[1. Call to Order.] [00:00:04] >> IT IS NOW 1:30. I WILL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE POLICY, THE THE ABILENE METROPOLITAN PLANNING TO ORDER. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT COME UP TO THE PODIUM. GIVE YOUR NAME IS WHERE YOU LIVE. [3. Consideration and action on the minutes of the April 28, 2026 meeting.] SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. MOVE THE MINUTES OF THE MINUTES. GIVEN MINUTE FROM THE LAST MEETING. >> I WILL SECOND. >> ALL OF THESE MOTION. I APPRECIATE YOU READING MY MINE THERE. AND I DO MAKE THAT MOTION. [4. Consideration and action on the Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws.] ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AND ITEM 4, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED A COUPLE OF TIME IN THE PAST, SEVERAL YEARS. I'VE ONLY BE BEEN AT ONE OF THEM. AS PART OF THE EXPANSION OF THE MPO BOUNDARY INTO CALLAHAN COUNTY WE ARE AMENDING THE BY-LAWS TO INCREASE REPRESENTATION ON THE POLICY BOARD. NATIONAL TEAMED ON THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE POLICY BOARD IS EXPANDING BY ONE. THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY CAN BE EXPANDED BY AS MANY AS SIX. INVITATIONS WILL BE GIVEN OUT BUT NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND. PER COMMENT THAT TEXT DOT HAS HAD ON OTHER BY-LAWS IN THE STATE, WE CLARIFIED WHAT OCCURS IN THE CASE OF A TIE VOTE. SAY ONLY FOUR ARE HERE AND THE VOTE IS TWO TO TWO WE COLDIFY IN THE BY-LAWS IN THAT SITUATION T FAILS, BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE. IT IS JUST CODIFY IN THE BY-LAWS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALSO, THE, IN THE PACKET YOU GOT TWO COPIES. YOU GOT THE COPY BEFORE THAT EXISTED OR IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. THE COPY THAT WAS PRESENTED IN APRIL 2024. THEN, THE THIRD COPY I BE SENT OUT, SINGULARLY, THAT IS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHAT OCCURS IN THE CASE OF A TIE AND DOING SOME UPDATED FORMATTING. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE BY-LAWS? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YOU AND I TALK BESIDE THE EXPANSION ON THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. BEING THAT MANY MEMBERS. IS A QUORUM STILL JUST EIGHT VOTING MEMBERS? >> UNTIL WE KNOW HOW MANY ACCEPT THE INVITATION TO SERVE ON THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE THAT. IT WILL STAND AT EIGHT NOW, WHEN WE HAVE THE CONFIRMATION OF ADVISORY AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT. THEN WE WILL MAKE IT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ACCEPTED THE INVITATION TO SERVE. >> WILL WE INSERT THAT LANGUAGE NOW IN THIS DRAFT INSTEAD OF EIGHT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER BY-LAWS AMENDMENT? >> YES, WE COULD. UNLESS THE LEGAL COUNCIL HAS ANY. >> YOU CAN CHANGE YOU CAN AMEND THE BY-LAWS. >> YES, WE COULD DO THAT, SIR. >> SO, THAT WOULD BE. LET ME FIND IT HERE REAL QUICK. >> IT WOULD BE PAGE 8 OUT OF 11 ON THAT ITEM. AND IT IS WHERE DOES IT SAY? >> I'M LOOKING ON PAGE 10 OF 11 WHERE 7.05 IS THE QUORUM, EIGHT VOTING MEMBERS. . >> WE COULD MAKE IT THE MAJORITY OF THESE SITTING MEMBERS OR DO WE WANT TO GIVE A NUMBER AND TRY TO ASSUME? >> I JUST PREFER THE LANGUAGE BE OF THOSE SEATED OR PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THAT GIVES YOU SOME FLEX, IF SOMEONE COMES ON OR DROPS OFF. >> A MAJORITY OF SITTING MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL. >> THEN CONTINUE WITH ONE FROM THE CITY OF ABILENE, AND ONE FROM TEXT DOT PERFECT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS? >> I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT. IF ANYONE WAS PAYING A ATTENTION AT THE LAST MEETING WE APPROVED THE BY-LAW CHANGE. THE BY-LAWS LANGUAGE WE MISSED. IT REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS MARGE TO CHANGE WE ONLY HAD THREE OUT OF [00:05:06] FIVE, WHICH IS 60 PERCENT. WHICH IS BACK TO US TODAY. >> I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. >> I DIDN'T EITHER. >> SO, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THAT MODIFICATION. >> I MAKE THE MOTION WE MODIFY AND ACCEPT THESE MODIFIED BY-LAWS. >> WITH THE CHANGE. >> RETURN THE FAVOR AND SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [5. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution approving Amendment 2 to the 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.] >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED THE BY-LAW CHANGES HAVE BEEN APPROVED MOVE TO ITEM% 5 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT 2, TO THE 2050 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN. >> THIS IS A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. WE ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND THE LONG-RANGE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTING THE FISCALLY CONSTRAINT PROJECT LIST, IN LINE WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN FEBRUARY AS FAR AS PRIORITIZATION OF THE PINE STREET PROJECT, VERSUS THE WALLDROP INTERCHANGE. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN FISCAL CONSTRAINT, SOME OTHER PROJECTS WERE MOVED FURTHER OUT INTO THE FUTURE. OTHER THAN THAT, THE 2050MTP IS REMAINING THE SAME. THE NEW FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECT LIST IS ATTACHMENT 1, ON PAGE 39 OF THE PACKET. AND THE TWO CHANGES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. MOVING ONE PROJECT OUT AND BRINGING THE OTHER CLOSER INTO THIS TIP, THIS VERSION OF THE TIP. THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE THE FOLLOW ON TIP CHANGE TO THAT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2050 LONG-RANGE PLAN? >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. >> SO MOVED. >> I'LL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR A AYE. >> AYE. [6. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution approving 2027-2030 Transportation Improvement Program.] ANY OPPOSED THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED MOVE TO ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2027-30 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. >> AS I PREVIEWED ON THE ITEM BEFORE, THIS IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE 2027-2030 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM. IT IS OUR NEW FOUR-YEAR INVESTMENT OF PROJECTS. THE PRIMARY CHANGE FROM OUR PREVIOUS TIP IS THAT DUE TO COST INFLATION, IN THE LAST 0 YEARS, COSTS TO TEXT INFLATED BY OVER 80 PERCENT. IN ADJUSTING THE FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. SOME PROJECTS HAVE MOVED INTO THE FUTURE AND MOVED A SAFETY PROJECT, AT THE WALLTHROP ENTER CHANGE INTO THIS TIP. AND MOVED THE CORRESPONDING PROJECT INVESTMENT PROJECT OUT FURTHER OUT INTO THE FUTURE. WE HAD OUR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THIS DURING THE LONG-RANGE PLAN. WE DID HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ON MAY 19. THERE WERE NO ATTENDEES. I DID HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE COME IN. THEY LOOKED AROUND AND LOOKED AT THING, BUT THEY DIDN'T LEAVE ANY COMMENTS. I HAVE RECEIVED NO OTHER COMMENTS BY E-MAIL OR ANY OTHER METHOD. THE TAC RECOMMENDS AND STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TIP, AS PRESENTED. >> ANY QUESTIONS? WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT. THIS ITEM CALLS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. >> YEAH, OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF NBA TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR AGAINST THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TOTS TIP. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 1, THE CHANGES TO THE 2027-2030 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM NUMBER 6 IS APPROVED. JUMP BACK TO ITEM 5 AND HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING REAL QUICK. THIS IS THE RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE 2015 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN. I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM. POLICE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR FAME FOR THE RECORD. >> SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? DO WE NEED THE VOTE SINCE NO ONE SPOKE? >> I BELIEVE SINCE NO ONE SPOKE, AND NO ONE WANTS TO SPEAK, WE DO [7. Consideration and Action on Resolution approving the Abilene MPO Federal Functional Classification.] NOT. >> OKAY. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 7. CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ABILENE MPO FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION. >> AS PART OF THE NEW DESIGNATION OF URBANIZED AREAS. STATE DOTS ARE REQUIRED TO UPDATE THE FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROADS. IT IS THE FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION [00:10:03] IS SOMETIMES IT IS CONFUSED LOCAL ENTITIES. THIS IS THE FEDERAL. TEXT DOT PERFORMED THE CLASSIFICATION AND PROVIDED SUGGESTION FOR CONCURRENCE TO THE MPO. I REVIEWED IT AND HAD TWO SUGGESTIONS. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW LAST TIME. AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH TEX DOT AND THE CITY OF ABILENE, THOSE SUGGESTIONS WERE OUT OF ORDER OR OUT OF LINE. IT IS THE CORRECT FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION. TACK HAS REVIEWED EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANGES AND RECOMMEND YOU APPROVE ORIGINALLY PROVIDED BY TEX DOT. NOT THE ONE I PROVIDE TO YOU LAST TIME. AND THAT IS ALSO WHAT IS SHOWN AS ATTACHMENT 3, ATTACHMENT 1 SHOWS THE EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION. ATTACHMENT 2 IS SUGGESTION. AND ATTACHMENT 3 IS THE FINAL PROPOSED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS? IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS JUST THE CITY OR RIGHT AROUND THE CITY. >> THE FULL MPO BOUNDSRY. >> WE REVIEWED THE ENTIRE MPO BOUNDARY THE SHAPE FILE IS ONLY THE PREVIOUS, EXISTING MPO. WHAT WE REVIEWED AND PROPOSED WAS FOR THE ENTIRE, NEW MPO BOUNDARY. AND THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. I KIND KIND OF GRAZED PAST THAT I'M SORRY. >> ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? >> HOW OFTEN IS THIS DONE? >> IT IS DONE, IT SHOULD BE DONE AT LEAST EVERY 10 YEARS, BUT FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND TEX DOT ARE LEANING TO DOING IT, AS NEEDED, AS ROADS ARE BUILT NOW. OR ADDITIONAL LAND-USE CHANGES OCCUR, THEN THOSE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS SHOULD BE UPDATED IN REAL TIME. ONCE A MONTH WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM TIME. FROM GOING FORWARD FROM NOW, FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED, AS NEEDED. AND CAN BE PROPOSED. THE MPO CAN PROPOSE CHANGE IN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AT ANY TIME. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION. >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION. >> SECOND. >> AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. [8. Small Area Task Force Charter.] >> ANY OPPOSED? THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED ITEM NUMBER 8, SMALL JERRY TASK FORCE CHARTER. >> AS I MENTIONED LAST MEETING AND YOU AGREED TO FORMING A TASK FORCE TO HELP US WITH THE SMALL AREA FORECAST. THE SMALL AREA FORECAST IS A VERY NEARBY ITEM, BUT NICHE ITEM PLAYING IN LONG-RANGE OR SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. IT ALLOCATES INTO TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE AND WORK. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ARE IDENTIFIED WHERE THOSE, BASED ON TRAVEL TO AND FROM THOSE ZONES. I HAVE FOUND THAT GETTING ASSISTANCE FROM THE COMMUNITY IN ALLOCATING THE CONTROL TOTAL FROM THE TEXAS DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER, INTO THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES IS MUCH, QUICKER. IT IS SUPERIOR, IN EVERY WAY. AND I HAVE A LIST THAT TAC HAS REVIEWED AND GOT SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS FROM THE CITY AND OTHER MEMBERS. I HAVE NOT REACHED OUT TO CALLAHAN COUNTY YET. OF WHO SHOULD SIT ON THE TASK FORCE INCLUDES THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE MILITARY AFFAIRS, THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, SEVERAL OF THE LARGER HOME BUILDERS THEMSELVES ARE ON THE LIST. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE CREATED IS THE CHARTER THAT WILL BE HOPEFULLY SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SMALL AREA TASK FORCE. BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE GOING FOR CONSENSUS WITH THE SMALL AREA FORECAST THERE. IS NO REAL, WAY WHEN YOU ARE BRINGING A DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS TO GET A CONSENSUS, WITHOUT DISFRANCHISING SOME OF THEM YOU WILL GET A CONSENSUS BECAUSE THEY DON'T SHOW UP. WE WANT TORCH GET TO THE MEETING AND TRY TO GET WHAT'S CALLED INFORMED CONSENT. THEY DON'T AAGREE WITH THE OUTCOME, BUT THEY AGREE THE PROCESS WAS LEGITIMATE. AND THEIR INTERESTS WERE HEARD. THE OUTCOME IS SOMETHING THEY MAY NOT PREF, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THEY CAN ACCEPT. IT IS A LOWER BAR, BUT IT KEEPS PEOPLE INVOLVED THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WANT, PARTICIPATION. TRYING TO GET EVERYONE TO AGREE THIS IS A GREAT OPTION, WHEN [00:15:02] YOU'RE DEALING WITH SMALL AREA FORECAST IS JUST TOO DIFFICULT. YOU END UP WITH THEM JUST NOT PARTICIPATING ANY MORE. SO, WHAT I'VE PROVIDED IS THE PROPOSED CHARTER, THAT DISCUSSES THAT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON TRYING FOR INFORMED CONSENT VERSUS CONSENSUS? >> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S EVERY 10 YEAR, 5 YEAR? >> EVERY TIME THE TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL UPDATED IT IS ABOUT EVERY 10 YEARS IS WHAT IT WORKS OUT TO BE? >> HAVE WE DONE THIS IN THE PAST? >> SO, SOME VERSION OF THE SMALL AREA FORECAST WAS DONE IN THE PAST I'M NOT SURE ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE TAC PARTICIPATED IN IT. BUT IN DIGGING THROUGH THE NOTES, I DIDN'T SEE ANY PARTICIPATION. >> IS THIS HISTORICALLY, WOULD THIS OCCUR AFTER A 10 YEARS AFTER A CENSUS? AND YOU HAVE NEW CENSUS DATA? >> IT IS BEST PERFORMED AFTER A CENSUS, USING THE CENSUS DATA. WE'RE NOT AFTER THAT. THE COUNT IN TEXAS WAS NOT AS ACCURATE IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT WORD. THERE ARE KNOWN ISSUES WITH THE 2020 CENSUS. THE TEXAS DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER HAS CORRECTED THOSE. SO OUR BASE YEAR IS GOING TO BE THE TEXAS DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER UPDATED VERSION OF THE BASE YEAR. AND THEN, WE WILL TAKE THAT AS THE EXISTING SITUATION. AND ADD THE CONTROL TOTALS FROM THE TEXAS DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER, ON TOP OF THAT. >> IT IS NORMALLY WHEN WE USE THE CENSUS. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES. SO WE ARE USING THE MODIFIED VERSION. >> THIS ITEM DOES NOT SAY > THE ONLY. Select to skip to this part of the video">"CONSIDERATION IN ACTION." >> THE ONLY. >> IS IT A REPORT? >> IT IS A REPORT, BUT LIKE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE INFORMED CONSENT VERSUS CONSENSUS. BECAUSE IT IS A CHANGE IN APPROACH. OUR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN SAYS USES THE WORD CONSENSUS. SO, I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE GOING TO INFORMED CONSENT, WITHOUT GETTING YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE APPROACH IN THIS CASE. >> HAVE YOU BEEN DOWN THROUGH THIS PROCESS USING THAT FORMAT IN THE PAST? >> YES, I HAVE SUCCESSFULLY. I WILL SAY THAT I LEARNED IT WHEN THE SMALL AREA FORECAST TOOK OVER TWO YEARS, IN ONE OF MY PREVIOUS JOBS. WHERE JUST GETTING TO A AGREEMENT ON HOW A REGION WAS GROWING TOOK OVER TWO YEARS OF MONTHLY MEETINGS. WE ENDED WITH THE THIRD PARTY NEUTRAL WHOSE NORMAL JOB WAS NEGOTIATING WATER RIGHTS DISPUTE AND SHE MODERATED OUR SMALL AREA FORECAST I WOULD REALLY NOT LIKE TO REPEAT THAT. >> SOUNDS GOOD. >> YOU HAVE WAS YOU NEED FROM US? >> IF YOU HAVE CONCURRENCE, THEN [9. Discussion and review of transportation projects. (TxDOT Staff, City Staff, CityLink Staff)] THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 9 DISCUSS AND REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND TEX DOT STAFF MAJORITY WISE IS OUT. ARE YOU DOING ELICIT PROJECTS? IS THERE A LIST OF THEM? >> WE DID NOT INCLUDE A LIST, NO SIR, NOT THIS TIME. CAL HAYES ABILENE THERE HAS NOT BEEN VERY MANY CHANGES SINCE THE LAST MEETING. >> HAD SOME PROGRESS ON SOME OF THOSE WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST HIT A COUPLE OF THOSE AND NOT GO THROUGH A BIG LIST HERE. WE ARE MAKING SOME PROGRESS ON OUR RAILROAD INTERSECTIONS HERE IN TOWN. ALONG NORTH AND SOUTH FIRST OF THE. GOOD PROGRESS AT WILLIS, SENSE OUR LAST MEETING AND THEN, I KNOW SEVERAL YOU ARE INTERESTED IN GRAPE AND NORTH FIRST. THE SMOOTHNESS CONDITION THERE OF THAT INTERSECTION. OUR CONTRACTOR WILL BE GOING BACK IN, SCHEDULED TO GO BACK IN NEXT WEEK, AND ADDRESS THE RIDE THROUGH ON NORTH GRAPE. WHEN YOU SEE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AGAIN THERE, THAT'S WHAT THAT IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET IN AND BACK OUT OF THERE. AND THEN, WE DID HAVE TWO PROJECTS THAT WENT THROUGH THIS MONTH. THE SOUTH 14TH SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS FROM SOUTH CATHOLIC TO SOUTH TREADWAY AND OUR LARGE R20 SIX-LANE PROJECT FROM F M600 TO STATE HIGHWAY 351 WETLY LING. NEITHER HAVE BEEN AWARDED BUT CAME IN THE RANGE WE DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THEM BEING AWARDED. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OTHER PROJECTS? [10. Director's Report. • MPO Staffing and Budget Report] >> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, FOR THE CITY, RICHARD THAT ONE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. [00:20:07] RICHARD HARVARD. CITY OF ABILENE. SO I WILL GO THROUGH AND KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE, LIKE HE DID. CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS HYPERSTREET. FINISHING TOUCHES HAD THE RIBBON CUTTING FOR THE PLAZA LAST WEEK. THE CITY SIDE, WE'RE WORKING ON WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY TO GET THE PARKING LOT DONE. GET THEIR CORRECTIONS SO WE CAN REDO THAT PARKING LOT. FOR SOUTH 14TH. THE MAJORITY OF THAT HAS BEEN PAVEED. WE WENT THROUGH THIS MORNING. THEY FINISHED UP THE LAST BIT OF PAVING AND THE STRIPING AND SOME MINOR CLEANUP WORK THERE. ATMUS HAS SOME MAYOR WEEKS TO THEY NEED TO DO THEMSELVES. THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK SHOULD BE DONE ON SOUTH 14TH. AND THEN, ANOTHER MAJOR PROJECT M9. THAT'S GRAVE TO HICKORY, NORTH 13TH TO NORTH 18TH. JUST A NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT. THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCRETE WORK THERE. WE WILL FINISH WITH PAVING OPERATIONS THERE. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE MAJOR UPDATES FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND DESIGN PROJECTS, MAPLE STREET, STILL WORKING TO GET THOSE EASEMENTS FOR THAT ANY TIME THAT COMES IN, THE ENGINEERING DIVISION AND THE PUBLIC WORKS IS HELPING TO TRY TO GET THOSE EASEMENTS. AND THE NEXT PROJECT ON THE PROJECTS AND DESIGN, S10B THAT PROJECT IS ON DELAY WAITING ON UTILITY UPDATES AND WILL BE MOVED UP TO OUR CURRENT CONSTRUCTION THERE IS A TENTATIVE DAY FOR THE 25TH OF THIS MONTH TO GO TO COUNCIL. AFTER THAT IT WILL BE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO WE WILL START ON THAT FROM 11TH TO 14TH, AND THEN BORROW TO WILLIS, IN ANEIGHBORHOOD OVER THERE. JUST NORTH OF THE SOUTH 14TH PROJECT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE UPDATES I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? >> VERY GOOD. GREAT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING FOR CITY LINK. >> I CAN GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR TRANSIT, BUT I SPOKE WITH THE DIRECTOR EARLIER TODAY. THEY ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRY ANNUAL EVALUATION TO KEEP USING FEDERAL FUNDS. THEY ARE HIP-DEEP IN IT AT THE VERY MOMENT SO, THEY COULDN'T BE HERE I KNOW THEY HAVE UPDATED THEIR PROJECT LIST. IT IS THE NEW LIST IN THIS VERSION OF THE TIP, THAT YOU JUST APPROVED. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE THEY ARE IN DESIGN, BUT THE NEW PROJECT IS IN THE CURRENT TIP. >> THANKS. THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 9. ITEM 10 DIRECTORS REPORTS. >> AS YOU CAN SEE, ON THE FINANCIAL REPORT WE CONTINUE TO BE UNDERBUDGET. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS AGAIN, STAFFING. I AM WORKING WITH THE CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ON ADJUSTING THE WORK DESCRIPTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO ADD IN SOME PROFICIENCY WITH AI. I WANT TO ADD SOME OF THE WORK FLOW USING AI INTO THAT POSITION. AND SO I'M TRYING TO ADD THAT PROFICIENCY IN. WE WILL FILL THAT POSITION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I NEED TO THANK SHELLEY. SHE HAS BEEN SAVING MY BACON ON SEVERAL THINGS. THE UPCOMING WE HAVE THE TEX DOT PLANNING CONVENTION. BEFORE I GO, I AM ALSO FINALIZING SCOPE OF WORK TO GO OUT FOR CONSULTANTS, CONSULTING HELP TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE TASK IN THE UPWP. RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A ONE--YEAR CONTRACT WITH POTENTIALS OF A SERIES OF ADDITIONAL ONE--YEAR CONTRACTS. AFTERWARDS A ASSUMING THEIR PERFORMANCE IS ACCEPTABLE, THE FIRST YEAR IS GOING TO BE ABOUT WE HOPE TWO00,000 THE EXACT NUMBER HASN'T BEEN DECIDED BECAUSE I NEED TO DECIDE WHAT THE CARRY OVER IS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS WHEN I GET THAT NAILED DOWN, WE WILL PUT THAT OUT TO HAVE CONSULTING HELP WITH SOME OF THE TECHNICAL WORK. SOME OF THE ITEMS ON THAT WOULD BE SAFETY PLAN, RESILIENCY PLAN, HELP WITH THE TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, POTENTIALLY. WHICH REMINDS ME TEX DOT HAS RETAINED TTI TO HELP WITH DEVELOPING AND REFINDING OUR TAZS A. WHERE WHEN WE EXPANDED WE NEED ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION MILESTONES BEYOND OUR OWN MPO BOUNDARY AND NEED HELP FIGURING OUT THOSE BOUNDARIES AND TEX DOT HAS RETAINED HELP FOR THAT THE PLAN CONTHIS YEAR THAT TEX DOT IS PUTTING ON IS IN JULY IT. HAS A LOT OF GOOD TOPICS ON IT. I'M EXCITED TO BE GOING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED. PLANNING TEX DOT PLANNING A AGREEMENT WE ARE IN AN EXTENSION OF OUR PLANNING A AGREEMENT. DESK DOT HAD SUBMITTED PLANNING [00:25:04] GREEN FOR OUR REVIEW. THERE ARE SOME OF THE MPOS IN THE STATE HAD SOME ISSUE WAS THAT AGREEMENT. AND DESK TO THE HAS WITHDRAWN CONSIDERATION. WHAT I DID IS JUST PUT IN THE E-MAIL THAT WE GOT FROM TEX DOT ABOUT THAT. THE SS4A GRANT I DID NOT GET THE APPLICATION IN. WE ARE IN A ODD AREA WHERE THE COG HAS RECEIVED BY $1.5 MILLION GRANT TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT INCLUDES OUR AREA WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS REQUEST A SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT, BUT WE HAVE TO KNOW THE SCOPE OF THEIR WORK, IN ORDER TO PUT IN OUR APPLICATION, HOW WE'RE GOING TO SUPPLEMENT THE WORK THEY'RE DOING. THEY HAVE NOT YET COMPLETED THEIR SCOPE. SO, WE ARE IN THIS ODD PLACE WITH THAT. SS4A TO PRESHADOW A LITTLE. SS4A IS CONTINUED IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE HOUSE BILL. SO HOPEFULLY WITH MAYBE OUR CONSULTANT WORK, WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE A GOOD GROUND WORK FOR REQUEST ON THE SS4A GRANT. MPO BYLAWS TEX DOT IS REVIEWING STATE WHITE TTI ARE REVIEWING THE BY-LAWS OF EVERY MPO IN THE STATE. TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE KEEP SETTIC WITH BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE A COUPLE THAT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT HAVE SOME ISSUES. WE ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE, BUT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THE PLACE TO LOOK AT EVERYONE'S BY-LAWS, STATEWIDE. THEN WE GET, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF ANY OF THOSE THINGS? I'M ROLLING. I'M SORRY. ANY QUESTIONS? SO, THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION LAW IS UNDERWAY. THE HOUSE HAS DEVELOPED THEIR FIRST DRAFT. IT IS CALLED "BUILD AMERICA 250" IT HAS SOME INTERESTING ITEMS IN IT. I WANT TO SAY AT THE OUTSET, THE SENATE HAS, THE HOUSE HAS ONE COMMITTEE THAT DOES TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION. THE SENATE HAS THREE COMMITTEES. THEY EACH HAVE A PART OF REAUTHORIZATION. NONE OF THOSE COMMITTEES HAVE OFFICIALLY STATISTICKED THE WORK. THEY'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IN FORMAL LANGUAGE. IT COULD CHANGE VERY DRAMATICALLY. BUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, THE PREVIOUS IIJA WAS 1.2 TRILLION. IT IS $580 BILLION. HOWEVER, IIJA INCLUDED THINGS NOT TRANSPORTATION RELATED IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE TRANSPORTATION. THE 580 IS A COUPLE PERCENT INCREASE OVER FORMULA FUNDS, WHICH IS HOW WE WANT THE FUNDS. FORMULA BECAUSE THEY'RE PREDICTABLE AND GET EVERY YEAR. YOU BE DON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR A GRANT THE IIJA HAVE HAD A LOT OF GRANT FUNDING SOME OF THE GRANTS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ALL OF THE CARBON GRANTS, BUT THE BIG ONE TO ME IS THE SS4A THAT HAS BEEN CONTINUED. MPO FUNDS HAVE ARE THE LARGEST INCREASE, IF YOU LOOK AT FORMULA FUNDING INCREASE. FUNDS GOING TO THE MPOS ARE THE LARGEST INCREASE. WE WILL NOT LIKELY SEE THAT. THERE IS A FORMULA TEX DOT USES TO DISTRIBUTE THE PLANNING FUNDS TO MPOS AND TEX DOT SETS A MINIMUM. IF YOU'RE AN MPO YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF MONEY. WE ARE AT THE MINIMUM USING THE REGULAR FORMULA WE DON'T GET TO THAT POINT. I WOULD NOT HEDGE THAT WE WON'T STAY AT BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE CUTOFF. ALSO, INVOLVED IS MPOS CAN BE A DIRECT RECIPIENT OF FUNDS. WE WOULD NOT PURSUE THAT IT IS MORE LIKE AN NCT WHERE TEX DOT WILL BE TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF THE LOOP. THE FUNDS WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THE MPO AND DO THEIR OWN THING WITH IT. IN A SIMILAR VEIN, DOTS CAN BE A GET ALL OF THEIR FUNDS AS A BLOCK GRANT OR AS ONE, BIG POT. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE DIFFERENT POTS OF FUNDING FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM, STRATEGIC SAFETY PROGRAM. AND IT IS POSSIBLE FOR UP TO 10 STATE DOTS TO JUST GET ALL OF THEIR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION MONEY AS A BLOCK. TO DO AS THEY WISH. AND I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF TEX DOT PURSUED THAT. THEN MORE THINGS WITH TRANSITS. TRANSIT ACTUALLY LOSES FUNDING IN THE FORMULA PROGRAMS. MONEY TO TRANSIT DOES GO DOWN. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE INITIAL, PRELIMINARY DRAFT WITH TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION? A LOT CAN CHANGE BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT, A LOT OF MONEY. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING [00:30:01] THAT CONCERNS ME, IN THE RE-AUTHORIZATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ITEM NUMBER 11 RECOMMENDATION OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION IN FUTURE MEETING? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE? ALL RIGHT, IT IS NOW 2:00. AND I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE POLICY BOARD OF THE ABILENE METROPOLITAN PLANNING * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.