WEBVTT 00:00:00.770 --> 00:00:13.165 - Okay so we're going to call the Bloomington Monroe County Policy Committee meeting to order April 28th 00:00:13.165 --> 00:00:25.199 - 2026 at 10 32 a.m. So the first thing I'll ask for is introductions. Do we have anybody online. One 00:00:25.199 --> 00:00:30.494 - member of the public and Margaret Clements. 00:00:30.626 --> 00:00:39.964 - Okay, um, so we'll start introductions. Uh, we'll start on my right Jason University Echol 00:00:39.964 --> 00:00:50.430 - City of Bloomington Public Works Department serving as a proxy for director Adam Wason Packer Seymour 00:00:50.430 --> 00:00:59.870 - district Indian Department of Transportation Scott Ferris Monroe County Planning Commission 00:01:00.994 --> 00:01:09.706 - Doug Horne Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation order directors Lisa rich Monroe County Highway 00:01:09.706 --> 00:01:18.335 - Department Serving as proxy for Mayor Thompson Hopi Stasberg Bloomington City Council Steve Bishop City 00:01:18.335 --> 00:01:26.715 - Bloomington Planning Commission Julie Thomas Monroe County Commissioner. Sorry my mic was up and Sam 00:01:26.715 --> 00:01:30.366 - Tobin hockstatt Citizens Advisory Committee 00:01:31.330 --> 00:01:47.119 - Thank you. And online. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Approval of the agenda for April 24th 2026. I moved to 00:01:47.119 --> 00:02:00.094 - approve the agenda motion. Do we have a second. I would like to modify the agenda. 00:02:00.258 --> 00:02:13.801 - Okay, can I do that? I would like to move to modify the agenda by switching items seven and eight So 00:02:13.801 --> 00:02:26.942 - then we handle new business prior to old business Second So we have a motion and we have a second 00:02:27.394 --> 00:02:38.933 - To modify the agenda to move items rate or I guess reverse items seven and eight for old business and 00:02:38.933 --> 00:02:50.360 - new business. Do you need to take a vote. I'll go ahead and do it for this one. Tobin Hachette. Yes. 00:02:50.360 --> 00:02:57.374 - Ridge. Yes. Horn. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Packer. Yes. Nickel. Yes. 00:02:57.890 --> 00:03:10.872 - Bannock Stasberg yes Thomas yes Seaborg yes Bishop yes motion passes we will address new business item 00:03:10.872 --> 00:03:23.476 - eight before old business item seven. Thank you. The policy committee meeting minutes from February 00:03:23.476 --> 00:03:24.862 - 27th 2026. 00:03:26.978 --> 00:03:38.400 - to approve the minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any comments. Any public comment. 00:03:38.400 --> 00:03:49.505 - All in favor. All in favor of approving the minutes from February 27th do so by saying aye. Any opposed. 00:03:49.505 --> 00:03:56.062 - Motion carries. Communications from the chair and vice chair. 00:03:56.322 --> 00:04:05.054 - I don't have anything at this time. I don't I don't have communication from officers and or committees. 00:04:05.054 --> 00:04:13.617 - Nate the technical advisory committee met this past Wednesday and we considered the new business item 00:04:13.617 --> 00:04:20.670 - that's on our agenda here today and the recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you. 00:04:21.954 --> 00:04:31.145 - The CAC met on Wednesday and also considered the same new business item and also recommended approval 00:04:31.145 --> 00:04:40.425 - Reports from MPO staff Okay, the first item we have Under 6.1 is public hearing notice for Bloomington 00:04:40.425 --> 00:04:49.886 - Transit for three public comment sections This is on proposed improvements for route 16 on the west side 00:04:50.018 --> 00:04:58.177 - Bloomington Transit proposed to combine Route 3 West and 13 into one travel pattern on the west side 00:04:58.177 --> 00:05:06.336 - of Bloomington and Monroe County. First public hearing opportunity will be Monday, May 4th from 5 to 00:05:06.336 --> 00:05:14.656 - 6 o'clock at Ivy Tech State College in Lampkin Hall. Second public hearing opportunity, public comment 00:05:14.656 --> 00:05:17.726 - opportunity is on Wednesday, May 6th. 00:05:18.114 --> 00:05:27.819 - 12 to 1 o'clock at Bloomington Public Transportation's downtown Transit Center and The third meeting 00:05:27.819 --> 00:05:37.429 - and then is Thursday May 7th from 4 to 5 o'clock again at the downtown Transfer Center Anybody have 00:05:37.429 --> 00:05:47.038 - any questions be happy to answer those We encourage your attendance Okay, the second one we have is 00:05:47.522 --> 00:05:55.721 - March 30th 2026 speed limit reduction announcement for stateward 46 through Ellisville This reduction 00:05:55.721 --> 00:06:03.758 - came about through a school zone area The 85th percentile in the area. Well, it's been reduced from 00:06:03.758 --> 00:06:12.359 - 30 miles an hour to 25 miles an hour But the 85th percentile was as high as 55 to 60 miles an hour through 00:06:12.359 --> 00:06:13.886 - the area so in dot 00:06:14.274 --> 00:06:21.935 - Implemented it. They'll be doing also a follow-up on all of this and Ellisville law enforcement and 00:06:21.935 --> 00:06:29.826 - the state police will be enforcing the new speed limit also Questions anybody be happy to answer those 00:06:29.826 --> 00:06:37.486 - What did you say was 60 miles an hour It was a 30 mile an hour zone, but the 85th percentile was 55 00:06:37.486 --> 00:06:41.470 - to 60 miles an hour the 85th percentile which means 00:06:42.754 --> 00:06:52.181 - 85% of the cars were going that fast It's straight stretch, you know, it it means that 15% of the cars 00:06:52.181 --> 00:07:01.973 - were going faster than 55 Yeah Thanks, that's just really fast through there. I mean that's like basically 00:07:01.973 --> 00:07:10.942 - downtown Third item I have is the ash to wear safety the Indiana Department of Transportation for 00:07:11.746 --> 00:07:19.508 - 11 years, 12 years, been using a crash analysis tool called RoadHat. This is RoadHazard analysis tool 00:07:19.508 --> 00:07:27.346 - developed by Purdue University. Custom software, we've gone through a number of versions. I think it's 00:07:27.346 --> 00:07:35.564 - version 4.2 or something like that is what it ends now. Effective January 1st, Department of Transportation 00:07:35.564 --> 00:07:37.086 - will be shifting to 00:07:37.378 --> 00:07:45.941 - the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Safety Software. The safety software 00:07:45.941 --> 00:07:54.422 - has been adopted by 21 states, will become the 22nd state if I'm correct on this. It's a more rigorous 00:07:54.422 --> 00:08:03.479 - type of software analysis for crash data. It involves network screening, diagnosis, countermeasure selection, 00:08:03.479 --> 00:08:07.102 - economic appraisal, project prioritization, 00:08:07.362 --> 00:08:15.217 - and safety effectiveness evaluation. Katie and I have volunteered to be beta testers for the software. 00:08:15.217 --> 00:08:22.996 - Several of the MPOs have also volunteered also to be beta testers. Again, the software we're going to 00:08:22.996 --> 00:08:30.927 - affect January 1st. Anybody has any questions on that? Be happy to answer those. Oh, and we are working 00:08:30.927 --> 00:08:35.198 - on the crash data. We're going through the verification 00:08:35.458 --> 00:08:43.485 - Process right now where we're cleaning up some of the data that has conflicts conflicts. We've gotten 00:08:43.485 --> 00:08:51.591 - the preliminary data from Department of Transportation in February We had 79 significant intersections 00:08:51.591 --> 00:08:58.910 - as in two standard deviations beyond the mean We had we also had roadway segments identified 00:08:59.010 --> 00:09:06.950 - The roadway segments we had three areas that were identified but all of those were in rural very rural 00:09:06.950 --> 00:09:15.199 - areas of Monroe County predominantly in subdivisions surprisingly. We'll be going through further analysis 00:09:15.199 --> 00:09:23.140 - of that all that will be posted on the crash hub Web site by either the end of May or sometime in June 00:09:23.140 --> 00:09:28.382 - before July. Be happy to answer any questions you have on that too. 00:09:29.250 --> 00:09:37.111 - Next item I have is the MPO process update for the in dot traffic count database management system The 00:09:37.111 --> 00:09:44.742 - MPO is paid for traffic counting database Activities conducted by the engineering department of the 00:09:44.742 --> 00:09:52.374 - city of Bloomington for the last we've probably been doing this probably 12 15 years something like 00:09:52.374 --> 00:09:59.166 - that we paid for the software license we also paid for the counters traffic counters and 00:09:59.394 --> 00:10:07.240 - Road tubes and all the supplies. We also did that for the town of Ellisville up until a few years ago 00:10:07.240 --> 00:10:14.932 - and then they've stopped doing the counts. We've offered this process to the Monroe County too, but 00:10:14.932 --> 00:10:22.624 - there was a shortage of manpower and that was never implemented. So earlier this year, just about a 00:10:22.624 --> 00:10:25.470 - month and a half, two months ago, we 00:10:25.762 --> 00:10:33.346 - coordinated with the Department of Transportation's central office on uploading 300 and I think it was 00:10:33.346 --> 00:10:41.003 - 311 or 371 I can't remember the exact number now all the traffic counts conducted over the last several 00:10:41.003 --> 00:10:48.514 - years Uploaded all of that to their database management system. They use the same software management 00:10:48.514 --> 00:10:55.582 - system that we did Therefore now there are three MPOs that are using the state system statewide 00:10:55.842 --> 00:11:02.829 - Statewide software license therefore that reduces our costs significantly it adds a benefit 00:11:02.829 --> 00:11:10.499 - to the engineering department and to The Department of Transportation because all the data is housed 00:11:10.499 --> 00:11:18.321 - in one central location I encourage you to go in and look at the map sometime Where you zoom in on the 00:11:18.321 --> 00:11:22.878 - area of Bloomington and it'll show you all of the counts of 00:11:22.978 --> 00:11:32.270 - that have been done by not only NDOT, but also by our traffic engineering department, including P car 00:11:32.270 --> 00:11:41.652 - volumes and overall average annual daily traffic. All of this data is also used for the crash analysis 00:11:41.652 --> 00:11:51.035 - system and also for prioritization of various infrastructure investments. Questions, anybody? The next 00:11:51.035 --> 00:11:52.766 - item I have is the 00:11:53.154 --> 00:12:01.791 - Indiana Department of Transportation active transportation report news release the active transportation 00:12:01.791 --> 00:12:10.181 - plan is in draft form. It was released in March. I encourage you to go in and review it. There's also 00:12:10.181 --> 00:12:16.926 - a link for a comment public comment on the plan. Plan is only 38 pages long. It's 00:12:18.562 --> 00:12:25.713 - I'll be gentle here. It's a lot of what we had previously seen in the way of the active transportation 00:12:25.713 --> 00:12:32.795 - plan. However, there is a sea change here. The sea change is the Department of Transportation now has 00:12:32.795 --> 00:12:39.877 - an explicit policy that they will build sidewalks where sidewalks do not exist, particularly in small 00:12:39.877 --> 00:12:45.918 - rural communities where the state highway passes through. They'll also facilitate bike 00:12:47.586 --> 00:12:55.066 - Alternative transportation as in bike pad type operations through small communities This is again a 00:12:55.066 --> 00:13:02.771 - sea change So I kudos to the Department of Transportation for coming about with that policy and it all 00:13:02.771 --> 00:13:10.327 - has to goes back to safety too for that matter but I encourage you to go in at least look the report 00:13:10.327 --> 00:13:14.366 - and also provide your comments on the on the link and 00:13:16.482 --> 00:13:23.945 - Okay. And the next thing I have is the 2026 board and commissions conflict of interest questionnaire. 00:13:23.945 --> 00:13:31.335 - Uh, the city clerk advised us the MPO that all boards and commissions, that's the technical advisory 00:13:31.335 --> 00:13:38.652 - committee, the citizen advisory committee and the policy committee of the MPO, all members and all, 00:13:38.652 --> 00:13:44.798 - all alternates proxies are required to submit a conflict of interest questionnaire. 00:13:45.602 --> 00:13:52.664 - This is a requirement to the State Board of Accounts. We have on the Policy Committee, we only have 00:13:52.664 --> 00:13:59.161 - three individuals that have not submitted the reports as of yet. There are not the reports, 00:13:59.161 --> 00:14:06.293 - the questionnaires as of yet. So we encourage you, we will reach out to you individually and ask you 00:14:06.293 --> 00:14:13.779 - to complete the questionnaire so that way we can fulfill the requirements of the State Board of Accounts. 00:14:13.779 --> 00:14:15.262 - That's all I've got. 00:14:20.546 --> 00:14:28.319 - Can I just get clarification about the conflict of interest do we all need to fill out one of those 00:14:28.319 --> 00:14:36.092 - even if we don't think There's any conflicts of interest. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, even the mayor was 00:14:36.092 --> 00:14:43.865 - required to fill out one Federal officials know Indiana Department of Transportation officials know 00:14:43.865 --> 00:14:47.518 - Yeah The US Army Corps of Engineers Louisville 00:14:47.618 --> 00:14:55.730 - reached out to all of the communities in Indiana to try and identify areas that experience severe roadway 00:14:55.730 --> 00:15:03.688 - flooding or potentially where fatalities or high water rescues have occurred. And this is part of their 00:15:03.688 --> 00:15:11.418 - flood safety and messaging signage campaign. So as a result of doing that research and chatting with 00:15:11.418 --> 00:15:17.310 - the county folks, I learned that county folks collaborated to make this map. 00:15:17.442 --> 00:15:24.979 - which is essentially Showing the current locations of road may flood signs that are maintained by the 00:15:24.979 --> 00:15:32.959 - Monroe County Highway Department Shown in red and then all of the green points are points of known flooding 00:15:32.959 --> 00:15:40.644 - from the fire protection District and then there's also flood hazard data from the DNR in there as well 00:15:40.644 --> 00:15:46.334 - so that was just something that the county did in response to the Army Corps 00:15:46.722 --> 00:15:57.913 - And I just wanted to share this resource with you all so that you are aware that it's there. Another 00:15:57.913 --> 00:16:09.105 - resource I'd like to share is just a 2026 roadmap to safety report that was put out by the advocates 00:16:09.105 --> 00:16:12.318 - for highway and auto safety. 00:16:12.674 --> 00:16:20.231 - could have some interesting information in it. I haven't read it yet, but just for your information 00:16:20.231 --> 00:16:27.863 - if you'd like to read it, they do have a states at glance section which indicates that Indiana falls 00:16:27.863 --> 00:16:32.926 - in the caution. They've labeled Indiana as caution on their scale. 00:16:33.154 --> 00:16:39.670 - And it shows the 10-year fatality total for Indiana, the 2024 fatality total, and the annual cost due 00:16:39.670 --> 00:16:46.315 - to motor vehicle crashes. It also talks about highway laws that have been adopted and others that exist 00:16:46.315 --> 00:16:52.767 - but are not adopted in our state. And so that's just another resource for you to check out if you're 00:16:52.767 --> 00:16:53.534 - interested. 00:17:02.914 --> 00:17:10.794 - Okay next I'd like to share that in March of this year we were contacted by in dot and they told us 00:17:10.794 --> 00:17:18.831 - that we have been granted some extra funds. All of the MPOs have been granted some extra funds to use 00:17:18.831 --> 00:17:26.947 - for fiscal year 26. The amount of extra funds we've received is forty seven thousand eight hundred and 00:17:26.947 --> 00:17:32.542 - ninety four and that has to be used by September of twenty twenty six. 00:17:37.602 --> 00:17:48.569 - The next item item six point ten. This is a memo about a meeting that MPO staff had with city of Bloomington 00:17:48.569 --> 00:17:58.932 - engineering department and Monroe County Highway Department. At this meeting we discussed three items. 00:17:58.932 --> 00:18:01.246 - The first item is the. 00:18:01.890 --> 00:18:09.598 - where to put that extra forty seven thousand that we've been granted for fiscal year twenty six. The 00:18:09.598 --> 00:18:17.306 - group agreed to grant those funds to the downtown curb ramps project phase five because they did not 00:18:17.306 --> 00:18:24.938 - do to decreases in funding in fiscal year twenty six. They did not get their anticipated allocation 00:18:24.938 --> 00:18:27.838 - and so they'll be moving forward with 00:18:28.354 --> 00:18:36.951 - with using those funds. Well, I should say the amendment for that will come later in this meeting. The 00:18:36.951 --> 00:18:45.297 - second thing we discussed at this meeting was that both the city and county have made it known that 00:18:45.297 --> 00:18:53.643 - they are interested in moving two of their projects, College and Walnut Phase I and Old SR 37 South 00:18:53.643 --> 00:18:57.566 - and Dillman Project to different fiscal years. 00:18:57.986 --> 00:19:06.280 - for various reasons college and walnut from twenty nine to thirty and Dillman and thirty seven from 00:19:06.280 --> 00:19:14.741 - twenty eight to twenty nine. Neither of them want to do that unless we increase that. Neither of them 00:19:14.741 --> 00:19:19.966 - want to do that unless there is minimal to no loss in funding. 00:19:21.282 --> 00:19:29.708 - So the MPO looked at other offers for exchanges that were available with other MPOs and then we did 00:19:29.708 --> 00:19:38.303 - the math to try and figure out if we could move these projects and still maintain as much funding for 00:19:38.303 --> 00:19:46.730 - the projects as possible and find a way to get funding in other years that would be helpful through 00:19:46.730 --> 00:19:49.342 - exchanges. And so I won't read 00:19:49.922 --> 00:19:59.298 - all the way through these. I can if you want me to. But the bullet points here detail how that would 00:19:59.298 --> 00:20:08.673 - work and how all the funding would sort out. And this proposed scenario would not result in any loss 00:20:08.673 --> 00:20:19.070 - of funding for the 37 Dilman project. It would result in less funding allocated to College and Walnut. However, 00:20:19.266 --> 00:20:29.708 - Using exchanges and by by moving the money around We would be returning We would be giving some of the 00:20:29.708 --> 00:20:40.150 - proposal is to give Some of the money back to High Street project which is occurring next fiscal year. 00:20:40.150 --> 00:20:46.942 - And so essentially College and walnut project would not be getting 00:20:47.106 --> 00:20:57.229 - Their funding back upon moving. However, we would make up for that by Using an exchange to get money 00:20:57.229 --> 00:21:07.352 - for High Street project next year, which currently does not have any federal funding At this meeting 00:21:07.352 --> 00:21:15.070 - the group agreed that this Exchange so doing two exchanges with two MPOs and 00:21:15.362 --> 00:21:24.426 - which would allow both projects to move up a fiscal year. The group agreed that this would be beneficial 00:21:24.426 --> 00:21:33.231 - for everyone and is interested in moving forward with this scenario. The third item that we discussed 00:21:33.231 --> 00:21:41.086 - is that the scenario in item two would result in some extra unassigned funds in 28 and 29. 00:21:42.690 --> 00:21:50.371 - And the there are projects in those years that can use those funds. But the group decided to postpone 00:21:50.371 --> 00:21:58.053 - the decision of that those allocations until a future meeting. So we will not if we move forward with 00:21:58.053 --> 00:22:05.734 - the scenario in item two then we would not assign these extra funds quite yet which is which is fine. 00:22:05.734 --> 00:22:12.286 - We don't always have to assign them immediately especially if they're in future years. 00:22:14.562 --> 00:22:24.640 - Any questions. Yes. Let's go back to college and Walnut and it talks about phase one project construction. 00:22:24.640 --> 00:22:34.436 - I know in the fall we met the wasn't a hearing it was a public meeting to talk about college and Walnut 00:22:34.436 --> 00:22:43.102 - in this area right here and I believe that was conducted by planning and transportation. So 00:22:45.122 --> 00:22:52.511 - I don't believe we've heard any feedback whatsoever on changes or possible changes to what was being 00:22:52.511 --> 00:23:00.265 - suggested in that public meeting. Is that forthcoming. That's the first question and to an item in agenda 00:23:00.265 --> 00:23:07.727 - item two it talks about project construction. Is this a placeholder for dollars or is there an actual 00:23:07.727 --> 00:23:13.726 - plan that has been put forth looking for dollars for that phase one construction. 00:23:17.410 --> 00:23:24.125 - I'll ask you to repeat your second question in a minute because I didn't quite hear it all okay The 00:23:24.125 --> 00:23:31.041 - college and walnut study is in its final stages and they are working to prepare meetings materials for 00:23:31.041 --> 00:23:37.957 - public release in the coming months They are currently compiling the feedback from the open houses and 00:23:37.957 --> 00:23:43.262 - other outreach efforts into the final study Okay, the second question then was 00:23:44.802 --> 00:23:51.787 - And I think you can see where I'm going with this. And maybe we're just dealing with semantics here. 00:23:51.787 --> 00:23:58.980 - How can you move forward with a phase one construction if, in fact, you don't even know what it's going 00:23:58.980 --> 00:24:06.172 - to look like? And if the funding line here is nothing more than a placeholder for dollars, anticipation 00:24:06.172 --> 00:24:13.918 - of a final plan, I mean, I can understand that. Is that the case? Yeah, sure. I mean, typically in these plans, 00:24:14.498 --> 00:24:22.289 - The first three years are pretty set in stone most of the time but not always and then the last two 00:24:22.289 --> 00:24:30.782 - year years are often illustrative and because you those timelines are even more uncertain than the timelines 00:24:30.782 --> 00:24:38.885 - in the first three years and So yeah, I mean we're projecting funding usage right now for where there's 00:24:38.885 --> 00:24:41.534 - for those years and we we want to 00:24:42.306 --> 00:24:51.015 - Stake as close as we can to those projections, but that being said there will be another tip happening 00:24:51.015 --> 00:24:59.555 - in this fall and so fiscal year 29 and 30 will not be illustrative anymore and Since all the funding 00:24:59.555 --> 00:25:08.264 - is pretty There's limited places where fiscal year 29 and 30 funding can be used at this time so those 00:25:08.264 --> 00:25:10.462 - probably won't change but 00:25:10.690 --> 00:25:17.465 - I mean, we're constantly, that's the whole purpose of this game, is we're constantly having to move 00:25:17.465 --> 00:25:24.444 - funding around and the phases for projects around because things are uncertain. Sometimes right of way 00:25:24.444 --> 00:25:31.220 - takes longer than you expect. Sometimes environmental review by NDOT takes longer. So yeah, we have 00:25:31.220 --> 00:25:38.334 - to be flexible and constantly adjust as we go. Okay, you answered my question. The other part though is, 00:25:38.722 --> 00:25:45.456 - Well, we have a chance to see what the incorporated changes have been made to College and Walnut before 00:25:45.456 --> 00:25:52.254 - it goes final. You say that the results of the public meetings, you're looking at them, you're analyzing 00:25:52.254 --> 00:25:58.794 - them, you're incorporating whatever, and you'll see something new. Is that subject to approval or is 00:25:58.794 --> 00:26:03.326 - that something that's done deal at that point? So are you saying that 00:26:03.746 --> 00:26:11.440 - You don't want to approve giving. No, no, I did not say that. I'm just asking the question. Once everything's 00:26:11.440 --> 00:26:18.505 - been incorporated and you have made changes or no changes and there's now a final product based upon 00:26:18.505 --> 00:26:25.850 - all the public meetings that you had in whatever sessions for feedback, will we the public have a chance 00:26:25.850 --> 00:26:31.166 - to comment one more time before it goes final or is it final at that point? 00:26:32.834 --> 00:26:39.503 - Generally speaking so the project like college and walnuts in regards to the MPO and the project that 00:26:39.503 --> 00:26:46.172 - is in the tip Likely wouldn't generally be getting an update a detailed plan review at this Body like 00:26:46.172 --> 00:26:52.776 - we don't see that for other projects that are in the tip here but I would expect that there would be 00:26:52.776 --> 00:26:58.334 - additional public dialogue and discussion about that project as it moves forward and 00:26:58.594 --> 00:27:06.775 - Ultimately most likely through the city's transportation commission and then the idea is that it ultimately 00:27:06.775 --> 00:27:14.502 - becomes a part of the city's Transportation plan so would even be discussed at the City Council level 00:27:14.502 --> 00:27:22.304 - so there will be additional opportunities for public engagement and Comment on that project. Thank you 00:27:22.304 --> 00:27:26.622 - Thanks, Andrew All right, any other comments on item 610 00:27:39.170 --> 00:27:48.661 - I just wanted to next item 6-eleven. I just wanted to share a few updates for projects that are in the 00:27:48.661 --> 00:27:58.705 - tip so In dots project between the bypass and Pete Ellis Drive on SR 45 and 10th Which involves intersection 00:27:58.705 --> 00:28:06.814 - improvements and added turn lanes The letting for that project took place April 8th and 00:28:07.074 --> 00:28:15.972 - Crider and Crider submitted the lowest bid at six million four hundred and fifty two thousand after 00:28:15.972 --> 00:28:24.782 - a notice to proceed is issued the next several months will be dedicated towards utility relocation 00:28:24.782 --> 00:28:33.502 - Construction is anticipated to begin in spring of 27 with expected completion in spring of 28 and 00:28:34.850 --> 00:28:41.926 - There last time we spoke there was still ongoing community concern when folks had Realized that the 00:28:41.926 --> 00:28:49.427 - project involved the removal of trees So since then there has been a city press release that communicated 00:28:49.427 --> 00:28:56.503 - that the city of Bloomington worked with in dot to do a redesign of the Pete Ellis Side of the plan 00:28:56.503 --> 00:29:02.942 - and the redesign includes shorter storage lengths for the turn lanes on Pete Ellis however 00:29:03.106 --> 00:29:10.873 - There is no change to the overall scope of the project. So with the redesign of the turn lanes, eight 00:29:10.873 --> 00:29:19.097 - mature trees that were previously slated for removal were able to be preserved. West Second Street project, 00:29:19.097 --> 00:29:26.788 - they are currently in utility relocations and construction will start in a couple months. The city's 00:29:26.788 --> 00:29:31.966 - downtown Kerr-Brown phase five project is just now starting design. 00:29:33.154 --> 00:29:41.237 - This project involves crosswalk improvements in Third and Atwater, just south of IU campus. The High 00:29:41.237 --> 00:29:49.561 - Street project just wrapped up right of way acquisition. Utility relocation is going to occur this year 00:29:49.561 --> 00:29:57.564 - and construction in 2027. Crosswalks phase three is in design. Crosswalks phase four is selecting a 00:29:57.564 --> 00:30:01.566 - design consultant. The Dunn Street multi-use path 00:30:02.754 --> 00:30:12.454 - Project they are in design currently and they are doing right away appraisals to start right away acquisition 00:30:12.454 --> 00:30:21.361 - Rockport Road bridge project the construction begins June 1st This one the Dillman Bridge project is 00:30:21.361 --> 00:30:31.678 - working on design the countywide bridge inventory was completed in March, which is the required compliance month and 00:30:32.418 --> 00:30:43.402 - The oldest are 37 South and Dilman Road and college and walnut projects They as mentioned previously 00:30:43.402 --> 00:30:55.038 - are hoping to get approval to shift their letting date from fiscal year 28 to 29 and 29 to 30 Any comments 00:31:03.490 --> 00:31:12.528 - I have a question. Do you have any idea when the road closures are going to start along 10th Street 00:31:12.528 --> 00:31:22.019 - between Pete Ellis and the bypass. Oh I thought I had that. Hold on. I just mean if there's been a press 00:31:22.019 --> 00:31:30.334 - release about that that would be great to know. I don't think there's been a press release. 00:31:30.754 --> 00:31:38.685 - I thought I did but Well, I can ask are you just talking about me that project Yeah, that's the end 00:31:38.685 --> 00:31:47.092 - up. We haven't even had a pre-construction conference. So this year is all utility relocations so that'll 00:31:47.092 --> 00:31:55.024 - And I don't know if they will have a closure for that It will depend on the utilities and then next 00:31:55.024 --> 00:31:58.910 - year is when construction starts next spring and 00:32:00.866 --> 00:32:08.804 - Okay, so you don't necessarily anticipate closures for the utility relocations or like maybe I should 00:32:08.804 --> 00:32:16.742 - say like long-term closures as opposed to I know there's a Gas line, I believe that needs to be moved 00:32:16.742 --> 00:32:25.070 - and it's I want to say Outside the like where the trees were and I'm trying to think if there was anything 00:32:25.070 --> 00:32:30.206 - in the roadway That would really require Right now without having 00:32:30.562 --> 00:32:43.035 - I would have to look at the plans to let you know. Okay great. Thank you. That's good. Any other questions 00:32:43.035 --> 00:32:54.809 - for MPO staff. We will move to new business for item for the proposed tip updates. Yeah we have some 00:32:54.809 --> 00:32:59.006 - tip updates for your consideration. 00:33:00.418 --> 00:33:09.176 - Five of them. The first is a request from INDOT to add a new project called IDIQ Bridge Maintenance 00:33:09.176 --> 00:33:17.933 - and Repair. It's a total project cost of a million dollars. And they, as far as I've been informed, 00:33:17.933 --> 00:33:27.742 - the locations are not determined at this point. They sometimes will give us projects to include in the TIP that 00:33:29.090 --> 00:33:38.622 - They don't have locations quite yet for but they anticipate that work will be done in our area So they 00:33:38.622 --> 00:33:48.524 - do kind of a general grouped Add to the tip The next project is also an in dot new project called district 00:33:48.524 --> 00:33:58.334 - paving project. This is in a few counties, but for Monroe County, it would be SR 45 south of Martin Drive 00:34:00.706 --> 00:34:10.325 - Again, this is all grouped kind of into the same funding table for all the locations The third amendment 00:34:10.325 --> 00:34:19.669 - to the tip is The addition of a another in dot project called traffic signal modernization in various 00:34:19.669 --> 00:34:28.830 - locations of Monroe and Owen counties And again specific locations not determined at this point but 00:34:29.378 --> 00:34:41.422 - It's a general allocation from the state of anticipating work in our area. The fourth amendment is to 00:34:41.422 --> 00:34:53.466 - update the NDOT project called slide correction on I-69 from SR-37 in Monroe County to Morgan County. 00:34:53.466 --> 00:34:59.134 - The changes that they would like to make are to 00:34:59.394 --> 00:35:07.569 - Because of the stability of the project, of the location, they will be moving, they're requesting to 00:35:07.569 --> 00:35:16.230 - move the right-of-way phase up to 2030, from 26 to 2030, and to move the construction phase of the project 00:35:16.230 --> 00:35:23.838 - outside the tip to 2031 or 2032, and slightly increase the cost of the project for inflation. 00:35:32.130 --> 00:35:41.062 - The fifth amendment request is to update the funding for the downtown curb ramps phase five project. 00:35:41.062 --> 00:35:49.994 - So there's a few changes that are happening here. So the original fiscal year 26 allocation, federal 00:35:49.994 --> 00:35:59.015 - funding allocation for this project, the 77,000 and 132,000, those were not able to take place. So we 00:35:59.015 --> 00:36:02.110 - have to remove those. Then the new 00:36:02.754 --> 00:36:14.011 - The new P.E. contract was 271,460. So that increased from the original estimate. So that is an update. 00:36:14.011 --> 00:36:24.940 - And then this update also adds those extra 47,000 in fiscal year 26 funding that was discussed with 00:36:24.940 --> 00:36:27.454 - the LPAs on April 8th. 00:36:32.866 --> 00:36:41.745 - Any questions from the board on any of these projects Andrew I guess just a question about More just 00:36:41.745 --> 00:36:50.625 - just curious for project two and three for in that's Paving project and signal modernization project 00:36:50.625 --> 00:36:59.680 - things fully supportive but just noting that the charts say that's H SIP funding so safety improvement 00:36:59.680 --> 00:37:01.438 - program funding and 00:37:01.858 --> 00:37:09.383 - And just curious to understand like what those projects are that is safety focused if that's the funding 00:37:09.383 --> 00:37:16.622 - just I know that in dot my impression has very clear guidelines on what H sip can be applied for and 00:37:16.622 --> 00:37:24.004 - so just curious to understand what that is. Yeah that's a good question. I would have to reach out and 00:37:24.004 --> 00:37:30.526 - ask. Yes. So the paving project would be just spot paving briar to us chip ceiling because 00:37:31.458 --> 00:37:38.811 - We're all running out of money so we're trying to extend the life of our roads and then the 00:37:38.811 --> 00:37:46.804 - signal modernization is usually the back covers on the signals and then upgrading the equipment and 00:37:46.804 --> 00:37:53.758 - then if we have five head then we go into the forehead with the yellow flashing arrow. 00:38:02.050 --> 00:38:11.103 - Can someone explain what the ID IQ program is how it works why only some bridges etc. So it's kind of 00:38:11.103 --> 00:38:20.511 - like having an on call the started we followed New York. So we had they had a they can use federal money. 00:38:20.511 --> 00:38:29.387 - So as a way to use federal money for this. So it's indefinite and indefinite quantity and different 00:38:29.387 --> 00:38:30.718 - determination. 00:38:30.850 --> 00:38:37.256 - When we have a situation come up in the year, then we find when someone went out and did, let's say, 00:38:37.256 --> 00:38:43.978 - a bridge, and then we have a bridge inspection report, and it's something outside of what our maintenance 00:38:43.978 --> 00:38:50.701 - crews can handle, then we can go to the contractor. It's like an on-call and ask them to give us a price. 00:38:50.701 --> 00:38:57.107 - We don't have to accept their price because it can be kind of high. And then we'll negotiate whether 00:38:57.107 --> 00:38:59.390 - we want them to do the work or not. 00:38:59.746 --> 00:39:09.595 - It's for the whole district because I don't know. It's a two year program when they bid it and we get 00:39:09.595 --> 00:39:19.444 - a million each year. We have the same in road but we switched it to state funding but we've left this 00:39:19.444 --> 00:39:26.782 - one as federal. Thank you so much. Any other questions. Any public comment. 00:39:31.394 --> 00:39:43.801 - Seeing none I would need a motion I guess I need to we need to motion to pass the the tip amendments. 00:39:43.801 --> 00:39:56.086 - I move that we approve the tip amendments. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Any other board 00:39:56.086 --> 00:39:59.614 - comments any public comment. 00:40:03.778 --> 00:40:12.599 - Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion to accept the five tip amendments do so by saying aye. 00:40:12.599 --> 00:40:21.682 - Aye. Any opposed. Seeing none. Motion carries. I'm going to old business new intraoperative intra local 00:40:21.682 --> 00:40:30.590 - agreement for MPO. You had some information in your packets from emails from committee member Ferris. 00:40:30.722 --> 00:40:39.571 - Then you also have the historical designation documentation in your packet Not sure who wants to start 00:40:39.571 --> 00:40:48.677 - the discussion on this item Just go ahead and put up the the talking points if you would please My intent 00:40:48.677 --> 00:40:57.268 - is it's not to rehash everything we talked about at the last meeting which is probably over an hour 00:40:57.268 --> 00:40:58.814 - of discussion and 00:40:59.618 --> 00:41:07.446 - I know the the MPO staff suggested everybody review the cats Presentation and What I did over the last 00:41:07.446 --> 00:41:15.350 - couple weeks is that I went back and put together this little talking paper Which pretty much it pretty 00:41:15.350 --> 00:41:23.710 - much summarizes the way ahead that was suggested at the last meeting and Scroll down a little bit Scroll down 00:41:28.162 --> 00:41:34.832 - And you'll see in the bold underline that that'll be the motion. It was it was suggested at the last 00:41:34.832 --> 00:41:41.435 - meeting and that'll be the motion that I plan to put on the floor when this discussion is complete. 00:41:41.435 --> 00:41:48.171 - I'm not going to rehash everything that was discussed. What I did do under relevant documentation and 00:41:48.171 --> 00:41:55.237 - the word says source documents and these are in your packet. These are all the various memorandums letters 00:41:55.237 --> 00:41:57.086 - etc. from all the concerned 00:41:57.506 --> 00:42:06.643 - organizations going back to 78 through 82 which lays out the establishment of the MPO for the Bloomington 00:42:06.643 --> 00:42:15.263 - Monroe County urbanization area There's even a sunset statement in there about it being interim and 00:42:15.263 --> 00:42:21.470 - this is Over what 45 years ago that this agreement was put in place and 00:42:22.882 --> 00:42:30.911 - Lot has changed since that time frame the city of Bloomington has grown the county has grown Indian 00:42:30.911 --> 00:42:39.021 - University has grown Ellisville has grown transportation has grown it's we're not the same community 00:42:39.021 --> 00:42:47.130 - that we were back in 78 through 82 The what was stipulated with respect to who's going to manage the 00:42:47.130 --> 00:42:52.510 - MPO with the Bloomington Plan Commission being and taking the lead 00:42:53.506 --> 00:43:01.164 - We all know that that is not the case today. Elements of planning and transportation of the city are 00:43:01.164 --> 00:43:09.201 - the ones who take and manage that effort to end the MPO staff. Pat has been appointed as the MPO director 00:43:09.201 --> 00:43:17.086 - even though I'm not aware of any documentation that says that that's even a position that's authorized. 00:43:21.730 --> 00:43:27.919 - I'm not gonna go through the the various documents there. They're there for your review. Hopefully you 00:43:27.919 --> 00:43:34.289 - had a chance to read them before you came in here But the talking the talking paper does take and provide 00:43:34.289 --> 00:43:40.298 - a quick summary of each of those You want to read their documents in total they're provided in that 00:43:40.298 --> 00:43:46.487 - documentation package. That's also attached to this agenda So it's time for us to have a new agreement 00:43:46.487 --> 00:43:50.814 - what that might look like I think that that's between the mayor and the 00:43:51.266 --> 00:43:59.630 - and the county commissioners and with the legal departments of each working with the other 00:43:59.630 --> 00:44:09.006 - LPAs as appropriate and coming up with what we consider a new agreement. Thank you. Julie. Yes I will 00:44:09.006 --> 00:44:17.278 - just say that speaking on behalf of the board of commissioners we support the development 00:44:17.378 --> 00:44:26.514 - or at least the negotiation toward the development of a new agreement. And it starts with a conversation 00:44:26.514 --> 00:44:35.388 - between a county legal and city legal. And I will note that Dave Schilling county attorney is here in 00:44:35.388 --> 00:44:44.437 - the room and I'm sure he'll be happy to answer any questions anybody may have from the county's behalf. 00:44:44.437 --> 00:44:47.134 - Thank you. I'm just wondering. 00:44:48.514 --> 00:44:57.853 - If the County Plan Commission has authorized you to speak on their behalf with this like if there been 00:44:57.853 --> 00:45:06.920 - a discussion at the County Plan Commission level around this Proposal Mr. Ferris or has I mean, I'm 00:45:06.920 --> 00:45:16.350 - sorry that our County Council representative is not here at this meeting today to Weigh in as well, but 00:45:19.938 --> 00:45:26.005 - This was not an item on the Planning Commission meeting agenda Okay, so so you're here representing 00:45:26.005 --> 00:45:32.498 - the County Planning Commission But in terms of this proposal that you're bringing forth, it's not actually 00:45:32.498 --> 00:45:38.747 - a proposal from the County Planning Commission It's a proposal from you as an individual This proposal 00:45:38.747 --> 00:45:44.997 - has been coordinated with members of the county and at this point to answer your question I will defer 00:45:44.997 --> 00:45:49.790 - to the County Commissioner So you said by members of the county so is it just? 00:45:50.338 --> 00:45:57.953 - then or is it are there other members of the county that were involved in coordinating this I Think 00:45:57.953 --> 00:46:05.797 - I answered that question there are people in the county to which I coordinate this with yes But it was 00:46:05.797 --> 00:46:13.946 - not on a formal agenda item on the Planning Commission I'm asking you which specific people in the county. 00:46:13.946 --> 00:46:17.982 - I'm not going to go into detail. That's not relevant 00:46:19.138 --> 00:46:24.719 - I'm not gonna mention I'm not gonna mention people our name. I'm not gonna do that. That's a trap and 00:46:24.719 --> 00:46:30.191 - you know that I Think it actually would be relevant if there were I mean you're you're representing 00:46:30.191 --> 00:46:36.101 - Specific I mean you're representing a specific Group in the county, which is the County Planning Commission 00:46:36.101 --> 00:46:41.901 - So the specific group that that you are representing on this board did not discuss this matter. I Believe 00:46:41.901 --> 00:46:48.030 - I've answered this question. Thank you. So no, they did not discuss this. I believe I've answered this question 00:46:48.546 --> 00:46:54.651 - I'm clarifying that that is the answer. Is that the answer that other people heard was that no the County 00:46:54.651 --> 00:47:00.410 - Planning Commission I said, I don't know why you're picking at this and you're asking me to restate 00:47:00.410 --> 00:47:06.169 - me what I previously said and that is that I have coordinated this with elements of the individuals 00:47:06.169 --> 00:47:11.986 - who represent the various agencies Okay on this particular body. I have coordinated my response with 00:47:11.986 --> 00:47:18.206 - them But not with the County Planning Commission that you are purportedly representing as part of this body 00:47:21.090 --> 00:47:28.902 - I've already answered that question. I defer to the county commissioner who has her hand up. 00:47:28.902 --> 00:47:37.470 - So did Mr. Ferris coordinate this with the county plan commission like like or or is it just yourself 00:47:37.470 --> 00:47:46.038 - as county commissioner. You spoke on behalf of the county commissioners earlier. Did you guys discuss 00:47:46.038 --> 00:47:48.222 - this in a public meeting. 00:47:51.266 --> 00:48:00.849 - Let me answer your question this way I think as a member of this MPO policy committee that any member 00:48:00.849 --> 00:48:10.807 - has any right to bring an issue or an agenda item to bear I will note that yes the board of commissioners 00:48:10.807 --> 00:48:20.766 - in an administrative meeting open to the public but not necessarily on camera have discussed the value of 00:48:20.866 --> 00:48:30.476 - proceeding with a new round of conversations if something changes Let's see a proposal. Maybe nothing 00:48:30.476 --> 00:48:39.897 - changes. Maybe it stays the same I don't know but we need to have that conversation needs to be had 00:48:39.897 --> 00:48:46.398 - and We've been advised that it's a it's a worthwhile endeavor by our 00:48:46.562 --> 00:48:53.364 - legal staff if they thought that there was no value in this they would have said really I don't know 00:48:53.364 --> 00:49:00.234 - that we need to do this and they didn't say that. So that's the answer. He everything that Mr. Ferris 00:49:00.234 --> 00:49:07.103 - does here does not have to be verified through the plan commission before he attends a meeting. If he 00:49:07.103 --> 00:49:13.838 - has concerns or questions for members of the plan commission he's welcome to bring that to the plan 00:49:13.838 --> 00:49:15.454 - commission at any time. 00:49:15.586 --> 00:49:23.241 - But he is appointed as a representative of the Plan Commission. That doesn't mean everything he says 00:49:23.241 --> 00:49:30.973 - or does here has to be approved by the Plan Commission just as everything you say and do here doesn't 00:49:30.973 --> 00:49:38.856 - have to be approved by the City Council. Thank you. I have a question about this. What is the role that 00:49:38.856 --> 00:49:43.934 - we need to play here? It seems clear that based on the view of the 00:49:44.418 --> 00:49:52.904 - county elected officials and staff that there's going to be some conversations between county attorneys 00:49:52.904 --> 00:50:01.308 - and city attorneys Obviously we on the MPO policy committee do not control the time of either the city 00:50:01.308 --> 00:50:09.712 - or the county attorneys so We can't tell them to do that. Do we need to do anything else prior to them 00:50:09.712 --> 00:50:12.894 - having that conversation? I think it's 00:50:14.210 --> 00:50:21.501 - I'm only speaking for myself I'm not speaking for anybody else in my opinion here. I think it's just 00:50:21.501 --> 00:50:28.864 - bringing a subject to light of trying to bring any of the parties that are not on this board together 00:50:28.864 --> 00:50:36.299 - to look at them and document that's 45 years old see if it needs updated see if there needs to be some 00:50:36.299 --> 00:50:43.518 - changes to fit today's needs for the community the LPA is the board members the staff and then just 00:50:43.650 --> 00:50:50.717 - bringing them together to talk on and maybe there are no changes. Maybe everything's working the way 00:50:50.717 --> 00:50:58.133 - it should work. I think it's just a board member maybe more than one board member bringing their concerns 00:50:58.133 --> 00:51:05.339 - to the public and to this board as a board member that they would like that discussions and they would 00:51:05.339 --> 00:51:12.126 - like that the mayor and the county commissioners and their legal staff to come together and that 00:51:12.514 --> 00:51:19.164 - the board would support the discussions moving forward if there is any changes or it's just requesting 00:51:19.164 --> 00:51:25.943 - to have discussions and bring the appropriate parties together. That's how I feel this should go. That's 00:51:25.943 --> 00:51:32.528 - how I feel. That's our part. I don't think that we set up here and make that decision for them. We're 00:51:32.528 --> 00:51:39.437 - not on their calendars. We're not in control to tell them what to do. I think it's just some board members 00:51:39.437 --> 00:51:41.438 - have a concern with an area of 00:51:41.570 --> 00:51:51.503 - serving on this board and they would like to have further discussion of the agreement that seems possibly 00:51:51.503 --> 00:52:01.061 - a little outdated. The memorandum dated 5 April 1982 from the U.S. Department of Transportation which 00:52:01.061 --> 00:52:10.526 - pretty much acknowledges the fact that the city of Bloomington planned commission is going to be the 00:52:11.234 --> 00:52:17.963 - authority to manage the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Bloomington urbanized area what it 00:52:17.963 --> 00:52:24.759 - does say in the last sentence that one paragraph and they kind of answer your question It says the MPO 00:52:24.759 --> 00:52:31.620 - designation will remain valid until the governor's office and the local officials Which are not defined 00:52:31.620 --> 00:52:38.481 - take appropriate action to revise it If I look at the request in the earlier memorandums Those requests 00:52:38.481 --> 00:52:41.054 - are signed by the mayor of Bloomington 00:52:41.346 --> 00:52:47.873 - and the president of the Monroe County Plan Commission. So one can make compelling argument the local 00:52:47.873 --> 00:52:54.336 - officials mean that that has led the decision to be led by the mayor and the president of the county 00:52:54.336 --> 00:53:00.863 - commissioners in order for us to take and facilitate that. And I would argue that that's what this is 00:53:00.863 --> 00:53:07.518 - a facilitation we need to take and put a request on the table that they meet and discuss and talk about 00:53:07.518 --> 00:53:10.334 - all those things that Lisa just brought up. 00:53:11.074 --> 00:53:18.754 - Whether we whether we do we don't we might we might not but then again Maybe there's a better way of 00:53:18.754 --> 00:53:26.587 - doing things because our community has changed since 1978 to 82 I Mean there there is some dysfunction 00:53:26.587 --> 00:53:34.495 - which I will not go into because we talked about at the last meeting But there is some dysfunction that 00:53:34.495 --> 00:53:39.742 - we can approve upon to make our body more efficient Thank you Andrew 00:53:40.802 --> 00:53:49.106 - Trying to think here. Um, I think generally speaking I think Recognizing I'm here as a proxy I think 00:53:49.106 --> 00:53:57.656 - at any point I'm I'm comfortable with saying that staff from the office of the mayor or staff from city 00:53:57.656 --> 00:54:06.206 - legal if are reached out to by their counterparts at the county would be happy to sit down and talk and 00:54:06.690 --> 00:54:12.638 - And have dialogue about these things I also know both those bodies at the city are very busy and have 00:54:12.638 --> 00:54:18.703 - a lot of other priorities on their plate But I think would still be open to working and talking through 00:54:18.703 --> 00:54:24.767 - things But depending on the level of time and investments, I don't know how quickly could make progress 00:54:24.767 --> 00:54:30.715 - But just just wanting to volunteer that piece of information I think generally open to exploring this 00:54:30.715 --> 00:54:31.998 - being curious I think 00:54:32.770 --> 00:54:38.742 - I don't know that these older documents like maybe why the county and city Representative signed it 00:54:38.742 --> 00:54:44.715 - was because the MPO did not yet exist. So now that it does exist Maybe it would be more appropriate 00:54:44.715 --> 00:54:50.807 - for the this body to be the signatories of things like that I'm not an attorney and I've honestly not 00:54:50.807 --> 00:54:57.197 - read in detail those older documents, but just just offering those one maybe a couple just three questions 00:54:57.197 --> 00:54:58.750 - maybe on my mind are just 00:54:59.778 --> 00:55:05.210 - Not wanting to get into the weeds but just the memo that I believe Commissioner Ferris put together 00:55:05.210 --> 00:55:10.642 - uses the word we the letter I know you drafted it but just wasn't sure was the intent that we would 00:55:10.642 --> 00:55:16.237 - be this body is the week because nobody signed this I'm just trying to understand who we is That right 00:55:16.237 --> 00:55:21.832 - made that recommendation or if it's being presented as something for this body to consider I just just 00:55:21.832 --> 00:55:26.558 - trying to understand the context of that a little more You got to start from somewhere 00:55:29.378 --> 00:55:36.153 - And this goes just based on 40 years of doing business like this. You've got to create an action. Otherwise, 00:55:36.153 --> 00:55:42.618 - things result in endless discussions with no outcome. And so the intent of coming up with a motion that 00:55:42.618 --> 00:55:48.958 - says we recommend, we're not directing, we're just recommending, kind of like along the lines of what 00:55:48.958 --> 00:55:55.298 - a couple folks have already said here, that the mayor, that the commissioners, that the attorneys get 00:55:55.298 --> 00:55:57.598 - together with the appropriate other. 00:55:58.178 --> 00:56:04.534 - representatives from the other LPAs and look at this thing. I mean, I can provide a list of disconnects, 00:56:04.534 --> 00:56:10.587 - what I believe are disconnects, personal disconnects from dealings with this body going back to 19, 00:56:10.587 --> 00:56:16.761 - I'm sorry, 2018. It's not relevant for this discussion, but it would be a good example of things that 00:56:16.761 --> 00:56:23.116 - we could approve upon if in fact we were to sit down and come up with something different. So the intent 00:56:23.116 --> 00:56:25.598 - of this was that the we represented this 00:56:25.826 --> 00:56:33.472 - My intent is that this body as the policy committee would recommend that in fact this move forward because 00:56:33.472 --> 00:56:40.974 - that would establish the action that would result in some sort of an outcome. That's all this is. That's 00:56:40.974 --> 00:56:48.191 - helpful just for me to understand what this is. Another just my understanding is that typically when 00:56:48.191 --> 00:56:54.622 - this body reviews things, it's already been reviewed or discussed by the TAC and the CAC. 00:56:54.786 --> 00:57:01.312 - And I'm just curious if this topic generally has been discussed by those bodies and maybe the other 00:57:01.312 --> 00:57:07.837 - I may be throwing two questions here at once the other it would be putting myself hypothetically in 00:57:07.837 --> 00:57:14.428 - a meeting with county and city legal it might be helpful for those body those people to have an idea 00:57:14.428 --> 00:57:21.346 - of what the concerns or goals of this committee would be to engage on what an interlocal agreement should 00:57:21.346 --> 00:57:24.478 - be or just to talk about the fact that it's old 00:57:24.962 --> 00:57:32.317 - And a piece of information that I personally would be interested in is what to do other MPO inner locals 00:57:32.317 --> 00:57:39.322 - look like and that might be something that we could Hypothetically ask our MPO staff to investigate 00:57:39.322 --> 00:57:46.396 - just to see what do other? MPOs do and I think that would be just a useful data point to help inform 00:57:46.396 --> 00:57:53.541 - those discussions, but that's just An idea, so I'm just throwing those things out for the good So the 00:57:53.541 --> 00:57:54.942 - CAC has not had any 00:57:55.074 --> 00:58:03.618 - Discussion of this topic appear on its agenda I'd echo that were the TAC as well So just a quick point 00:58:03.618 --> 00:58:11.995 - of order it was on the agenda For today's meeting and so subsequently was on the agenda for both the 00:58:11.995 --> 00:58:20.622 - your two bodies And you're saying that even that was on the agenda would be brought up in this meeting. 00:58:20.622 --> 00:58:23.774 - There was no discussion of that topic 00:58:24.386 --> 00:58:35.320 - What you're saying the agenda for the policy committee is not necessarily the same as the agenda for 00:58:35.320 --> 00:58:46.253 - the CAC and the Thus this particular item did not appear on either the February or the April agendas 00:58:46.253 --> 00:58:51.774 - for the CAC That's disturbing There is no official 00:58:52.674 --> 00:58:59.111 - Action or proposal to discuss so that is why this was simply a matter that was under discussion by the 00:58:59.111 --> 00:59:05.424 - PC So there wasn't a reason to bring it to either of those committees at this time Even there was an 00:59:05.424 --> 00:59:11.736 - old business item with documents attached to it These two bodies were not given the chance to review 00:59:11.736 --> 00:59:18.423 - those documents and comment one way or another is that what you're confirming they did review the historic 00:59:18.423 --> 00:59:20.798 - documents at the February meeting and 00:59:20.930 --> 00:59:31.057 - because staff shared those with them just as an informational item. Julie back to the point about how 00:59:31.057 --> 00:59:41.284 - other MPOs operate. I believe we already have that information. Mr. Schilling may be able to shed some 00:59:41.284 --> 00:59:48.830 - light on that. I think we we may already have those documents collected but 00:59:49.442 --> 01:00:03.830 - I don't know if Mr. Schilling wants to speak on that. I am not aware of those documents in my files 01:00:03.830 --> 01:00:14.046 - but I believe other county offices have that and I would just say that 01:00:15.074 --> 01:00:23.304 - there are a number of inter-local cooperation agreements between the city and the county and from time 01:00:23.304 --> 01:00:31.613 - to time I meet with Corporation Council to discuss those and I am meeting with Corporation Council next 01:00:31.613 --> 01:00:39.843 - week and we were intended to discuss this and Andrew to your point did to even talk about how we might 01:00:39.843 --> 01:00:43.518 - go about finding if there is a even a problem 01:00:43.618 --> 01:00:53.624 - Or if anything needs to be done. So very preliminary discussions. No agenda other than getting together 01:00:53.624 --> 01:01:03.341 - and talking about an old agreement. Thank you. So then I thought those documents existed. So then if 01:01:03.341 --> 01:01:11.326 - we could have asked Mr. Seaborg point if we could have MPO staff pull together the 01:01:11.874 --> 01:01:20.055 - foundational documents of other MPOs that are currently in place not not historic but currently in place 01:01:20.055 --> 01:01:28.002 - that would be really helpful. We could do that but I don't know how comprehensive it could be because 01:01:28.002 --> 01:01:35.793 - we're talking about 12 other 13 other MPOs all of which are in various organizational structures. I 01:01:35.793 --> 01:01:40.702 - mean there some are counting some are independent summer city. 01:01:41.986 --> 01:01:50.443 - It's a mishmash, but yeah, we can do our best. I think a sampling would be sufficient, especially if 01:01:50.443 --> 01:01:59.068 - you consider the location of the offices or like you said county city independent if we could get some 01:01:59.068 --> 01:02:07.693 - samples of those examples that I think would be helpful. Thank you. I mean, it's it's it's safe to say 01:02:07.693 --> 01:02:11.294 - that you're going to see multiple versions 01:02:11.618 --> 01:02:19.316 - of what an MPO looks like across the state. I don't think there's a you have to confirm this. I don't 01:02:19.316 --> 01:02:27.013 - believe there's a standard on how the MPOs are established for each of the MPOs. Is that correct. One 01:02:27.013 --> 01:02:35.390 - would see that across the entire United States not just Indiana. Okay. But is it correct. There's no standard. 01:02:39.458 --> 01:02:46.701 - There's not one model that everybody follows. Depends on the individual jurisdiction depends on the 01:02:46.701 --> 01:02:54.451 - individual state depends upon when they were created depends upon how they've evolved depends upon depends 01:02:54.451 --> 01:03:01.911 - upon depends upon. So I would argue that again there is no standard and you're going to find different 01:03:01.911 --> 01:03:07.198 - types of MPOs depending upon whatever jurisdiction. There's no standard. 01:03:07.842 --> 01:03:16.891 - In other words, is there a mold? And the answer is there's a standard in terms of they all meet federal 01:03:16.891 --> 01:03:26.200 - requirements because they're all subject to approval by the governor, by the Department of Transportation, 01:03:26.200 --> 01:03:35.597 - by the Federal Highway Administration, by the Federal Transit Administration, the USDOT. The other standard 01:03:35.597 --> 01:03:37.598 - is that the, you know, 01:03:38.434 --> 01:03:46.414 - designated MPO body which in this case is the city of Bloomington their role that they serve is only 01:03:46.414 --> 01:03:54.393 - fiscal and administrative support and staff support. Other than that they do not have any authority. 01:03:54.393 --> 01:04:03.005 - All authority lies with this policy committee. So the only thing we're arguing over right now is essentially 01:04:03.005 --> 01:04:06.718 - who gets to provide the administrative support 01:04:07.202 --> 01:04:17.519 - and staff support you know pay benefits whatever. So how do we do that. You know how do we create some 01:04:17.519 --> 01:04:27.737 - sort of legal contracting agency that will provide those services. I don't consider this an argument. 01:04:27.737 --> 01:04:35.550 - I consider this a healthy discussion of trying to get everybody to understand 01:04:35.810 --> 01:04:42.453 - That's kind of what the goal is of updating an agreement that's 45 years old. Lot has changed in 45 01:04:42.453 --> 01:04:49.296 - years names of committees names of positions. It's just trying to engage everybody into a conversation 01:04:49.296 --> 01:04:56.006 - to make sure what the board is working on what MPO staff is working on is in a current version. So I 01:04:56.006 --> 01:05:02.782 - don't consider this an argument. I consider this as a discussion to bring everybody on the same page. 01:05:03.042 --> 01:05:09.126 - If there's nothing that needs to be done with an agreement then then we leave it as is. But I don't 01:05:09.126 --> 01:05:15.210 - know why it would be an issue just to have a discussion and let our legal counsel and the mayor and 01:05:15.210 --> 01:05:21.598 - the commissioners move forward with that discussion and then provide us guidance in the future for that. 01:05:26.178 --> 01:05:33.394 - First of all, I just want to say I think that the term argument could be used as a debate as well not 01:05:33.394 --> 01:05:40.540 - just like a back-and-forth argumentative like angry kind of thing and I assumed that that was How it 01:05:40.540 --> 01:05:47.827 - was being used in that context? secondly, I there's an assertion in this document that the Bloomington 01:05:47.827 --> 01:05:51.294 - Monroe County MPO is not working as intended and 01:05:51.426 --> 01:05:58.178 - Because the local public agencies of the greater metropolitan area do not have sufficient voice in the 01:05:58.178 --> 01:06:04.734 - determinations Primarily made by the city of Bloomington planning and transportation department and 01:06:04.734 --> 01:06:11.420 - I find that assertion really troubling in a number of ways and I Think that that is insulting in some 01:06:11.420 --> 01:06:18.042 - ways to Anybody who's on this committee because in theory, you know people on the this committee and 01:06:18.042 --> 01:06:20.926 - the other MPOP committees are the ones that 01:06:21.026 --> 01:06:28.613 - That have that power as was just mentioned by our staff that all the city of Bloomington Planning and 01:06:28.613 --> 01:06:36.348 - Transportation Department is doing is being that like fiscal oversight body not dictating what projects 01:06:36.348 --> 01:06:43.860 - Get funded or do not get funded and how that priority is and that that is left for this body and the 01:06:43.860 --> 01:06:49.662 - other related Metropolitan or the planning organization party the CAC and the 01:06:49.794 --> 01:06:57.663 - the TAC so I I'm really actually like like that almost feels as the City Council person that feels a 01:06:57.663 --> 01:07:05.609 - little insulting and it also feels a little insulting to staff that our MPO staff is prioritizing one 01:07:05.609 --> 01:07:13.400 - agency over another and I don't see that, you know, I mean Mr. Ferris had an assertion that there's 01:07:13.400 --> 01:07:19.710 - dysfunction in this body as the the MPO as the as the Planning Committee I'm I'm 01:07:19.970 --> 01:07:25.969 - Not quite sure entirely where the dysfunction is lying except that You know this idea that they don't 01:07:25.969 --> 01:07:32.322 - that there's not sufficient voice outside of the city of Bloomington's planning a transportation department 01:07:32.322 --> 01:07:38.262 - So, I mean honestly that feels a little insulting. I have no problem I'm very happy to hear that the 01:07:38.262 --> 01:07:43.262 - attorneys are already meeting next week about this, but what I also heard him say is 01:07:43.554 --> 01:07:49.915 - 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 01:07:49.915 --> 01:07:56.034 - or if anything needs to be done But the assertion of this document says that there is a problem That 01:07:56.034 --> 01:08:02.638 - it's not working as intended and That outside the city of Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department 01:08:02.638 --> 01:08:08.818 - 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 01:08:08.818 --> 01:08:12.574 - Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department either and 01:08:13.282 --> 01:08:21.511 - So like, I'm not sure what the real problem is right now, honestly. And yes, we had a whole big debate 01:08:21.511 --> 01:08:29.740 - about it at our last meeting. But part of the problem that I was having at that time was the fact that 01:08:29.740 --> 01:08:38.049 - there were thinly veiled or not at all veiled insults being flung at our staff and had been being flung 01:08:38.049 --> 01:08:40.446 - at our MPO staff before that. 01:08:41.986 --> 01:08:48.105 - And if we want to have a debate and a discussion, that's fine. But we don't need to throw our staff 01:08:48.105 --> 01:08:54.408 - under a bus. I find that really inappropriate. And I find this sentence also really, really troubling. 01:08:54.408 --> 01:09:00.649 - So I'm glad that they're meeting. I feel like we can close this conversation right now, honestly, and 01:09:00.649 --> 01:09:06.769 - that we don't even need a motion because they're already discussing it. And we can learn more about 01:09:06.769 --> 01:09:11.358 - the results from that if the attorneys even think that there is a problem. 01:09:17.826 --> 01:09:27.519 - Julie I believe that would be helpful to have a motion on this. So I hope that Mr. Ferris makes one 01:09:27.519 --> 01:09:37.890 - but I would like to say that we did spend an hour going over concerns. This is about transparency. There's 01:09:37.890 --> 01:09:44.190 - no accusations of nefarious acts but this is about transparency. 01:09:45.186 --> 01:09:56.178 - The other thing I will say is that I believe that the current Setup puts the MPO staff In a bad position, 01:09:56.178 --> 01:10:07.171 - it's a disservice to them so I am NOT Being critical of their work. I would not Go there. I don't believe 01:10:07.171 --> 01:10:14.430 - that but I do believe that they are in a difficult position because I 01:10:14.882 --> 01:10:26.874 - Their boss is not the MPO policy committee. It is the city of Bloomington transportation and planning. 01:10:26.874 --> 01:10:38.749 - So can can we not rehash the last last debate two months ago and I would appreciate hearing a motion. 01:10:38.749 --> 01:10:40.030 - Thank you. 01:10:44.802 --> 01:10:54.120 - I'm just gonna make one quick response back to you and that is that and you're not aware of this because 01:10:54.120 --> 01:11:02.995 - this goes back to 2018. I have met along with other members of the county and at that point I was a 01:11:02.995 --> 01:11:12.225 - citizen but that person was a member of the NPO PC with elements of transportation and planning. I have 01:11:12.225 --> 01:11:13.822 - met over the last 01:11:15.010 --> 01:11:24.112 - several years I think with three of the directors or deputy directors. And we have talked in those meetings 01:11:24.112 --> 01:11:32.877 - about however you want to capture it, dysfunction, lack of transparency, et cetera. As far back as when 01:11:32.877 --> 01:11:41.726 - the bylaws were rewritten, we met with at that point it was I guess the deputy or the assistant director 01:11:42.722 --> 01:11:48.709 - And Pat was in the room, we had the discussion about the bylaws and how they were written and how they 01:11:48.709 --> 01:11:54.754 - talked about roles and responsibilities of the MPOPC and others. And as a result of that meeting, those 01:11:54.754 --> 01:12:01.090 - bylaws were rewritten and a lot of those things that were removed, a lot of those roles and responsibilities 01:12:01.090 --> 01:12:06.960 - were removed from those bylaws. And so if you want to have a sidebar, I'll be more than happy to sit 01:12:06.960 --> 01:12:07.774 - down with you 01:12:08.162 --> 01:12:15.361 - and go over all of these various elements of lack of transparency, to use Julie's terms, if you'd like. 01:12:15.361 --> 01:12:22.629 - I'd be more than happy to do that. But there are instances that did occur. This body right here, I don't 01:12:22.629 --> 01:12:29.343 - think we want to take and go through and rehash all of these things. It would be a laundry list. 01:12:29.343 --> 01:12:36.126 - My motion, and I just modified it. As you put my motion back up on the screen there, I appreciate 01:12:43.650 --> 01:13:00.728 - Can you yeah And scroll down. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna add the word where it says County commissioners 01:13:00.728 --> 01:13:08.446 - prepare a new interlocal agreement as required 01:13:10.562 --> 01:13:16.618 - This is this is in line with the discussion we just had here. Maybe nothing is required. Maybe all we 01:13:16.618 --> 01:13:22.733 - need to do is restate it because an agreement really is not in place nor has it been updated since 82. 01:13:22.733 --> 01:13:29.086 - 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 01:13:29.086 --> 01:13:35.260 - made a motion. I'm discussing what the motion will be. We've done this in other forums as well. We talk 01:13:35.260 --> 01:13:38.110 - about what we're going to say before we say it. 01:13:38.882 --> 01:13:48.089 - Sure, I just wanted to be clear about that That would be my change now if you're ready for a motion 01:13:48.089 --> 01:13:49.470 - mr. Bishop has 01:13:50.914 --> 01:13:57.730 - I would still be interested in knowing the origin sources of this document, unless it was wholly birthed 01:13:57.730 --> 01:14:04.352 - by you, Mr. Ferris. The obfuscation and concealment of the other parties is concerning because that's 01:14:04.352 --> 01:14:10.844 - not how government's supposed to work. And so if there are other people or bodies involved, I think 01:14:10.844 --> 01:14:17.335 - it's important and germane to this conversation, this body, to understand where this is coming from 01:14:17.335 --> 01:14:20.062 - and what the genesis really is behind it. 01:14:20.450 --> 01:14:27.938 - You talking about the talking points? The whole document in general. Okay. Well the the memorandums 01:14:27.938 --> 01:14:35.501 - which were a matter of record are historical going back to 78 to 82. I understand the historical I'm 01:14:35.501 --> 01:14:43.214 - talking about the specific items and things that you feel need to be addressed. This document here was 01:14:43.214 --> 01:14:48.830 - coordinated with members from the county who are represented on this body. 01:14:49.794 --> 01:14:59.334 - So if you can't name them, then they're straw men. And we don't vote on straw men. We vote on actual 01:14:59.334 --> 01:15:09.157 - people that are part of this deliberative process. And if we don't have who those people are, then it's 01:15:09.157 --> 01:15:17.374 - just you and your argument. It's not my argument. Can I maybe provide some assistance? 01:15:17.922 --> 01:15:27.447 - If in fact a motion is what you want to make First I'll say that per the bylaws the policy committee's 01:15:27.447 --> 01:15:36.696 - responsibilities Include giving overall guidance for transportation planning process and submitting 01:15:36.696 --> 01:15:44.094 - plans and recommendations to participating agencies as has been mentioned today 01:15:44.514 --> 01:15:54.466 - So you cannot require a new MPO designation solution, but you can request one. And perhaps the best 01:15:54.466 --> 01:16:04.517 - way to request one as a body would be to compose a letter to request this. We cannot take any formal 01:16:04.517 --> 01:16:14.270 - action on Mr. Ferris's document today because it's not a letter and it does not provide signature 01:16:14.754 --> 01:16:26.811 - signatures and So my proposal is that today you could make a motion To write a letter as a body or make 01:16:26.811 --> 01:16:38.521 - a motion that MPO staff write this letter and then this letter would be to the local public agencies 01:16:38.521 --> 01:16:43.390 - within the metropolitan planning area and 01:16:44.706 --> 01:16:53.582 - And then this letter could come back at the next meeting for vote by the entire committee, or staff 01:16:53.582 --> 01:17:02.813 - could work with the chair to sign off on this letter so that it could be done prior to the next meeting 01:17:02.813 --> 01:17:12.222 - as a formal request to the governing agencies, to the local agencies, to reevaluate this MPO designation. 01:17:13.218 --> 01:17:25.504 - So that's that's that's a suggestion. I'm going to proceed with a motion whenever you're done with the 01:17:25.504 --> 01:17:37.432 - discussion. Is there any more discussion. I just want to say you know I've heard on one side county 01:17:37.432 --> 01:17:39.102 - commissioner. 01:17:39.650 --> 01:17:46.592 - Julie Thomas talk about transparency, which I really appreciate. But I've heard on the other side a 01:17:46.592 --> 01:17:53.533 - complete lack of transparency with the obfuscation of coordinated with members of this body. And if 01:17:53.533 --> 01:18:00.544 - you were a member of this body who coordinated that with Mr. Ferris, I would really appreciate it if 01:18:00.544 --> 01:18:07.486 - you came out and said, yes, I did that. And I think that Commissioner Thomas already has done that. 01:18:07.682 --> 01:18:17.974 - Have a conversation set up later with councilmember Henry to as a another member of this body to inquire 01:18:17.974 --> 01:18:26.110 - with him around What he has how he has been involved in this and I just I really I 01:18:28.290 --> 01:18:34.995 - You know, I feel like this is in part as a fiscal matter and it would be significantly more expensive 01:18:34.995 --> 01:18:41.832 - to do something different for Everybody else by the way, because right now the city of Bloomington pays 01:18:41.832 --> 01:18:48.734 - everything related to our staffing everything related to MPO staffing and if if There was an independent 01:18:48.734 --> 01:18:52.350 - office then health insurance all of those pieces would 01:18:53.026 --> 01:18:59.151 - Would no longer be covered under City of Bloomington's HR umbrella for example, and all of that would 01:18:59.151 --> 01:19:05.156 - have to be reset up If it if it went into another office like the county office of planning I would 01:19:05.156 --> 01:19:11.341 - absolutely say hey, then we need to start sharing those costs So there's absolutely a fiscal, you know 01:19:11.341 --> 01:19:17.886 - piece of if if something about where our staff are housed get moved now that is maybe a different thing than 01:19:18.434 --> 01:19:25.782 - potentially a new interlocal agreement that changes and updates names of organizations, etc, etc but 01:19:25.782 --> 01:19:33.421 - I think that what I hear being proposed is getting our staff out from underneath the city of Bloomington 01:19:33.421 --> 01:19:40.697 - planning and transportation umbrella because That does not allow other local public agencies enough 01:19:40.697 --> 01:19:46.590 - voice. That's what that paragraph says that it's problematic because other other 01:19:46.786 --> 01:19:55.130 - Urbanized areas outside of the city of Bloomington don't have sufficient voice in this body and I just 01:19:55.130 --> 01:20:00.638 - think that that's an inaccurate representation of this body and I I 01:20:01.890 --> 01:20:08.391 - You know, I'm in the city. So maybe that's different but I think that it's that it's an inaccurate 01:20:08.391 --> 01:20:15.089 - representation and I think that if we you know We could do and as an assessment of every project that 01:20:15.089 --> 01:20:21.722 - has been funded By the MPO we could base that on population we could you know do all of those things 01:20:21.722 --> 01:20:28.420 - to actually analytically assess whether more MPO funds have been spent inside or outside or you know, 01:20:28.420 --> 01:20:30.718 - our staff are actually required to 01:20:30.882 --> 01:20:35.697 - Document their time in such a way as to how much time they're spending on each of the individual projects 01:20:35.697 --> 01:20:40.467 - I don't know if you all know that Sat down and had a real discussion with them a couple months ago about 01:20:40.467 --> 01:20:45.282 - their how they have to like budget and lay out their time You know, we could be like, hey what percentage 01:20:45.282 --> 01:20:49.598 - of your time are you spending on projects that are inside and outside the city of Bloomington? 01:20:49.794 --> 01:20:56.623 - Like and and we could have those sorts of like real analysis. I think basing something back to 2018 01:20:56.623 --> 01:21:03.657 - is not necessarily You know, we're we're here and we're moving forward maybe we could look at the last 01:21:03.657 --> 01:21:11.033 - three years of a new administration in the city of Bloomington and and two years really with a new director 01:21:11.033 --> 01:21:14.174 - of transportation and planning but I mean I I 01:21:14.562 --> 01:21:22.456 - Mr. Farage you're free to make your motion and I will vote against that partly because it you know does 01:21:22.456 --> 01:21:30.427 - not sound like something that that we can even do in terms of what our bylaws say what we can recommend, 01:21:30.427 --> 01:21:37.562 - but I I Think that this whole thing has been gone about in a really in a way that really does 01:21:37.562 --> 01:21:44.318 - lack transparency So the only thing that I want to add and hopefully will be ending soon 01:21:45.762 --> 01:21:51.980 - A perfect example where I think some things get a communication gap is I am chair of this committee. 01:21:51.980 --> 01:21:58.260 - I was approached when I walked in here today about changing the agenda. I didn't think that it needed 01:21:58.260 --> 01:22:04.540 - to be done. I thought we could get through this meeting. I stated that I felt that the meeting agenda 01:22:04.540 --> 01:22:11.067 - should stay the same. There must have been already a discussion on changing the agenda because the motion 01:22:11.067 --> 01:22:12.606 - went ahead and was made. 01:22:13.314 --> 01:22:18.948 - As chair, I don't know why I wasn't reached out through email or something before two minutes before 01:22:18.948 --> 01:22:24.526 - this meeting to say that it was going to be proposed to change this agenda. So that's where I think 01:22:24.526 --> 01:22:29.658 - there could be some communication gaps on responsibilities and things that I've experienced 01:22:29.658 --> 01:22:35.403 - person personally. And it's not the first time. So if anybody wants to make a motion, you're more than 01:22:35.403 --> 01:22:41.316 - welcome to make a motion. Otherwise, I would consider that we move on to the next item. I think everybody 01:22:41.316 --> 01:22:42.878 - knows what the board wants. 01:22:43.650 --> 01:22:50.866 - And if anybody has want any more comments, please do so because it's almost noon. I think Julie had 01:22:50.866 --> 01:22:58.299 - her hand up My my comment was going to be that there's no money involved at this point So I think it's 01:22:58.299 --> 01:23:05.588 - it's premature to talk about that. Thank you I'll be really really brief knowing the time and I like 01:23:05.588 --> 01:23:13.598 - to eat lunch I will I will vote no for this but also appreciate that our legal departments already meeting and 01:23:13.762 --> 01:23:21.329 - I expect we'll continue to have some dialogue on this. I look forward to additional research of just 01:23:21.329 --> 01:23:28.896 - seeing how other MPOs work so just appreciate the conversations will be going whether this passes or 01:23:28.896 --> 01:23:36.688 - 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 01:23:36.688 --> 01:23:40.734 - a motion I Think the motion is generic enough that it 01:23:41.186 --> 01:23:49.018 - covers just about everybody's requirement. I will state it as follows. My motion is we recommend the 01:23:49.018 --> 01:23:57.238 - office of the mayor and office of the county commissioners prepare a new interlocal agreement as required 01:23:57.238 --> 01:24:04.062 - for the urbanized area of Bloomington and Monroe County legal counsel from the city and 01:24:04.194 --> 01:24:15.469 - should lead the effort and provide administrative support and this would include any required state 01:24:15.469 --> 01:24:26.970 - or federal local notification requirements and be presented back to this body the MP OPC for approval 01:24:26.970 --> 01:24:30.014 - Is it the case that if the 01:24:30.914 --> 01:24:39.508 - City and county agreed to a new interlocal agreement that this body would have a role in approving or 01:24:39.508 --> 01:24:47.934 - disapproving that My sense is that the answer is no That's my understanding as well I I don't think 01:24:47.934 --> 01:24:56.444 - that's true I think we would and I think that because it's the core of our operation just like we do 01:24:56.444 --> 01:24:59.646 - our federal work program so I I would 01:24:59.874 --> 01:25:06.598 - I would expect it back here and I would also expect that if there are any recommended changes that the 01:25:06.598 --> 01:25:13.257 - city and county would then bring in other LPAs that are represented here on this NPO policy committee 01:25:13.257 --> 01:25:19.916 - to also provide input before it comes back here. I mean I think all of those things have to happen if 01:25:19.916 --> 01:25:27.358 - there's anything that's revised. So there's a lot of ifs in that sense. Apologies. Thank you. Any public comment. 01:25:31.330 --> 01:26:00.958 - Seeing none. Roll call vote please. Bridge. Yes. Horn. Yes. Packer. Abstain. Nickel. No. Bannock. 01:26:02.018 --> 01:26:28.190 - No. Stasberg. No. Thomas. Yes. Seaborg. No. Bishop. No. Ferris. Yes. Tobin Hashtag. No. 01:26:32.514 --> 01:26:45.029 - Did I get everyone I think it did. So we have three yeses. We have four yeses one abstention and five 01:26:45.029 --> 01:26:57.544 - no's. Motion does not pass. OK. Moving on to public comment on matters not included on the agenda non 01:26:57.544 --> 01:26:59.262 - voting items. 01:27:04.034 --> 01:27:14.831 - Seeing none communications from committee members on matters not included on the agenda. Nickel. I didn't 01:27:14.831 --> 01:27:25.016 - get nickel. You did. Oh yeah I did. OK. Sorry. So that's six six nos four yeses and one abstention. 01:27:25.016 --> 01:27:33.470 - Sorry. So item 10 communications topic suggestions for future agendas saying none. 01:27:34.146 --> 01:27:41.345 - Next technical advisory committee meeting May 27th at 10 a.m. Citizens Advisory Committee May 27th at 01:27:41.345 --> 01:27:47.838 - 530 and Policy Committee meeting at May 29th at 1030 a.m. And we will adjourn this meeting.