Welcome to the Bloomington Metropolitan Planning Office Technical Advisory Committee meeting for May
27th, 2026. Thanks for being here and everybody online. Katie and Pat, were you guys gonna go over some
of the online protocol today, or should I mention that first? Go ahead and touch it. Yeah, so for anybody
here who is a voting member online, please, if you are gonna be voting, you need to have your camera
turned on before you vote, and that's kind of the,
The big thing there. Did I cover that? Yeah, I think that's good. So I think we're probably good to
go. Should we do a call to order and introductions? Sound good. I guess I maybe did the call to order.
Welcome to the technical advisor committee meeting. Sorry, I got back from a road trip yesterday, so
I'm a little bit out of it. I guess we can start with introductions. Maybe at the left, Ryan, would
you be willing to start first? Sure. Ryan Roebling, proxy, David Hittle.
Jane Fleague, City of Bloomington Utilities. John Baton, GIS Coordinator, Monroe County. Kelly Whitmer,
Monroe County Parks and Recreation. Tammy Bierman, Monroe County Planning Department, Acting Director.
Hunter Jackson, Proxy for the Monroe County Auditor. Cheryl Gilliland, Deputy Controller, City
of Bloomington, Proxy for Jeff McKim, Controller, City of Bloomington.
Lynette Tavernier, Monroe County Highway Department Operations Asset Manager, alternate for the Highway
Engineer. Linnea Wellings, NDOT, proxy for Rebecca Packer. Max Dyer, City of Bloomington, GIS, proxy
for Megan Blair. Amy Garataz, Area 10, Agency on Aging Rural Transit. And we do have one non-voting
member online.
Great. Do they introduce themselves? Go ahead, Sam. Hi, Sam Tobin-Hockstadt. I'm here representing the
Citizens Advisory Commission since John can't be here today. Awesome. Thanks, everybody. With that,
I guess we'll move to an approval for the agenda from May 27th, 2026 or today. Can I have a motion to
approve? So I'll move. Second. Thanks, Jane and Ryan.
And is this gonna be a roll call vote, Katie, or? You should be able to do an all in favor. Okay, so
if we could get an all in favor, everybody say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, you need
to speak into the microphone, Tammy. Okay, so we are good.
One abstention from Tammy Berman, the proxy for Jackie Gellenexter. Next, we'll move to a motion to
approve the minutes from April 22nd, 2026. If I could get a motion to approve. Move approval. Second.
Thank you, Jane and Ryan. And again, we'll do a all in favor vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
Any opposed?
Say nay. Any abstentions? Thank you, everybody. And this brings us to communications. Am I going too
fast, Katie? Sorry if I am. Okay. This brings us to communications from the Chair and Vice Chair. Jane,
I'll let you go first if you have anything you want to share. I don't have anything right now.
Thank you. Cool.
I'm not sure if I guess I'll share this now I didn't see it on the agenda but I do want to let everybody
know that the city is offering a really cool program right now that benefits from public kind of support
and and and us participating in it and this is the resident led.
resident-led traffic calming program within the city. What this is doing is trying for residents of
Bloomington to fill out, basically, it's a really quick survey whether or not they have an interest
in some type of implementation of a traffic calming program within the city. It's really easy to do.
The main requirements of it is that you need to have two participants, they can't live at the same address,
and those participants need to live within 300 feet,
of the area in which this traffic calming program is geared towards. And so if you guys are interested
in that, I really highly recommend checking out the city's website. It's a great program that you can
see the impacts of participating. That's all I have for communications. So I guess we're going to move
on to communications from Pat and Katie. Did I go too far? Am I in?
I think we're on number 5 Pat. Did I skip something? Number 5. Number 6. Number 6. Oh, NPO. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Oh, I guess I said communications from officers and or committees, but that's not really, yeah.
I'm sorry. We've lost our script. Usually we don't plan this like this. Under item 6.1, Indiana Department
of Transportation news release on single lane closures planned on Interstate 69 in Green and Monroe
County. I believe those are associated with slide control. There's a landslide issue
that's always down in that area due to the type of soils that they have down in that area. Please be
aware of that and please pass this information along. Item 6.2, we've got the city of Bloomington's
ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act transition plan. This is out of CFRD, community and family resources
development upstairs.
This comment period is open until, well, the end of this month. If it hasn't already closed, we were
aware of this late, so we apologize for having it in the packet late. Please feel free to review this
to make sure that City of Bloomington is meeting all of its ADA transition plan requirements. This is
something the MPO also must have
it must have approved. The plan will be approved in a final form probably around the 1st of July.
Item 6.3, memorandum is included in the packet on Bloomington Transit's proposed service improvements.
This goes along with the public meetings that they had three public meetings several weeks ago. First
one was at Ivy Tech,
State College, the other two, Bloomington Trans, downtown transfer center. This is a proposal which
has already been passed at this time now, would combine routes three west and route 13 into a single
route. I think it's called route 16 is what it was called. This was due to the fact that there was low ridership
This is an unusual route in that it is an external route, external outside of the city of Bloomington.
It's under an interlocal agreement. It operates under an interlocal agreement where the Monroe County
Council provides a subsidy for the operation of this route. The new route would have a 45-minute headway,
in other words, 90 minutes
all the way around, round trip, 45 minute headway, but it was Bloomington Transit, I wish somebody from
Bloomington Transit was here, they looked at seven different scenarios before they came up with this
optimized version here, and the optimized version will operate at least a year to see how it does.
under the current routing system out to IBTEC State College, it was only, sometimes only a single rider
per hour, which is just not functional, and it's not a revenue generating source. So this was optimized
with a combination of other traffic attractors. Yeah, if you scroll down there, it'll tell you what
the other...
Okay, it's got a whole series of traffic attractors there in terms of commercial service. And we received,
all the meetings were attended very well, received very positive comments on all of the meetings. There
was one concern expressed at the last meeting, but at the end of the meeting, that individual expressed
support for the entire concept.
If you have any questions on that, please let us know. Go ahead. Is Ivy Tech in the city of Bloomington?
No, this route is operated under interlocal agreement because it exceeds outside of the city of corporate
limits and the Monroe County Council has funded this and Monroe County Commissioners asked for funding
for this and the Monroe County Council approved this, so it's supported by
Monroe County funds since it is outside of the city limits. Does that answer your question? Can I ask
another question on something you went on actually the ADA transition plan? Sure. Sorry you were going
so fast. I thought I heard you say that the MPO needs to approve the city's ADA transition plan. Is that
You didn't say that, okay. No, no, no. City, no, we're including it in the packet for information purposes
only. Draft, this is the draft. It'll be finalized by July 1st and usually the first or second week
of July, the MPO sends this ADA transition plan to the Indiana Department of Transportation and to verify that
the MPO is operating in an environment that is ADA accessible. So it's not required. The reason why
I'm asking is that the county, I believe, finalized their ADA plan and I didn't recall this MPO step.
So not needed. Yeah, it's not required by the MPO. The MPO provides it to the Indiana Department of
Transportation as an FYI type thing to show that the city of Bloomington itself is
compliant. Does that answer your question? Oh, always. Okay. Yeah, it's one of those check the box items
that are mandatory that we always do in July of every year with Federal Highway Administration, FTA,
and also with NDOT. Okay. Okay, next item, NDOT traffic engineering memo. You want to do that?
Please. Oh, actually item 6.4 is just a quick memo as we usually do. As you know, we have a tip document
that has information on projects receiving federal funds through the MPO and. It the document also contains
transit projects as well that will receive FTA funding, but not through us.
those have to be in there as well. And so sometimes when we have a change to a project or the funding
that is below a certain threshold, we do not have to bring it to approval to the committee. We do not
have to bring it to the committee for approval, but we do provide a memo describing what change was
made so that you are all aware. And so since the last meeting, one of the changes that was made was
to a transit project
This was a project that was already in the TIP called Bloomington Transit's EV mobile chargers project.
We simply changed the funding source for that project. We increased the amount of federal funding. This
federal funding that they're receiving, I believe this portion is coming from some extra
MPO funds that were rolled over flexed to transit in a past year. They're trying to get all those used
up before new transportation bills occur. And in addition to the federal share increasing, the local
share also needs to increase. And the project total also increased as well. And so you can see the changes
in funding in the table.
that's provided as well. Questions? Since the last meeting, there was also an update to a non-transit
project that was made by MPO staff that did not have to be reviewed. That change was to Monroe County's
Dillman Road bridge project. Due to environmental impact, they are moving
the bridge program funds and the local match that they're providing for the project. They're moving
the right of way phase and those funds from fiscal year 2026 to 2027. So just an environmental delay
for that is causing a change in fiscal year for the right of way phase. And in this case, this is not
a use of MPO federal funds, but
All projects that receive bridge funding through the state also need to be in the tip and everyone needs
to be aware of it, the local representatives. Any questions? Go ahead, Pat. On the crash severity? No,
6.6, the traffic engineer memo.
Okay. All right. Item 6.6, which is in your packet. We have a memorandum from Taylor Ruval, who leads
the management of the Office of Traffic Safety at the Indiana Department of Transportation, where he's
announcing changes to the injury severity determination method for traffic data analysis. Our traffic
injuries have been all over the place in the last decade due to changing definitions and we've shown,
well, it's shown a slight decrease or a steady decrease in traffic
traffic injuries over the period and there was a suspicion there that the methodology had a flaw to
it. So the Department of Transportation examined this methodology and they've now adopted a new standard
which will be effective at the beginning of next calendar year. In the memo you'll
see there that talks about historically Indiana's use following crash severity for analysis, fatal or
incapacitating injury, non-capacitating injury or property damage only. The termination was usually
made by the officer in the field, state police or the local law enforcement agency in the field, and
made the determination on whether it was suspected or not.
The new criteria which the Department of Transportation, well, yeah, actually there's a table in here
also that shows how the 2019, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 suspected serious injury crashes, the numbers
that are found on the state police data under the new
There were always a number of errors associated with that. Under this new criteria, crash narratives
will still be important as part of the safety analysis to verify accuracy. However, they're changing
the definitions. A suspected serious injury crash with injury nature of fractured dislocation has been
clarified as a minor broken nose.
with no other injury or narrative. A non-serious suspected injury crash with an injury nature of a minor
bruise was found to be unconscious at the crash site. The practitioner should modify this to document
that change. A minor crash injury of nature complaint of pain has been clarified. A property damage
only crash
would show no injuries, but the narrative may describe an injured person or another error. Crash costs
have also been updated to a national standard. These costs, we've got some heartburn with the costs
ourselves, but in 2020 for $20, $25 terms,
The costs are listed there as $857,956 for a fatality and then for the other types of injuries that's
been listed also. The number of years used in the analysis severe crashes. Since severe crashes are
rare, in few years or years, the pattern of crashes has not been apparent.
Therefore, the change in the definition under the updated crash cost analysis system, which is shown
in a tabular form. I don't know if you can scroll down to that. I'm sorry, we'll get there.
There we go. Updated crash costs for highway safety analysis.
This is the 2024 costs in terms of comprehensive unit costs and the application of the costs and the
processes. Under this new process, the Department of Transportation will have what I would call a more
accurate and a more consistent definition based on national standards.
and you can see that in the following tables. The bottom line here is that the number of injuries, suspected
serious injury crashes that do this definitional change, those numbers will probably change dramatically
between the current year 2026 and 2027, and then in all outlined years beyond 2027.
Questions anybody have on this? I know this is highly technical, but it has to do with what we call
the most serious aspect of the thing is how do we report injury crashes and how do we report property
damage crashes? I've got a question, and if you guys can't answer it, that's perfectly fine. I can do
some Googling myself.
So this data is reported by officers as they kind of approach a scene. They're doing their best kind
of analysis of the scene to identify whether or not there was a serious injury. They could also be coming
from a domestic violence situation and trying to figure out what's going on. So there's a lot of pressure
on the police officer who's actually responding to the incident to get this. Say there's an individual
who's in an accident
They appear conscious and everything like that. They're released, but then they go home, or they go
to a hospital for that matter, and die essentially. Are these numbers going to be edited after the fact,
or is it once the police officer enters that information into the database, is it just kind of static?
In terms of fatality, it's dynamic. It is, okay. So they could revise this information. In terms of
fatality, yes.
transported to the hospital with a suspected serious injury and they end up with a fatality. That is
reported as a fatality. The problem came in where you had suspected serious injuries and the individuals
involved refused to go to the hospital, refused treatment, and ended up later on having something more
serious, such as a fractured leg or something like that.
This definition also includes, this is somewhat grisly, dislocations, dismemberment, I'm sorry, I don't
want to say dislocation, dismemberment issues, where those are now classified as serious injury instead
of a suspected serious injury. I would probably say that a dismemberment would be a serious, I wouldn't
suspect it anymore.
but a broken nose is not. So yeah, the difficulty gets into the narrative of the definition. And then
trying to, I think, categorize these after the fact, which is what you guys are doing with the crash
dashboard and things like that to make this more logical. Yeah, and the officers are under a lot of
pressure, time pressure, first of all, to arrive at the accident scene.
to report the thing as accurately as possible and then to complete the accident report afterwards. And
sometimes the after report is days afterwards and full clarity is not always there. And that's not to
follow the officer, that's just the nature of the beast. They consider a fatal injury to be any injury
that results in death within 30 days after the accident.
Awesome, yeah, not awesome. Thanks for the clarity, though, or clarification. You wanna do the other
one? Sure. Item 6.8 is just a quick memo for you. We've finished editing the crash data
and GIS is working on getting it up on the website. But we wanted to just provide a quick overview of
the crashes in 2025 because people often ask for that information. Some of the information in this memo
is not available on the crash dashboard, but much of it will be eventually. We just have some total
numbers here at the beginning.
And then something interesting we haven't really figured out all the metrics for in past years is the
number of Monroe County, Indiana fatal crashes occurring within the metropolitan planning area, which
is kind of the area that we have jurisdiction over as a committee here. And so 10 out of 14 of those
crashes were within the metropolitan planning area.
which for those of you who are new, includes all of Ellisville and some of the county and all of city
of Bloomington. Next, there is some comparisons of fatal crashes and total fatalities. In 2025, we had
14 fatal crashes, although one occurred in a parking garage, which was not on a public road. Typically,
we wouldn't
pay attention to that one when engineers are doing and planners are doing analysis. But one crash did,
sorry, two crashes did have two deaths in them. Then number of fatal vehicle crashes, pedestrian crashes,
and fatal bicycle crashes. You can see kind of the history of that in that table. Then next is,
a basic summary of each of the fatal crashes that occurred in Monroe County in 2025 and their location.
You'll be able to see those visually on the map once they're up on the crash dashboard. Next is a tally
of the manner of collision for each of the fatal crashes.
To be expected, the two crashes that had two deaths each were both head-on collisions. And then some
language about the metrics and some of the history regarding the metrics of serious and incapacitating
injuries is there for you again and as well as a history of the amount, the number of serious injuries.
The state uses incapacitating as their language, and on our crash dashboard we use serious injuries,
but it's the same thing. And then last is serious injuries by primary factor of the crash. So we just
wanted to provide somewhat of a summary overview for your information.
Katie, can I ask a quick question? If you scroll back down to the table where it shows kind of the history
of fatal crashes or serious crashes, I think it's down a little bit further, it looks like we're seeing
a really good improvement, yeah, right there, in terms of the number of just crashes and serious injuries
that have occurred from 2019 to 2025. Do you guys have any idea, like, I mean, is that a policy change?
some different types of engineering we've deployed or are people being better drivers? Well, part of
it is what Pat was speaking to earlier about the change in software used at the state level and the
change in definition of what a serious injury is. So you can see here in this table that with using
the Areas 5 software in 2019, and then they were transitioning using Areas 5 and 6. Oh, actually, that's
an increase. I thought it showed a decrease. But the change in definition, it describes earlier in this
memo how the change in definition and the change in software has perhaps caused some
the number of serious injuries to appear to decline, but that might just be because of the interpretation
of serious injuries. Pat, what else were you going to say? I was going to say also with the city of
Bloomington's adoption of the SS4A plan and the countermeasures, the 25 countermeasures used for crash
locations. I know the city engineer's office has been very aggressive.
in terms of investigating all fatal and serious injury locations and applying a countermeasure as quickly
as possible, usually within 30 days, if they can, 60 days at most. So you will see, and that's only
been one year, 2025 and 2026, part of 2026 so far, but you will see
evidence probably in 2027-2028 where there is a measurable reduction within the city of Bloomington,
mainly because of the aggressiveness that they've used for that approach. Now, the same thing goes with
the Indiana Department of Transportation Seymour District. Seymour District and statewide have been
very aggressive in applying countermeasures,
These are the proven countermeasures approved by the Federal Highway Administration. Becky, not Becky,
Leonick, correct me if I'm wrong, 25 countermeasures I think it is, something like that. But they've
been extremely aggressive in applying those measures and also doing what I would call preventative measures.
In other words, better marking of crossings,
better marking, well, installing new stop signs in some of the rural areas, installing flashers, warning
signs, devices, and all of that. I mean, kudos goes to the state and to the local people in terms of
how aggressive they've been on doing that. I'm sorry, Leigh Ann, I didn't mean to interrupt.
No, I just wanted to agree with you, Pat. It's definitely safety has come to the forefront and NDOT
is trying to, like you said, update crosswalks, replace signage if they've faded and people aren't able
to see them where it's causing some sort of visual inability to stay on the road or whatever the case
may be. So yeah, it's definitely a push and we appreciate any cooperation we can get. So thank you all.
Yeah, thanks, and props to everybody involved with that for getting those numbers down. That's good.
Moving on. Just wanted to give you guys a few updates. I know this is hard to read on the screen, but
these are some updates. And Lynette, you're probably prepared with
with some updates, but we just had a quarterly tracking meeting with Monroe County and City of Bloomington,
so I'll just read what I have from those meetings, and you can add if I miss anything. So City
of Bloomington's High Street project, the right-of-way acquisition is complete, and utility relocations
are going to take place this year, with construction anticipated for 27.
This, the project construction phase will be, does not currently have federal MPO funds through the
MPO, but we'll be reviewing that today a little bit. The downtown, city of Bloomington downtown curb
ramp project, there's no utility relocations are right away required for their locations. They're waiting
on environmental report to come back from NDOT.
The city's crosswalk phase three project is doing design. North Dunn Street multi-use path is currently
in design and approaching stage three. They are doing right away appraisals and acquisitions, getting
going on that right now. College and Walnut phase one is doing the final analysis of corridor study,
of the corridor study. The anticipated project
construction date will be pushed out one year though, at least from the original planned date in our
TIP document. The downtown curb ramps phase five projects is doing design as well. They just issued
a notice to proceed to the consultant and crosswalks phase four is currently selecting a design, doing
design consultant selection. West Second Street,
utility relocations are in progress and construction will start in a couple months. The county's high
friction surface treatment on Fairfax Road project, their design plans are finalized and soil sampling
is in progress. They are working on stage three documentation and there will be no right of way or utility
relocations for this project. The Dillman Road Bridge number 83 project
Design is in progress and the bridge will have to be closed for the next six months for environmental
reasons. And they're working on stage two design submission. Old SR37 and Dillman Road intersection
improvement project. The construction phases will be moving, shifting soon from fiscal year 28 to 29.
and the right-of-way and utility phases will also be shifting a year up. No car features were found
on the property and they will finalize drainage and detention in June. That road bridge number 79 is
a new project. It's not getting federal MPO funds, but it's getting bridge funds from the state. This
is the bridge over Clear Creek and
All right away has been approved and the last parcel is being acquired and they are doing stage three
design plans. I have a question. Is that the bridge by the post office? The little itty bitty post office?
That is, I thought I had the location on here. I actually think I do have it. Ben says no. Nevermind,
I'm good. It's over clear creek.
West of... In the boondocks. West of Walnut. Yeah, West of Walnut, yeah. Okay. The county has completed
their bridge safety inventories by the required month, which is March.
The Rockport Bridge number 308 south of Bowlin Lane is beginning construction in June and the Eagleson
Avenue superstructure replacement over the Indiana Railroad. They are doing pre-construction meetings
and road closure is anticipated September 26 to July 2027. Lynette, do you have any other additions?
Thanks for giving the updates on the county stuff. For Bridge 308 Rockport Road, expected to close June
2nd. I was just going to share some contact information. CLR is a contractor, Travis Hughes is the name,
and his phone number is 812-208-5875 if you have any questions. And this isn't in the tip, but we'd
like to share that Rora Road Bridge is expected to be closed on July 6th.
and same contractor CLR. That's all. Thank you so much. We'll go ahead and move on if nobody has any
other questions. I guess we're moving on to new business then.
So for you today, we have, you can see what the resolution looks like, but resolution 2026-08 will be
presented to the policy committee this Friday. And we are seeking your recommendation of approval for
these changes.
I will go ahead and briefly mention that the changes presented today, this is what our fiscal constraint
looks like with these changes taking place. After these changes, we would have used all of our fiscal
year 26 funding, have everything allocated out for 27, and then we will have
some extra funds we'll need to allocate in the future for fiscal year 28 and 29. So the first request
is to add a new project to the TIP for Monroe County called that road bridge number 79 replacement.
This is where I have that link to the location if you want to look and see where it is at.
The project is receiving local bridge funds from the state of Indiana, and then all other phases will
be using local funds. The work includes removal and replacement of the existing bridge, as well as upgrading
the bridge rail and adding a multi-use path with pedestrian handrail. You can see the funding proposed
for the project. It's $2 million.
The next proposed change is to update the College and Walnut project in the TIP. It had been programmed
to potentially be receiving funds in fiscal year 2029, NPO federal funds, but we'll be pushing it out
and anticipating that the construction phases will be taking place in fiscal year 30.
if not have to move it again in the future. But the idea is that they hope to do both phase one and
phase two of College and Walnut quarter project in the same fiscal year instead of separate fiscal years.
Because of this change, because
the federal funds, the majority of NPO federal funds for fiscal year 2029 were being put towards College
and Walnut Project. So because of this change, those 2029 funds had to be reallocated. And so one thing
we shared at the last meeting that we had a discussion with the LPAs about our plan on how to shift
that money around.
And this is the result of that meeting. So one thing that came out of that meeting was that the agreement
that we would do a trade with another MPO. And so this funding chart for College and Walnut phase one
reflects that we've done a trade with MCCOG, an exchange. So we will give them 2 million of the 2029
funds in exchange for an additional 2 million
in the fiscal year 2030. We also mentioned last meeting the update for old SR 37 and Dillman and the
county's desire to move the construction phases from fiscal year 28 to 29. And then also having to move
the right away and utility phases as well. And so this change also
released money in different years. And so we had to make funding adjustments as well for that. And so
you can see the proposed new funds for that. Shifting this project from 28 to 29 freed up a significant
number of MPO funds in fiscal year 28. And so we did
We did an exchange with another MPO with, you can see that in the next, in item number four, the update
for High Street. In the proposed new funding table, you can see that we did an exchange with the AP,
the Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County MPO, and in exchange for us giving them 20, 2028 funds,
will be receiving additional 2.1 million in 2027 funds, which will be applied, which we're proposing
to apply to High Street project. High Street did not have any federal funds allocated towards it for
the construction phase. So that is extremely helpful for the city.
I know that's a lot, but at the end of all of that, we are still fiscally constrained with what we expect
to receive at this time from NDOT and what we have proposed to allocate to these projects. And so we're
just looking for a consensus on recommending approval of this to the policy committee.
I guess would we have questions from folks first, if there's any questions? Seems like none. So I guess
if I could get a motion to have a positive recommendation to the policy committee, is that worded correctly?
If I could get a motion for that, that'd be great. I move that this be forwarded to the policy committee
with a positive recommendation from the tech.
second awesome thanks Jane and run all in favor say aye aye any opposed nay and any abstentions it's
saying we don't actually have any members of the
Public, oh, we do now. But before the vote next time, do public comment, yeah. Sorry, I guess we could
open it to if there is public comment on this. I can't see on the screen, I just see like the.
It's okay, they'll unmute if they have. Okay, perfect. Okay, I guess this moves us to
public comment, if there is anybody here who has public comment, you can come to the podium in the room,
or if you're online, this is your opportunity. I'm not seeing anybody in person, nor online, so I guess
we can move forward. So on to communications from committee members on non-voting matters that are not
included in the agenda.
speak now or don't speak? It seems like there's none. Topics for future agendas, if anybody has anything?
I did want to mention that I really appreciated in the packet the table showing the board membership
of the MPO and the TAC as well. And something that I was kind of interested in, again, because the success
of organizations or the success of anything in the public kind of sphere
That success is achieved from participation right and so i'd be interested and I don't want to put a
lot of work on staff here at all but i'm curious if we could get like.
or if it's even doable, some type of a roll call tally of who's attended the TAC as voting people over
the past two years. Because I'm curious if there's some folks that we should maybe be reaching out to
attend. Because I was looking through this and I see a lot of familiar names and faces, but I don't
see a lot of those same names and faces here often. And I know everybody's busy and things like that,
but these are important decisions. And so I think that would make sense for the TAC, but maybe for the,
I think the policy is a smaller group probably.
That was just a thought that I had, but I'm not sure how much work that is to pull up a rule call thing.
I think from there, we're just going to go on to our upcoming meetings. We have a Citizens Advisory
Committee meeting on May 27th at 5.30 PM, and that's going to be a hybrid meeting.
We have a policy committee meeting on May 29th, 2026 at 10.30 AM, and that's also a hybrid meeting.
Then our next technical advisory committee meeting, I believe the July one is canceled, is that correct?
Or the June one? The June one is canceled. There's a summer recess for the TAC committee, so the next
meeting will be July. Will be in July. Yes. Our June meeting, everybody here take your nice break.
Enjoy the summer and all of those things. And with that, we are adjourned. So thank you everybody for
attending and have a great rest of your summer until July.