- to ask them to do that, even in preparation for this meeting, like, and similarly, similarly, there's
- been another extended
- topic of conversation that we also had to discuss that was brought up by you tonight. And yes, and I
- know that like I need to leave right now because there is another topic of conversation happening that
- I also needed to have input on right now. So yeah, I'm getting a little bit heated about that because
- there are pieces of this that our staff have been working on for an extended period of time. And what
- I have seen so far today is a good deal of disrespect for our MPO staff.
- And that has gotten me a little bit steamed this week because I am a little bit tired of seeing people
- sitting up here in these positions disrespecting staff. So I would like to approve this, move this on.
- I'm honestly, I don't like that there's this appendix in here from you because this is a stack full
- of opinions
- that may or may not have any actual validity to the legal elements of the document that they are required
- to meet per INDOT. And those requirements per INDOT are ridiculously complex. I don't know those requirements
- per INDOT.
- In detail from MPO I have talked much more extensively with the city controller about the requirements
- per in dot related to budget stuff because or not in dot but the state of Indiana related to budget
- stuff because the state of Indiana has ridiculously complex complex requirements for how those things
- are presented to Some of this is not
- necessarily applicable because as a body, the MPO, so that we can get this money, we have to jump through
- these pre-designed hoops. Yeah, we're jumping through them and they're producing things that are not
- very readable to the public, that are not particularly transparent. Should we do better with that in
- terms of explaining things to the public and understanding? Yes, but that can't be done within this document.
- Within many documents, that can't be done. That is an additional task that then we're saying, okay,
- in addition to preparing this really complex thing for the state of Indiana, I also want you to prepare
- a thing for dummies, even though there is nobody from the public at this meeting who ever comes. Now,
- I have said to them, maybe if we did do that, then maybe more people would come. I think that it would
- be great to have more people engaged in MPO work because it's a whole lot of money and a whole lot of
- projects for this community. And I think it's really, really important. But at this point,
- We're well past our closing meeting time. I would like to, I guess I need to find the place and the
- thing to move to approve the work document as presented. Is that the right motion? Or is it a resolution?
- Let me find the thing. It's a motion for the plan.
- Is it appendix? There it is. I would like to move to approve adoption resolution FY2020606. We have
- a motion and we have a second. Any more discussion? I'm going to be very quick.
- We spent a lot of time here talking and you've had plenty of time on the floor and I understand we are
- all pressed for time. I'm pressed for time right now. I would hope that the bulk of this work plan is
- focused on getting our funding. And I don't have any issue with that. I believe that this is a document
- we could amend because we could amend the process part of it without
- impacting any part of our funding in the future. So I will vote yes for that reason that I plan to work
- through amendments on the processes. Thank you. Any public comment? Do you like to do a roll call vote
- or? Horn? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. Fairs?
- Is that me? Ferris? Ferris? So my comment, I want to make a quick comment. I accept what Commissioner
- Thomas said. I don't really take issue with funding elements as they were described. I take issue with
- the process and the organization, which I've stated. Those things need to be addressed and they need
- to be, if they're going to be included in this document, if you've got a section on organization, et cetera,
- It all needs to be explained. If you got an order chart in there, it needs to be explained. So I will
- change my position in order just to take and move the funding along, funding request along to yes. Packer?
- Yes. Nicol? Yes. Stasberg? Yes. Bishop? Yes. Banach?
- Yes. Thomas? Yes. Ridge? Yes. Motion passes. Moving on to new business, the fiscal year 2026-2030 tip
- amendments. Basically it is Bloomington Transit purchase of new buses. Thank you, Lisa. So as you know,
- the MPO doesn't have any authority over where the
- funds from Federal Transit Administration, how those are given out to our local transit agencies. However,
- sometimes, however, projects for the transit agencies do have to be in our local TIP document. So you
- do have purview over that. And so what you see is a request to add a new project to the TIP.
- In the TIP, currently there is a project
- for the purchase of electric buses. However, this is just a general purchase of buses. They will be
- diesel and they will be articulated buses to use for the university. I believe they'll be getting three
- of them. And the funding that you see is actually funds, MPO federal funds that were flexed to transit.
- at the end of fiscal year 22, 23, and 24. And so these funds that we flexed over to Transit, they are
- able to hold onto them for a few years, unlike us. And it sounds like Federal Transit would like everybody
- to use the funds that they have prior to the expiration of the transportation bill in September.
- And so they are trying to get their pots used funding. Does anybody have any questions? Do we have a
- motion? I move approval of the tip amendments resolution 2026-05. We have a motion and a second.
- Any board discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none. All those in favor for resolution adoption of
- a resolution fiscal year 2026-05, do so by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on public
- comment on matters not included on the agenda. Seeing none.
- Communications from committee members on matters not included in the agenda. Seeing none. Upcoming meetings,
- the Technical Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, March 25th at 10 a.m. Citizens Advisory Committee
- will meet Wednesday, March 25th at 5 30. And the next policy committee meeting will be March 27th at 10 30 a.m.
- This meeting is adjourned.