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.