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.