- Okay so we're going to call the Bloomington Monroe County Policy Committee meeting to order April 28th
- 2026 at 10 32 a.m. So the first thing I'll ask for is introductions. Do we have anybody online. One
- member of the public and Margaret Clements.
- Okay, um, so we'll start introductions. Uh, we'll start on my right Jason University Echol
- City of Bloomington Public Works Department serving as a proxy for director Adam Wason Packer Seymour
- district Indian Department of Transportation Scott Ferris Monroe County Planning Commission
- Doug Horne Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation order directors Lisa rich Monroe County Highway
- Department Serving as proxy for Mayor Thompson Hopi Stasberg Bloomington City Council Steve Bishop City
- Bloomington Planning Commission Julie Thomas Monroe County Commissioner. Sorry my mic was up and Sam
- Tobin hockstatt Citizens Advisory Committee
- Thank you. And online. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Approval of the agenda for April 24th 2026. I moved to
- approve the agenda motion. Do we have a second. I would like to modify the agenda.
- Okay, can I do that? I would like to move to modify the agenda by switching items seven and eight So
- then we handle new business prior to old business Second So we have a motion and we have a second
- To modify the agenda to move items rate or I guess reverse items seven and eight for old business and
- new business. Do you need to take a vote. I'll go ahead and do it for this one. Tobin Hachette. Yes.
- Ridge. Yes. Horn. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Packer. Yes. Nickel. Yes.
- Bannock Stasberg yes Thomas yes Seaborg yes Bishop yes motion passes we will address new business item
- eight before old business item seven. Thank you. The policy committee meeting minutes from February
- 27th 2026.
- to approve the minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any comments. Any public comment.
- All in favor. All in favor of approving the minutes from February 27th do so by saying aye. Any opposed.
- Motion carries. Communications from the chair and vice chair.
- I don't have anything at this time. I don't I don't have communication from officers and or committees.
- Nate the technical advisory committee met this past Wednesday and we considered the new business item
- that's on our agenda here today and the recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you.
- The CAC met on Wednesday and also considered the same new business item and also recommended approval
- Reports from MPO staff Okay, the first item we have Under 6.1 is public hearing notice for Bloomington
- Transit for three public comment sections This is on proposed improvements for route 16 on the west side
- Bloomington Transit proposed to combine Route 3 West and 13 into one travel pattern on the west side
- of Bloomington and Monroe County. First public hearing opportunity will be Monday, May 4th from 5 to
- 6 o'clock at Ivy Tech State College in Lampkin Hall. Second public hearing opportunity, public comment
- opportunity is on Wednesday, May 6th.
- 12 to 1 o'clock at Bloomington Public Transportation's downtown Transit Center and The third meeting
- and then is Thursday May 7th from 4 to 5 o'clock again at the downtown Transfer Center Anybody have
- any questions be happy to answer those We encourage your attendance Okay, the second one we have is
- March 30th 2026 speed limit reduction announcement for stateward 46 through Ellisville This reduction
- came about through a school zone area The 85th percentile in the area. Well, it's been reduced from
- 30 miles an hour to 25 miles an hour But the 85th percentile was as high as 55 to 60 miles an hour through
- the area so in dot
- Implemented it. They'll be doing also a follow-up on all of this and Ellisville law enforcement and
- the state police will be enforcing the new speed limit also Questions anybody be happy to answer those
- What did you say was 60 miles an hour It was a 30 mile an hour zone, but the 85th percentile was 55
- to 60 miles an hour the 85th percentile which means
- 85% of the cars were going that fast It's straight stretch, you know, it it means that 15% of the cars
- were going faster than 55 Yeah Thanks, that's just really fast through there. I mean that's like basically
- downtown Third item I have is the ash to wear safety the Indiana Department of Transportation for
- 11 years, 12 years, been using a crash analysis tool called RoadHat. This is RoadHazard analysis tool
- developed by Purdue University. Custom software, we've gone through a number of versions. I think it's
- version 4.2 or something like that is what it ends now. Effective January 1st, Department of Transportation
- will be shifting to
- the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Safety Software. The safety software
- has been adopted by 21 states, will become the 22nd state if I'm correct on this. It's a more rigorous
- type of software analysis for crash data. It involves network screening, diagnosis, countermeasure selection,
- economic appraisal, project prioritization,
- and safety effectiveness evaluation. Katie and I have volunteered to be beta testers for the software.
- Several of the MPOs have also volunteered also to be beta testers. Again, the software we're going to
- affect January 1st. Anybody has any questions on that? Be happy to answer those. Oh, and we are working
- on the crash data. We're going through the verification
- Process right now where we're cleaning up some of the data that has conflicts conflicts. We've gotten
- the preliminary data from Department of Transportation in February We had 79 significant intersections
- as in two standard deviations beyond the mean We had we also had roadway segments identified
- The roadway segments we had three areas that were identified but all of those were in rural very rural
- areas of Monroe County predominantly in subdivisions surprisingly. We'll be going through further analysis
- of that all that will be posted on the crash hub Web site by either the end of May or sometime in June
- before July. Be happy to answer any questions you have on that too.
- Next item I have is the MPO process update for the in dot traffic count database management system The
- MPO is paid for traffic counting database Activities conducted by the engineering department of the
- city of Bloomington for the last we've probably been doing this probably 12 15 years something like
- that we paid for the software license we also paid for the counters traffic counters and
- Road tubes and all the supplies. We also did that for the town of Ellisville up until a few years ago
- and then they've stopped doing the counts. We've offered this process to the Monroe County too, but
- there was a shortage of manpower and that was never implemented. So earlier this year, just about a
- month and a half, two months ago, we
- coordinated with the Department of Transportation's central office on uploading 300 and I think it was
- 311 or 371 I can't remember the exact number now all the traffic counts conducted over the last several
- years Uploaded all of that to their database management system. They use the same software management
- system that we did Therefore now there are three MPOs that are using the state system statewide
- Statewide software license therefore that reduces our costs significantly it adds a benefit
- to the engineering department and to The Department of Transportation because all the data is housed
- in one central location I encourage you to go in and look at the map sometime Where you zoom in on the
- area of Bloomington and it'll show you all of the counts of
- that have been done by not only NDOT, but also by our traffic engineering department, including P car
- volumes and overall average annual daily traffic. All of this data is also used for the crash analysis
- system and also for prioritization of various infrastructure investments. Questions, anybody? The next
- item I have is the
- Indiana Department of Transportation active transportation report news release the active transportation
- plan is in draft form. It was released in March. I encourage you to go in and review it. There's also
- a link for a comment public comment on the plan. Plan is only 38 pages long. It's
- I'll be gentle here. It's a lot of what we had previously seen in the way of the active transportation
- plan. However, there is a sea change here. The sea change is the Department of Transportation now has
- an explicit policy that they will build sidewalks where sidewalks do not exist, particularly in small
- rural communities where the state highway passes through. They'll also facilitate bike
- Alternative transportation as in bike pad type operations through small communities This is again a
- sea change So I kudos to the Department of Transportation for coming about with that policy and it all
- has to goes back to safety too for that matter but I encourage you to go in at least look the report
- and also provide your comments on the on the link and
- Okay. And the next thing I have is the 2026 board and commissions conflict of interest questionnaire.
- Uh, the city clerk advised us the MPO that all boards and commissions, that's the technical advisory
- committee, the citizen advisory committee and the policy committee of the MPO, all members and all,
- all alternates proxies are required to submit a conflict of interest questionnaire.
- This is a requirement to the State Board of Accounts. We have on the Policy Committee, we only have
- three individuals that have not submitted the reports as of yet. There are not the reports,
- the questionnaires as of yet. So we encourage you, we will reach out to you individually and ask you
- to complete the questionnaire so that way we can fulfill the requirements of the State Board of Accounts.
- That's all I've got.
- Can I just get clarification about the conflict of interest do we all need to fill out one of those
- even if we don't think There's any conflicts of interest. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, even the mayor was
- required to fill out one Federal officials know Indiana Department of Transportation officials know
- Yeah The US Army Corps of Engineers Louisville
- reached out to all of the communities in Indiana to try and identify areas that experience severe roadway
- flooding or potentially where fatalities or high water rescues have occurred. And this is part of their
- flood safety and messaging signage campaign. So as a result of doing that research and chatting with
- the county folks, I learned that county folks collaborated to make this map.
- which is essentially Showing the current locations of road may flood signs that are maintained by the
- Monroe County Highway Department Shown in red and then all of the green points are points of known flooding
- from the fire protection District and then there's also flood hazard data from the DNR in there as well
- so that was just something that the county did in response to the Army Corps
- And I just wanted to share this resource with you all so that you are aware that it's there. Another
- resource I'd like to share is just a 2026 roadmap to safety report that was put out by the advocates
- for highway and auto safety.
- could have some interesting information in it. I haven't read it yet, but just for your information
- if you'd like to read it, they do have a states at glance section which indicates that Indiana falls
- in the caution. They've labeled Indiana as caution on their scale.
- And it shows the 10-year fatality total for Indiana, the 2024 fatality total, and the annual cost due
- to motor vehicle crashes. It also talks about highway laws that have been adopted and others that exist
- but are not adopted in our state. And so that's just another resource for you to check out if you're
- interested.
- Okay next I'd like to share that in March of this year we were contacted by in dot and they told us
- that we have been granted some extra funds. All of the MPOs have been granted some extra funds to use
- for fiscal year 26. The amount of extra funds we've received is forty seven thousand eight hundred and
- ninety four and that has to be used by September of twenty twenty six.
- The next item item six point ten. This is a memo about a meeting that MPO staff had with city of Bloomington
- engineering department and Monroe County Highway Department. At this meeting we discussed three items.
- The first item is the.
- where to put that extra forty seven thousand that we've been granted for fiscal year twenty six. The
- group agreed to grant those funds to the downtown curb ramps project phase five because they did not
- do to decreases in funding in fiscal year twenty six. They did not get their anticipated allocation
- and so they'll be moving forward with
- with using those funds. Well, I should say the amendment for that will come later in this meeting. The
- second thing we discussed at this meeting was that both the city and county have made it known that
- they are interested in moving two of their projects, College and Walnut Phase I and Old SR 37 South
- and Dillman Project to different fiscal years.
- for various reasons college and walnut from twenty nine to thirty and Dillman and thirty seven from
- twenty eight to twenty nine. Neither of them want to do that unless we increase that. Neither of them
- want to do that unless there is minimal to no loss in funding.
- So the MPO looked at other offers for exchanges that were available with other MPOs and then we did
- the math to try and figure out if we could move these projects and still maintain as much funding for
- the projects as possible and find a way to get funding in other years that would be helpful through
- exchanges. And so I won't read
- all the way through these. I can if you want me to. But the bullet points here detail how that would
- work and how all the funding would sort out. And this proposed scenario would not result in any loss
- of funding for the 37 Dilman project. It would result in less funding allocated to College and Walnut. However,
- Using exchanges and by by moving the money around We would be returning We would be giving some of the
- proposal is to give Some of the money back to High Street project which is occurring next fiscal year.
- And so essentially College and walnut project would not be getting
- Their funding back upon moving. However, we would make up for that by Using an exchange to get money
- for High Street project next year, which currently does not have any federal funding At this meeting
- the group agreed that this Exchange so doing two exchanges with two MPOs and
- which would allow both projects to move up a fiscal year. The group agreed that this would be beneficial
- for everyone and is interested in moving forward with this scenario. The third item that we discussed
- is that the scenario in item two would result in some extra unassigned funds in 28 and 29.
- And the there are projects in those years that can use those funds. But the group decided to postpone
- the decision of that those allocations until a future meeting. So we will not if we move forward with
- the scenario in item two then we would not assign these extra funds quite yet which is which is fine.
- We don't always have to assign them immediately especially if they're in future years.
- Any questions. Yes. Let's go back to college and Walnut and it talks about phase one project construction.
- I know in the fall we met the wasn't a hearing it was a public meeting to talk about college and Walnut
- in this area right here and I believe that was conducted by planning and transportation. So
- I don't believe we've heard any feedback whatsoever on changes or possible changes to what was being
- suggested in that public meeting. Is that forthcoming. That's the first question and to an item in agenda
- item two it talks about project construction. Is this a placeholder for dollars or is there an actual
- plan that has been put forth looking for dollars for that phase one construction.
- I'll ask you to repeat your second question in a minute because I didn't quite hear it all okay The
- college and walnut study is in its final stages and they are working to prepare meetings materials for
- public release in the coming months They are currently compiling the feedback from the open houses and
- other outreach efforts into the final study Okay, the second question then was
- And I think you can see where I'm going with this. And maybe we're just dealing with semantics here.
- How can you move forward with a phase one construction if, in fact, you don't even know what it's going
- to look like? And if the funding line here is nothing more than a placeholder for dollars, anticipation
- of a final plan, I mean, I can understand that. Is that the case? Yeah, sure. I mean, typically in these plans,
- The first three years are pretty set in stone most of the time but not always and then the last two
- year years are often illustrative and because you those timelines are even more uncertain than the timelines
- in the first three years and So yeah, I mean we're projecting funding usage right now for where there's
- for those years and we we want to
- Stake as close as we can to those projections, but that being said there will be another tip happening
- in this fall and so fiscal year 29 and 30 will not be illustrative anymore and Since all the funding
- is pretty There's limited places where fiscal year 29 and 30 funding can be used at this time so those
- probably won't change but
- I mean, we're constantly, that's the whole purpose of this game, is we're constantly having to move
- funding around and the phases for projects around because things are uncertain. Sometimes right of way
- takes longer than you expect. Sometimes environmental review by NDOT takes longer. So yeah, we have
- to be flexible and constantly adjust as we go. Okay, you answered my question. The other part though is,
- Well, we have a chance to see what the incorporated changes have been made to College and Walnut before
- it goes final. You say that the results of the public meetings, you're looking at them, you're analyzing
- them, you're incorporating whatever, and you'll see something new. Is that subject to approval or is
- that something that's done deal at that point? So are you saying that
- You don't want to approve giving. No, no, I did not say that. I'm just asking the question. Once everything's
- been incorporated and you have made changes or no changes and there's now a final product based upon
- all the public meetings that you had in whatever sessions for feedback, will we the public have a chance
- to comment one more time before it goes final or is it final at that point?
- Generally speaking so the project like college and walnuts in regards to the MPO and the project that
- is in the tip Likely wouldn't generally be getting an update a detailed plan review at this Body like
- we don't see that for other projects that are in the tip here but I would expect that there would be
- additional public dialogue and discussion about that project as it moves forward and
- Ultimately most likely through the city's transportation commission and then the idea is that it ultimately
- becomes a part of the city's Transportation plan so would even be discussed at the City Council level
- so there will be additional opportunities for public engagement and Comment on that project. Thank you
- Thanks, Andrew All right, any other comments on item 610
- I just wanted to next item 6-eleven. I just wanted to share a few updates for projects that are in the
- tip so In dots project between the bypass and Pete Ellis Drive on SR 45 and 10th Which involves intersection
- improvements and added turn lanes The letting for that project took place April 8th and
- Crider and Crider submitted the lowest bid at six million four hundred and fifty two thousand after
- a notice to proceed is issued the next several months will be dedicated towards utility relocation
- Construction is anticipated to begin in spring of 27 with expected completion in spring of 28 and
- There last time we spoke there was still ongoing community concern when folks had Realized that the
- project involved the removal of trees So since then there has been a city press release that communicated
- that the city of Bloomington worked with in dot to do a redesign of the Pete Ellis Side of the plan
- and the redesign includes shorter storage lengths for the turn lanes on Pete Ellis however
- There is no change to the overall scope of the project. So with the redesign of the turn lanes, eight
- mature trees that were previously slated for removal were able to be preserved. West Second Street project,
- they are currently in utility relocations and construction will start in a couple months. The city's
- downtown Kerr-Brown phase five project is just now starting design.
- This project involves crosswalk improvements in Third and Atwater, just south of IU campus. The High
- Street project just wrapped up right of way acquisition. Utility relocation is going to occur this year
- and construction in 2027. Crosswalks phase three is in design. Crosswalks phase four is selecting a
- design consultant. The Dunn Street multi-use path
- Project they are in design currently and they are doing right away appraisals to start right away acquisition
- Rockport Road bridge project the construction begins June 1st This one the Dillman Bridge project is
- working on design the countywide bridge inventory was completed in March, which is the required compliance month and
- The oldest are 37 South and Dilman Road and college and walnut projects They as mentioned previously
- are hoping to get approval to shift their letting date from fiscal year 28 to 29 and 29 to 30 Any comments
- I have a question. Do you have any idea when the road closures are going to start along 10th Street
- between Pete Ellis and the bypass. Oh I thought I had that. Hold on. I just mean if there's been a press
- release about that that would be great to know. I don't think there's been a press release.
- I thought I did but Well, I can ask are you just talking about me that project Yeah, that's the end
- up. We haven't even had a pre-construction conference. So this year is all utility relocations so that'll
- And I don't know if they will have a closure for that It will depend on the utilities and then next
- year is when construction starts next spring and
- Okay, so you don't necessarily anticipate closures for the utility relocations or like maybe I should
- say like long-term closures as opposed to I know there's a Gas line, I believe that needs to be moved
- and it's I want to say Outside the like where the trees were and I'm trying to think if there was anything
- in the roadway That would really require Right now without having
- I would have to look at the plans to let you know. Okay great. Thank you. That's good. Any other questions
- for MPO staff. We will move to new business for item for the proposed tip updates. Yeah we have some
- tip updates for your consideration.
- Five of them. The first is a request from INDOT to add a new project called IDIQ Bridge Maintenance
- and Repair. It's a total project cost of a million dollars. And they, as far as I've been informed,
- the locations are not determined at this point. They sometimes will give us projects to include in the TIP that
- They don't have locations quite yet for but they anticipate that work will be done in our area So they
- do kind of a general grouped Add to the tip The next project is also an in dot new project called district
- paving project. This is in a few counties, but for Monroe County, it would be SR 45 south of Martin Drive
- Again, this is all grouped kind of into the same funding table for all the locations The third amendment
- to the tip is The addition of a another in dot project called traffic signal modernization in various
- locations of Monroe and Owen counties And again specific locations not determined at this point but
- It's a general allocation from the state of anticipating work in our area. The fourth amendment is to
- update the NDOT project called slide correction on I-69 from SR-37 in Monroe County to Morgan County.
- The changes that they would like to make are to
- Because of the stability of the project, of the location, they will be moving, they're requesting to
- move the right-of-way phase up to 2030, from 26 to 2030, and to move the construction phase of the project
- outside the tip to 2031 or 2032, and slightly increase the cost of the project for inflation.
- The fifth amendment request is to update the funding for the downtown curb ramps phase five project.
- So there's a few changes that are happening here. So the original fiscal year 26 allocation, federal
- funding allocation for this project, the 77,000 and 132,000, those were not able to take place. So we
- have to remove those. Then the new
- The new P.E. contract was 271,460. So that increased from the original estimate. So that is an update.
- And then this update also adds those extra 47,000 in fiscal year 26 funding that was discussed with
- the LPAs on April 8th.
- Any questions from the board on any of these projects Andrew I guess just a question about More just
- just curious for project two and three for in that's Paving project and signal modernization project
- things fully supportive but just noting that the charts say that's H SIP funding so safety improvement
- program funding and
- And just curious to understand like what those projects are that is safety focused if that's the funding
- just I know that in dot my impression has very clear guidelines on what H sip can be applied for and
- so just curious to understand what that is. Yeah that's a good question. I would have to reach out and
- ask. Yes. So the paving project would be just spot paving briar to us chip ceiling because
- We're all running out of money so we're trying to extend the life of our roads and then the
- signal modernization is usually the back covers on the signals and then upgrading the equipment and
- then if we have five head then we go into the forehead with the yellow flashing arrow.
- Can someone explain what the ID IQ program is how it works why only some bridges etc. So it's kind of
- like having an on call the started we followed New York. So we had they had a they can use federal money.
- So as a way to use federal money for this. So it's indefinite and indefinite quantity and different
- determination.
- When we have a situation come up in the year, then we find when someone went out and did, let's say,
- a bridge, and then we have a bridge inspection report, and it's something outside of what our maintenance
- crews can handle, then we can go to the contractor. It's like an on-call and ask them to give us a price.
- We don't have to accept their price because it can be kind of high. And then we'll negotiate whether
- we want them to do the work or not.
- It's for the whole district because I don't know. It's a two year program when they bid it and we get
- a million each year. We have the same in road but we switched it to state funding but we've left this
- one as federal. Thank you so much. Any other questions. Any public comment.
- Seeing none I would need a motion I guess I need to we need to motion to pass the the tip amendments.
- I move that we approve the tip amendments. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Any other board
- comments any public comment.
- Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion to accept the five tip amendments do so by saying aye.
- Aye. Any opposed. Seeing none. Motion carries. I'm going to old business new intraoperative intra local
- agreement for MPO. You had some information in your packets from emails from committee member Ferris.
- Then you also have the historical designation documentation in your packet Not sure who wants to start
- the discussion on this item Just go ahead and put up the the talking points if you would please My intent
- is it's not to rehash everything we talked about at the last meeting which is probably over an hour
- of discussion and
- I know the the MPO staff suggested everybody review the cats Presentation and What I did over the last
- couple weeks is that I went back and put together this little talking paper Which pretty much it pretty
- much summarizes the way ahead that was suggested at the last meeting and Scroll down a little bit Scroll down
- And you'll see in the bold underline that that'll be the motion. It was it was suggested at the last
- meeting and that'll be the motion that I plan to put on the floor when this discussion is complete.
- I'm not going to rehash everything that was discussed. What I did do under relevant documentation and
- the word says source documents and these are in your packet. These are all the various memorandums letters
- etc. from all the concerned
- organizations going back to 78 through 82 which lays out the establishment of the MPO for the Bloomington
- Monroe County urbanization area There's even a sunset statement in there about it being interim and
- this is Over what 45 years ago that this agreement was put in place and
- Lot has changed since that time frame the city of Bloomington has grown the county has grown Indian
- University has grown Ellisville has grown transportation has grown it's we're not the same community
- that we were back in 78 through 82 The what was stipulated with respect to who's going to manage the
- MPO with the Bloomington Plan Commission being and taking the lead
- We all know that that is not the case today. Elements of planning and transportation of the city are
- the ones who take and manage that effort to end the MPO staff. Pat has been appointed as the MPO director
- even though I'm not aware of any documentation that says that that's even a position that's authorized.
- I'm not gonna go through the the various documents there. They're there for your review. Hopefully you
- had a chance to read them before you came in here But the talking the talking paper does take and provide
- a quick summary of each of those You want to read their documents in total they're provided in that
- documentation package. That's also attached to this agenda So it's time for us to have a new agreement
- what that might look like I think that that's between the mayor and the
- and the county commissioners and with the legal departments of each working with the other
- LPAs as appropriate and coming up with what we consider a new agreement. Thank you. Julie. Yes I will
- just say that speaking on behalf of the board of commissioners we support the development
- or at least the negotiation toward the development of a new agreement. And it starts with a conversation
- between a county legal and city legal. And I will note that Dave Schilling county attorney is here in
- the room and I'm sure he'll be happy to answer any questions anybody may have from the county's behalf.
- Thank you. I'm just wondering.
- If the County Plan Commission has authorized you to speak on their behalf with this like if there been
- a discussion at the County Plan Commission level around this Proposal Mr. Ferris or has I mean, I'm
- sorry that our County Council representative is not here at this meeting today to Weigh in as well, but
- This was not an item on the Planning Commission meeting agenda Okay, so so you're here representing
- the County Planning Commission But in terms of this proposal that you're bringing forth, it's not actually
- a proposal from the County Planning Commission It's a proposal from you as an individual This proposal
- has been coordinated with members of the county and at this point to answer your question I will defer
- to the County Commissioner So you said by members of the county so is it just?
- then or is it are there other members of the county that were involved in coordinating this I Think
- I answered that question there are people in the county to which I coordinate this with yes But it was
- not on a formal agenda item on the Planning Commission I'm asking you which specific people in the county.
- I'm not going to go into detail. That's not relevant
- I'm not gonna mention I'm not gonna mention people our name. I'm not gonna do that. That's a trap and
- you know that I Think it actually would be relevant if there were I mean you're you're representing
- Specific I mean you're representing a specific Group in the county, which is the County Planning Commission
- So the specific group that that you are representing on this board did not discuss this matter. I Believe
- I've answered this question. Thank you. So no, they did not discuss this. I believe I've answered this question
- I'm clarifying that that is the answer. Is that the answer that other people heard was that no the County
- Planning Commission I said, I don't know why you're picking at this and you're asking me to restate
- me what I previously said and that is that I have coordinated this with elements of the individuals
- who represent the various agencies Okay on this particular body. I have coordinated my response with
- them But not with the County Planning Commission that you are purportedly representing as part of this body
- I've already answered that question. I defer to the county commissioner who has her hand up.
- So did Mr. Ferris coordinate this with the county plan commission like like or or is it just yourself
- as county commissioner. You spoke on behalf of the county commissioners earlier. Did you guys discuss
- this in a public meeting.
- Let me answer your question this way I think as a member of this MPO policy committee that any member
- has any right to bring an issue or an agenda item to bear I will note that yes the board of commissioners
- in an administrative meeting open to the public but not necessarily on camera have discussed the value of
- proceeding with a new round of conversations if something changes Let's see a proposal. Maybe nothing
- changes. Maybe it stays the same I don't know but we need to have that conversation needs to be had
- and We've been advised that it's a it's a worthwhile endeavor by our
- legal staff if they thought that there was no value in this they would have said really I don't know
- that we need to do this and they didn't say that. So that's the answer. He everything that Mr. Ferris
- does here does not have to be verified through the plan commission before he attends a meeting. If he
- has concerns or questions for members of the plan commission he's welcome to bring that to the plan
- commission at any time.
- But he is appointed as a representative of the Plan Commission. That doesn't mean everything he says
- or does here has to be approved by the Plan Commission just as everything you say and do here doesn't
- have to be approved by the City Council. Thank you. I have a question about this. What is the role that
- we need to play here? It seems clear that based on the view of the
- county elected officials and staff that there's going to be some conversations between county attorneys
- and city attorneys Obviously we on the MPO policy committee do not control the time of either the city
- or the county attorneys so We can't tell them to do that. Do we need to do anything else prior to them
- having that conversation? I think it's
- I'm only speaking for myself I'm not speaking for anybody else in my opinion here. I think it's just
- bringing a subject to light of trying to bring any of the parties that are not on this board together
- to look at them and document that's 45 years old see if it needs updated see if there needs to be some
- changes to fit today's needs for the community the LPA is the board members the staff and then just
- bringing them together to talk on and maybe there are no changes. Maybe everything's working the way
- it should work. I think it's just a board member maybe more than one board member bringing their concerns
- to the public and to this board as a board member that they would like that discussions and they would
- like that the mayor and the county commissioners and their legal staff to come together and that
- the board would support the discussions moving forward if there is any changes or it's just requesting
- to have discussions and bring the appropriate parties together. That's how I feel this should go. That's
- how I feel. That's our part. I don't think that we set up here and make that decision for them. We're
- not on their calendars. We're not in control to tell them what to do. I think it's just some board members
- have a concern with an area of
- serving on this board and they would like to have further discussion of the agreement that seems possibly
- a little outdated. The memorandum dated 5 April 1982 from the U.S. Department of Transportation which
- pretty much acknowledges the fact that the city of Bloomington planned commission is going to be the
- authority to manage the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Bloomington urbanized area what it
- does say in the last sentence that one paragraph and they kind of answer your question It says the MPO
- designation will remain valid until the governor's office and the local officials Which are not defined
- take appropriate action to revise it If I look at the request in the earlier memorandums Those requests
- are signed by the mayor of Bloomington
- and the president of the Monroe County Plan Commission. So one can make compelling argument the local
- officials mean that that has led the decision to be led by the mayor and the president of the county
- commissioners in order for us to take and facilitate that. And I would argue that that's what this is
- a facilitation we need to take and put a request on the table that they meet and discuss and talk about
- all those things that Lisa just brought up.
- Whether we whether we do we don't we might we might not but then again Maybe there's a better way of
- doing things because our community has changed since 1978 to 82 I Mean there there is some dysfunction
- which I will not go into because we talked about at the last meeting But there is some dysfunction that
- we can approve upon to make our body more efficient Thank you Andrew
- Trying to think here. Um, I think generally speaking I think Recognizing I'm here as a proxy I think
- at any point I'm I'm comfortable with saying that staff from the office of the mayor or staff from city
- legal if are reached out to by their counterparts at the county would be happy to sit down and talk and
- And have dialogue about these things I also know both those bodies at the city are very busy and have
- a lot of other priorities on their plate But I think would still be open to working and talking through
- things But depending on the level of time and investments, I don't know how quickly could make progress
- But just just wanting to volunteer that piece of information I think generally open to exploring this
- being curious I think
- I don't know that these older documents like maybe why the county and city Representative signed it
- was because the MPO did not yet exist. So now that it does exist Maybe it would be more appropriate
- for the this body to be the signatories of things like that I'm not an attorney and I've honestly not
- read in detail those older documents, but just just offering those one maybe a couple just three questions
- maybe on my mind are just
- Not wanting to get into the weeds but just the memo that I believe Commissioner Ferris put together
- uses the word we the letter I know you drafted it but just wasn't sure was the intent that we would
- be this body is the week because nobody signed this I'm just trying to understand who we is That right
- made that recommendation or if it's being presented as something for this body to consider I just just
- trying to understand the context of that a little more You got to start from somewhere
- And this goes just based on 40 years of doing business like this. You've got to create an action. Otherwise,
- things result in endless discussions with no outcome. And so the intent of coming up with a motion that
- says we recommend, we're not directing, we're just recommending, kind of like along the lines of what
- a couple folks have already said here, that the mayor, that the commissioners, that the attorneys get
- together with the appropriate other.
- representatives from the other LPAs and look at this thing. I mean, I can provide a list of disconnects,
- what I believe are disconnects, personal disconnects from dealings with this body going back to 19,
- I'm sorry, 2018. It's not relevant for this discussion, but it would be a good example of things that
- we could approve upon if in fact we were to sit down and come up with something different. So the intent
- of this was that the we represented this
- My intent is that this body as the policy committee would recommend that in fact this move forward because
- that would establish the action that would result in some sort of an outcome. That's all this is. That's
- helpful just for me to understand what this is. Another just my understanding is that typically when
- this body reviews things, it's already been reviewed or discussed by the TAC and the CAC.
- And I'm just curious if this topic generally has been discussed by those bodies and maybe the other
- I may be throwing two questions here at once the other it would be putting myself hypothetically in
- a meeting with county and city legal it might be helpful for those body those people to have an idea
- of what the concerns or goals of this committee would be to engage on what an interlocal agreement should
- be or just to talk about the fact that it's old
- And a piece of information that I personally would be interested in is what to do other MPO inner locals
- look like and that might be something that we could Hypothetically ask our MPO staff to investigate
- just to see what do other? MPOs do and I think that would be just a useful data point to help inform
- those discussions, but that's just An idea, so I'm just throwing those things out for the good So the
- CAC has not had any
- Discussion of this topic appear on its agenda I'd echo that were the TAC as well So just a quick point
- of order it was on the agenda For today's meeting and so subsequently was on the agenda for both the
- your two bodies And you're saying that even that was on the agenda would be brought up in this meeting.
- There was no discussion of that topic
- What you're saying the agenda for the policy committee is not necessarily the same as the agenda for
- the CAC and the Thus this particular item did not appear on either the February or the April agendas
- for the CAC That's disturbing There is no official
- Action or proposal to discuss so that is why this was simply a matter that was under discussion by the
- PC So there wasn't a reason to bring it to either of those committees at this time Even there was an
- old business item with documents attached to it These two bodies were not given the chance to review
- those documents and comment one way or another is that what you're confirming they did review the historic
- documents at the February meeting and
- because staff shared those with them just as an informational item. Julie back to the point about how
- other MPOs operate. I believe we already have that information. Mr. Schilling may be able to shed some
- light on that. I think we we may already have those documents collected but
- I don't know if Mr. Schilling wants to speak on that. I am not aware of those documents in my files
- but I believe other county offices have that and I would just say that
- there are a number of inter-local cooperation agreements between the city and the county and from time
- to time I meet with Corporation Council to discuss those and I am meeting with Corporation Council next
- week and we were intended to discuss this and Andrew to your point did to even talk about how we might
- go about finding if there is a even a problem
- Or if anything needs to be done. So very preliminary discussions. No agenda other than getting together
- and talking about an old agreement. Thank you. So then I thought those documents existed. So then if
- we could have asked Mr. Seaborg point if we could have MPO staff pull together the
- foundational documents of other MPOs that are currently in place not not historic but currently in place
- that would be really helpful. We could do that but I don't know how comprehensive it could be because
- we're talking about 12 other 13 other MPOs all of which are in various organizational structures. I
- mean there some are counting some are independent summer city.
- It's a mishmash, but yeah, we can do our best. I think a sampling would be sufficient, especially if
- you consider the location of the offices or like you said county city independent if we could get some
- samples of those examples that I think would be helpful. Thank you. I mean, it's it's it's safe to say
- that you're going to see multiple versions
- of what an MPO looks like across the state. I don't think there's a you have to confirm this. I don't
- believe there's a standard on how the MPOs are established for each of the MPOs. Is that correct. One
- would see that across the entire United States not just Indiana. Okay. But is it correct. There's no standard.
- There's not one model that everybody follows. Depends on the individual jurisdiction depends on the
- individual state depends upon when they were created depends upon how they've evolved depends upon depends
- upon depends upon. So I would argue that again there is no standard and you're going to find different
- types of MPOs depending upon whatever jurisdiction. There's no standard.
- In other words, is there a mold? And the answer is there's a standard in terms of they all meet federal
- requirements because they're all subject to approval by the governor, by the Department of Transportation,
- by the Federal Highway Administration, by the Federal Transit Administration, the USDOT. The other standard
- is that the, you know,
- designated MPO body which in this case is the city of Bloomington their role that they serve is only
- fiscal and administrative support and staff support. Other than that they do not have any authority.
- All authority lies with this policy committee. So the only thing we're arguing over right now is essentially
- who gets to provide the administrative support
- and staff support you know pay benefits whatever. So how do we do that. You know how do we create some
- sort of legal contracting agency that will provide those services. I don't consider this an argument.
- I consider this a healthy discussion of trying to get everybody to understand
- That's kind of what the goal is of updating an agreement that's 45 years old. Lot has changed in 45
- years names of committees names of positions. It's just trying to engage everybody into a conversation
- to make sure what the board is working on what MPO staff is working on is in a current version. So I
- don't consider this an argument. I consider this as a discussion to bring everybody on the same page.
- If there's nothing that needs to be done with an agreement then then we leave it as is. But I don't
- know why it would be an issue just to have a discussion and let our legal counsel and the mayor and
- the commissioners move forward with that discussion and then provide us guidance in the future for that.
- First of all, I just want to say I think that the term argument could be used as a debate as well not
- just like a back-and-forth argumentative like angry kind of thing and I assumed that that was How it
- was being used in that context? secondly, I there's an assertion in this document that the Bloomington
- Monroe County MPO is not working as intended and
- Because the local public agencies of the greater metropolitan area do not have sufficient voice in the
- determinations Primarily made by the city of Bloomington planning and transportation department and
- I find that assertion really troubling in a number of ways and I Think that that is insulting in some
- ways to Anybody who's on this committee because in theory, you know people on the this committee and
- the other MPOP committees are the ones that
- That have that power as was just mentioned by our staff that all the city of Bloomington Planning and
- Transportation Department is doing is being that like fiscal oversight body not dictating what projects
- Get funded or do not get funded and how that priority is and that that is left for this body and the
- other related Metropolitan or the planning organization party the CAC and the
- the TAC so I I'm really actually like like that almost feels as the City Council person that feels a
- little insulting and it also feels a little insulting to staff that our MPO staff is prioritizing one
- agency over another and I don't see that, you know, I mean Mr. Ferris had an assertion that there's
- dysfunction in this body as the the MPO as the as the Planning Committee I'm I'm
- Not quite sure entirely where the dysfunction is lying except that You know this idea that they don't
- that there's not sufficient voice outside of the city of Bloomington's planning a transportation department
- So, I mean honestly that feels a little insulting. I have no problem I'm very happy to hear that the
- attorneys are already meeting next week about this, but what I also heard him say is
- I'm sorry. I don't I don't remember mr. Schilling say was that he's not sure that there's even a problem
- or if anything needs to be done But the assertion of this document says that there is a problem That
- it's not working as intended and That outside the city of Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department
- There's no voice and I also want to say as the as a council member I mean, I'm not within the city of
- Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department either and
- So like, I'm not sure what the real problem is right now, honestly. And yes, we had a whole big debate
- about it at our last meeting. But part of the problem that I was having at that time was the fact that
- there were thinly veiled or not at all veiled insults being flung at our staff and had been being flung
- at our MPO staff before that.
- And if we want to have a debate and a discussion, that's fine. But we don't need to throw our staff
- under a bus. I find that really inappropriate. And I find this sentence also really, really troubling.
- So I'm glad that they're meeting. I feel like we can close this conversation right now, honestly, and
- that we don't even need a motion because they're already discussing it. And we can learn more about
- the results from that if the attorneys even think that there is a problem.
- Julie I believe that would be helpful to have a motion on this. So I hope that Mr. Ferris makes one
- but I would like to say that we did spend an hour going over concerns. This is about transparency. There's
- no accusations of nefarious acts but this is about transparency.
- The other thing I will say is that I believe that the current Setup puts the MPO staff In a bad position,
- it's a disservice to them so I am NOT Being critical of their work. I would not Go there. I don't believe
- that but I do believe that they are in a difficult position because I
- Their boss is not the MPO policy committee. It is the city of Bloomington transportation and planning.
- So can can we not rehash the last last debate two months ago and I would appreciate hearing a motion.
- Thank you.
- I'm just gonna make one quick response back to you and that is that and you're not aware of this because
- this goes back to 2018. I have met along with other members of the county and at that point I was a
- citizen but that person was a member of the NPO PC with elements of transportation and planning. I have
- met over the last
- several years I think with three of the directors or deputy directors. And we have talked in those meetings
- about however you want to capture it, dysfunction, lack of transparency, et cetera. As far back as when
- the bylaws were rewritten, we met with at that point it was I guess the deputy or the assistant director
- And Pat was in the room, we had the discussion about the bylaws and how they were written and how they
- talked about roles and responsibilities of the MPOPC and others. And as a result of that meeting, those
- bylaws were rewritten and a lot of those things that were removed, a lot of those roles and responsibilities
- were removed from those bylaws. And so if you want to have a sidebar, I'll be more than happy to sit
- down with you
- and go over all of these various elements of lack of transparency, to use Julie's terms, if you'd like.
- I'd be more than happy to do that. But there are instances that did occur. This body right here, I don't
- think we want to take and go through and rehash all of these things. It would be a laundry list.
- My motion, and I just modified it. As you put my motion back up on the screen there, I appreciate
- Can you yeah And scroll down. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna add the word where it says County commissioners
- prepare a new interlocal agreement as required
- This is this is in line with the discussion we just had here. Maybe nothing is required. Maybe all we
- need to do is restate it because an agreement really is not in place nor has it been updated since 82.
- Excuse me. I'm not sure. Is there a motion has. I don't think anyone's made a motion. We're not. I haven't
- made a motion. I'm discussing what the motion will be. We've done this in other forums as well. We talk
- about what we're going to say before we say it.
- Sure, I just wanted to be clear about that That would be my change now if you're ready for a motion
- mr. Bishop has
- I would still be interested in knowing the origin sources of this document, unless it was wholly birthed
- by you, Mr. Ferris. The obfuscation and concealment of the other parties is concerning because that's
- not how government's supposed to work. And so if there are other people or bodies involved, I think
- it's important and germane to this conversation, this body, to understand where this is coming from
- and what the genesis really is behind it.
- You talking about the talking points? The whole document in general. Okay. Well the the memorandums
- which were a matter of record are historical going back to 78 to 82. I understand the historical I'm
- talking about the specific items and things that you feel need to be addressed. This document here was
- coordinated with members from the county who are represented on this body.
- So if you can't name them, then they're straw men. And we don't vote on straw men. We vote on actual
- people that are part of this deliberative process. And if we don't have who those people are, then it's
- just you and your argument. It's not my argument. Can I maybe provide some assistance?
- If in fact a motion is what you want to make First I'll say that per the bylaws the policy committee's
- responsibilities Include giving overall guidance for transportation planning process and submitting
- plans and recommendations to participating agencies as has been mentioned today
- So you cannot require a new MPO designation solution, but you can request one. And perhaps the best
- way to request one as a body would be to compose a letter to request this. We cannot take any formal
- action on Mr. Ferris's document today because it's not a letter and it does not provide signature
- signatures and So my proposal is that today you could make a motion To write a letter as a body or make
- a motion that MPO staff write this letter and then this letter would be to the local public agencies
- within the metropolitan planning area and
- And then this letter could come back at the next meeting for vote by the entire committee, or staff
- could work with the chair to sign off on this letter so that it could be done prior to the next meeting
- as a formal request to the governing agencies, to the local agencies, to reevaluate this MPO designation.
- So that's that's that's a suggestion. I'm going to proceed with a motion whenever you're done with the
- discussion. Is there any more discussion. I just want to say you know I've heard on one side county
- commissioner.
- Julie Thomas talk about transparency, which I really appreciate. But I've heard on the other side a
- complete lack of transparency with the obfuscation of coordinated with members of this body. And if
- you were a member of this body who coordinated that with Mr. Ferris, I would really appreciate it if
- you came out and said, yes, I did that. And I think that Commissioner Thomas already has done that.
- Have a conversation set up later with councilmember Henry to as a another member of this body to inquire
- with him around What he has how he has been involved in this and I just I really I
- You know, I feel like this is in part as a fiscal matter and it would be significantly more expensive
- to do something different for Everybody else by the way, because right now the city of Bloomington pays
- everything related to our staffing everything related to MPO staffing and if if There was an independent
- office then health insurance all of those pieces would
- Would no longer be covered under City of Bloomington's HR umbrella for example, and all of that would
- have to be reset up If it if it went into another office like the county office of planning I would
- absolutely say hey, then we need to start sharing those costs So there's absolutely a fiscal, you know
- piece of if if something about where our staff are housed get moved now that is maybe a different thing than
- potentially a new interlocal agreement that changes and updates names of organizations, etc, etc but
- I think that what I hear being proposed is getting our staff out from underneath the city of Bloomington
- planning and transportation umbrella because That does not allow other local public agencies enough
- voice. That's what that paragraph says that it's problematic because other other
- Urbanized areas outside of the city of Bloomington don't have sufficient voice in this body and I just
- think that that's an inaccurate representation of this body and I I
- You know, I'm in the city. So maybe that's different but I think that it's that it's an inaccurate
- representation and I think that if we you know We could do and as an assessment of every project that
- has been funded By the MPO we could base that on population we could you know do all of those things
- to actually analytically assess whether more MPO funds have been spent inside or outside or you know,
- our staff are actually required to
- Document their time in such a way as to how much time they're spending on each of the individual projects
- I don't know if you all know that Sat down and had a real discussion with them a couple months ago about
- their how they have to like budget and lay out their time You know, we could be like, hey what percentage
- of your time are you spending on projects that are inside and outside the city of Bloomington?
- Like and and we could have those sorts of like real analysis. I think basing something back to 2018
- is not necessarily You know, we're we're here and we're moving forward maybe we could look at the last
- three years of a new administration in the city of Bloomington and and two years really with a new director
- of transportation and planning but I mean I I
- Mr. Farage you're free to make your motion and I will vote against that partly because it you know does
- not sound like something that that we can even do in terms of what our bylaws say what we can recommend,
- but I I Think that this whole thing has been gone about in a really in a way that really does
- lack transparency So the only thing that I want to add and hopefully will be ending soon
- A perfect example where I think some things get a communication gap is I am chair of this committee.
- I was approached when I walked in here today about changing the agenda. I didn't think that it needed
- to be done. I thought we could get through this meeting. I stated that I felt that the meeting agenda
- should stay the same. There must have been already a discussion on changing the agenda because the motion
- went ahead and was made.
- As chair, I don't know why I wasn't reached out through email or something before two minutes before
- this meeting to say that it was going to be proposed to change this agenda. So that's where I think
- there could be some communication gaps on responsibilities and things that I've experienced
- person personally. And it's not the first time. So if anybody wants to make a motion, you're more than
- welcome to make a motion. Otherwise, I would consider that we move on to the next item. I think everybody
- knows what the board wants.
- And if anybody has want any more comments, please do so because it's almost noon. I think Julie had
- her hand up My my comment was going to be that there's no money involved at this point So I think it's
- it's premature to talk about that. Thank you I'll be really really brief knowing the time and I like
- to eat lunch I will I will vote no for this but also appreciate that our legal departments already meeting and
- I expect we'll continue to have some dialogue on this. I look forward to additional research of just
- seeing how other MPOs work so just appreciate the conversations will be going whether this passes or
- not and Yeah So I have a motion and let's say if there's you know, if there's no more discussion I have
- a motion I Think the motion is generic enough that it
- covers just about everybody's requirement. I will state it as follows. My motion is we recommend the
- office of the mayor and office of the county commissioners prepare a new interlocal agreement as required
- for the urbanized area of Bloomington and Monroe County legal counsel from the city and
- should lead the effort and provide administrative support and this would include any required state
- or federal local notification requirements and be presented back to this body the MP OPC for approval
- Is it the case that if the
- City and county agreed to a new interlocal agreement that this body would have a role in approving or
- disapproving that My sense is that the answer is no That's my understanding as well I I don't think
- that's true I think we would and I think that because it's the core of our operation just like we do
- our federal work program so I I would
- I would expect it back here and I would also expect that if there are any recommended changes that the
- city and county would then bring in other LPAs that are represented here on this NPO policy committee
- to also provide input before it comes back here. I mean I think all of those things have to happen if
- there's anything that's revised. So there's a lot of ifs in that sense. Apologies. Thank you. Any public comment.
- Seeing none. Roll call vote please. Bridge. Yes. Horn. Yes. Packer. Abstain. Nickel. No. Bannock.
- No. Stasberg. No. Thomas. Yes. Seaborg. No. Bishop. No. Ferris. Yes. Tobin Hashtag. No.
- Did I get everyone I think it did. So we have three yeses. We have four yeses one abstention and five
- no's. Motion does not pass. OK. Moving on to public comment on matters not included on the agenda non
- voting items.
- Seeing none communications from committee members on matters not included on the agenda. Nickel. I didn't
- get nickel. You did. Oh yeah I did. OK. Sorry. So that's six six nos four yeses and one abstention.
- Sorry. So item 10 communications topic suggestions for future agendas saying none.
- Next technical advisory committee meeting May 27th at 10 a.m. Citizens Advisory Committee May 27th at
- 530 and Policy Committee meeting at May 29th at 1030 a.m. And we will adjourn this meeting.