HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.25.22 UAPB MinutesMINUTES APPROVED
MPOJC URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD
May 25, 2022
Johnson County Health and Human Services Building – 2nd Floor Conference Room
855 S. Dubuque St, Iowa City, IA
MEMBERS PRESENT: Coralville: Laurie Goodrich, Meghann Foster
Iowa City: John Thomas, Janice Weiner, Pauline Taylor,
Laura Bergus
Johnson County: Rod Sullivan, Jon Green
North Liberty: Brian Wayson, Chris Hoffman
University of Iowa: Erin Shane
Tiffin: Steve Berner
ICCSD: Charlie Eastham
STAFF PRESENT: Emily Bothell, Frank Waisath, Hannah Neel
1. CALL TO ORDER
John Thomas called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Johnson
County Health and Human Services Building in the 2nd floor conference room.
a. Recognize alternates
Charlie Eastham was recognized as an alternate for Ruthina Malone (Iowa City
Community School District).
b. Consider approval of meeting minutes
Motion to approve April 6th, 2022 meeting minutes made by Sullivan, Berner seconded.
The motion carried unanimously.
c. Set next Board meeting date, time and location
Thomas proposed a tentative date for July 13th, 2022. Bothell concurred – meeting to be
held at Coralville City Hall Council Chambers – 1512 7th Street, Coralville, Iowa.
2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
3. ADMINISTRATION
a. Update on the MPOJC Public Participation Plan revision process
Bothell explained that a public participation plan is a document designed to formalize the
public input process used by MPOs in their planning processes and that each major planning
document developed by MPOJC has specific requirements for public input, which vary
depending on the governing body requiring the work. MPOJC last updated the public
participation plan in 2017 and federal guidelines recommend that the plan be updated every
five years.
The current plan (attached to the memo) is consistent with federal and state regulations and
stipulates minimum requirements for providing residents and stakeholders with reasonable
MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Minutes
_________________
Page 2
opportunity for input. The plan formalizes the planning policies used by MPOJC and
encourages public participation and communication with member entities.
As required by the adapted plan, a 45-day notice for public input will be published regarding
the revision process and as part of this update, Bothell asked Board members to please
review the plan and provide any comments or suggestions they might have. MPOJC intends
to present the revised plan to the Board at the July 13th meeting for approval. Bothell added
that no significant changes were made to the attached document – names and dates were
changed, but nothing of substance; the requirements and lengths of notices are all the same.
Bothell mentioned that like many agencies, MPOJC struggles with getting public input but
MPOJC has been trying to reach out in various ways through social media and by hosting
more Zoom public input meetings such as ‘lunch and learns’.
Bergus asked if, in addition to the MPOJC website listed in the plan, social media outreach
should be codified into the plan. Bothell responded that, yes, this is something the MPO can
consider including. Social media is always changing so MPOJC would want to make sure
that what is codified into the plan is general.
Thomas suggested that Iowa City and Coralville Planning and Zoning Committees as well
as the Climate Action Committee, be included in the ‘Getting the Word Out’ section. Bothell
responded, saying that the list shown in the document is the list of those agencies that have
reached out to MPOJC and have indicated that they would like to be notified of any
happenings related to the MPO. Bothell said that the MPO can reach out to groups that are
across communities, like Planning and Zoning, and see if they would like to be added.
Sullivan asked if there is an opportunity for outreach with the self-supported municipal
districts on the southeast side of Iowa City. While unsure of what exactly will be done in
terms of bringing people together, this could be a good opportunity to dovetail efforts. Bothell
responded that staff would look into this.
Bergus inquired about any parameters or limitations for organizations to be added to the
distribution list and noted that publication in the Press-Citizen is one of the specific items for
notice, wondering if MPOJC also does press releases that have a media distribution list.
Bothell responded that MPOJC does send out press releases and a media distribution list
with any typical publication. Bergus mentioned wanting to see a broader reach, citing how
local media has changed in the last few years. Thomas added that the Gazette could also
be used to publish because many people in Iowa City read the Gazette but may or may not
read the Press-Citizen.
Eastham requested that Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) staff be added to the
list of recipients for notifications of planning issues that relate to transportation to local school
buildings and mentioned that ICCSD anticipates building more buildings in the next few
years. Bothell confirmed that MPOJC would look into who the pertinent ICCSD staff would
be and include them on the notification list.
4. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
a. Consider approval of Draft FY2023-2026 MPOJC Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) projects
Bothell explained that the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is MPOJC’s
local planning document for federal and state surface transportation and transit projects.
The significance of the document is that all MPO-funded projects must be programmed in
MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Minutes
_________________
Page 3
the TIP to receive funding. Project pages from the draft Fiscal Year 2023 – 2026 TIP are
attached for the Board’s review.
In 2021 the Board awarded $7.38 million in STBG funds to four projects to be funded in the
FY2025 – FY2026 timeframe. The projects in FY2025 included Iowa City’s Taft Avenue
reconstruction project, Coralville’s Highway 6 and Deer Creek Road improvement project
and University Heights’ Sunset Street pavement repair and pedestrian improvement project.
North Liberty’s Ranshaw Way reconstruction project was to be programmed for FY2026 and
is now included in the FY2023 – FY2026 TIP. The Board also awarded $520,000 to Iowa
City’s Highway 6 Trail extension project to be programmed in FY2026. These two additional
projects are included in the FY2023 – 2026 TIP but were not included in the FY2022 –
FY2025 TIP.
This spring the Board voted to program approximately $60,000 in Surface Transportation
Block Grant funding to participate in the Iowa DOT’s data pavement collection program and
voted to opt out of the federal aid swap. These actions are reflected in the draft TIP. The
draft also includes Federal Transit Administration projects and the program 5307 operating
funds apportioned by the Board in January for FY2022 and the projects from the MPOJC
transit Program of Projects, which was approved by the Board in April.
Bothell noted that upon approval, MPOJC will start the 30-day public comment period and
submit the TIP to the MPOJC’s public input organization mailing list, the Iowa Department
of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit
Administration. Upon review by these stakeholders, MPOJC staff will present a final TIP for
Board approval at the July 13th meeting before the final TIP is due on July 15th.
Motion to approve the draft FY2023-2026 MPOJC Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) projects was made by Berner, Green seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
b. Consider a Resolution approving the MPOJC FY2023 Transportation Planning Work
Program
Bothell informed the Board that the MPOJC FY2023 Transportation Planning Work Program
includes all locally-requested projects MPOJC received from member entities and general
projects and procedures as required by the Iowa DOT, the Federal Highway Administration
and the Federal Transit Administration. Besides being a federal requirement, MPOJC relies
on this work program to organize its data collection and manage its project workflow
throughout the year.
MPOJC staff will continue to take requests for additional projects throughout the year and
complete those projects as time permits.
Bothell reminded the Board that they approved the list of projects at their last meeting and
since then, Coralville added one project. Project number 21, an all-way stop analysis at
Holiday Road and South Ridge Drive.
Motion to approve the MPOJC FY2023 Transportation Planning Work Program was made
by Goodrich, Hoffman seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
c. Consider a Resolution approving the MPOJC 2050 Travel Demand Model & Long-Range
Transportation Plan
Bothell shared with the Board that the MPOJC Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2050
Travel Demand Model are now complete. The Plan is an update to the previous 2045
MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Minutes
_________________
Page 4
transportation plan and is the vision for transportation across the metro. Emphasis remains
on the nine guiding principles with an expanded set of performance measures that the MPO
will use to assess how the transportation network is performing in the future. Amid our
emerging technologies such as automated and connected vehicles, the plan continues to
have an emphasis on equity and enhancing quality of life. The plan also helps guide
decision-making over the next five years in terms of project selection and funding
opportunities.
Since the Board’s April 6th meeting, the draft plan was sent to the Iowa Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) for final review and comment. The document was also published for a
30-day public comment period which ended on May 2nd. MPOJC staff received positive
feedback both from residents and Iowa DOT staff. Bothell thanked the Board for their
involvement in helping MPOJC staff work through the guiding principles, adjusting the
scoring criteria for prioritizing projects, and reviewing draft content.
Bothell mentioned that the Plan is due to the Iowa DOT, FHA, and FTA on May 31st.
Bergus asked Bothell about the scope of public comment received. Bothell responded that
staff received a couple of emails and there was a survey link on the LRTP webpage that
had a few comments.
Motion to approve the MPOJC 2050 Travel Demand Model and Long-Range Transportation
Plan was made by Green, Bergus seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Green thanked staff and everyone else who put in a lot of work in drafting the Plan and
Travel Demand Model.
d. Update on CRANDIC rail discussions
Bothell reminded the Board of their discussion at the April 6th Board meeting regarding the
merits of passenger rail and the opportunity to study bus rapid transit (BRT) in the CRANDIC
corridor. The discussion of BRT stemmed, in part, from new information that 1) the
CRANDIC Railroad was no longer interested in operating a passenger rail service, 2) the
idea that bus transit could be an easier and potentially more cost-effective service to
implement and 3) excitement around Iowa City’s four new electric buses. To gauge interest
in using BRT as an alternative to passenger rail, Kent Ralston (MPOJC Executive Director)
had met with several area City Managers and contacted the CRANDIC Railroad. While BRT
was not something that had been previously discussed, both groups were open to the
potential.
Ralston was also in communication with the Surface Transportation Board, the federal
agency charged with the economic regulation of rail lines, to discuss the two potential
mechanisms to implement bus service in the corridor. The first is that entities cannot rail
bank exclusively for bus use, as the legislation is primarily intended for rails-to-trails
conversions. If a multi-use trail and a bus line ran parallel to each other, rail banking could
be an option. The second is that the bus-only option would need to be accomplished through
the rail abandonment process. Rail abandonment is the process under federal law to
discontinue the use of the rail line. However, part of the process allows other interested rail
companies have the first right to purchase the rail line for their use.
Bothell stated that, as previously directed by the Board, Ralston intends to continue to have
conversations with City Managers and Board members to maintain the momentum. Ralston
identified next steps in the memo provided, including gauging interest to hire a consultant to
MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Minutes
_________________
Page 5
study the feasibility of implementing BRT as an alternative to passenger rail or moving
forward with forming a working group, hiring a design consultant, and then pursuing grant
funding to implement a passenger rail service.
Hoffman asked if CRANDIC Railroad offered any insight into which option(s) seem most
likely. Bothell responded that CRANDIC would be open to a trail, BRT, or passenger rail and
stated that CRANDIC Railroad cannot make any assurances, but they are open to studying
those options.
Goodrich asked if any companies are interested in purchasing the rail. Bothell responded
that it is likely that someone would be interested, but that is unknown at this time.
Hoffman asked if Bothell could further elaborate on what CRANDIC Railroad would be
willing to do and elaborate on the trails option. Bothell responded that CRANDIC Railroad
had written a letter to inform City Managers that they would be able to support a trail by
itself, BRT by itself, or passenger rail. CRANDIC Railroad cannot make any assurances as
to being able to implement any particular option but they have worked with the communities
in the past and are willing to continue that partnership.
Hoffman expressed concern regarding removing rails and sufficient right-of-way for a trail
and bus service option. Bothell responded that there may not be enough right-of-way for
certain options to coexist, so that would have to be determined. Bergus further clarified that
based on the abovementioned letter, the intention of the rails-to-trails transition would be to
take out the tracks and, in this case CRANDIC Railroad, would remain the owner and would
have an option to re-implement rail in the future.
Sullivan voiced support for protecting the right-of-way and keeping the tracks. Wayson
added that preserving that physical space for replacing rail is important and asked if the
Board would have more flexibility in terms of what to do with the rail line, if abandoned by
CRANDIC. Bothell clarified that there is a constraint with the amount of right-of-way
associated with rail abandonment and further noted that if CRANDIC Railroad does
abandon the rail, another railroad could come in and take over the line. Wayson wondered
if a trail was built through rail banking if they can sell it to someone else. Bothell responded
that whatever agreement CRANDIC Railroad and the communities would come to would
need to be determined.
Bergus added that with the abandonment process, a potential issue is that another operator
could use the rail for freight and not allow any other potential passenger uses. From a long-
range planning perspective, the key, regardless of mode, is to look at ways to put people in
the corridor and move them north and south, not on Highway 965/Ranshaw Way or
Interstate 380, in a way that is safe, environmentally sound, accessible and easy. Bergus
suggested that this be an ongoing discussion, perhaps forming a working group. Hoffman
agreed with Bergus. Hoffman asked for more information from and further commitment from
CRANDIC Railroad in terms of acceptable parameters. Bothell asked Hoffman what he was
looking for in terms of more defined commitment. Hoffman responded that it did not appear
that CRANDIC Railroad gave outright permission to go forward with the study.
Thomas commented that preserving the corridor is important, the viability of the BRT,
especially now with the option of the electric buses, really enhances that option because it
provides a much cleaner, smoother ride than with a conventional bus. It would help
distinguish it from our street systems as a means of travel. It would have the same kind of
cachet as a light rail system in some ways. The concept of a pedestrian, bicycle, bus hybrid
is very intriguing so it could enhance our recreational networks as well as provide another
means of getting north and south. Thomas also wondered about the land use potential along
MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Minutes
_________________
Page 6
the corridor, if land value would be enhanced with better access. Thomas asked if anyone
on the Board had reservations about continuing the conversations or is opposed to
proceeding with further discussion.
Hoffman said there were a couple of options presented so he is not sure how to answer
Thomas’ question. Bothell responded that Ralston will continue to have conversations with
the City Managers and asked Board members to have conversations with their City
Managers.
Bergus brought up another question, wondering if Ralston had discussed with the Iowa DOT
about how different modes might impact the DOT’s ability to support a passenger rail project
along the corridor. Bothell did not know if Ralston had this discussion with the Iowa DOT but
would pass that along to Ralston.
Hoffman suggested that it might be interesting to ask an engineer to evaluate and
recommend an option. Also mentioned that buses are scalable more rapidly than rail and
could be a more cost-effective option, depending on actual ridership.
Thomas said that it seems to him the next step is to consider BRT, particularly with electric
buses. The rail seems a bit of a leap from our current transportation systems.
Shane mentioned that because transit buses are so heavy, the standard thickness of
concrete is usually 6-10 inches (like what the University does on institutional roads on the
UI campus). Shane asked if the study would contemplate the authority that would manage
the BRT between the University and all the communities and how that would work, and the
cost. Shane expressed that the University is supportive of everything until we get to that
level and reminded the Board that it could take a lot of concrete to make the routes ready
for BRT.
Bothell reiterated that Ralston would continue discussions with city managers and present
any updates at the July 13th Board meeting and invited the Board to reach out with anything
that comes up before the July 13th meeting.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
Sullivan mentioned a Joint Entities meeting that took place on July 21, 2021 and discussed
an aquifer study done by the County with the USGS approximately 16 years ago. The study
will expire in approximately four years, and the USGS proposed a new study covering most
of the aquifer – all of Johnson County, most of Linn County, most of Cedar County, and
parts of Washington, Benton, and Iowa Counties. The study costs around $450,000 and is
a four-year study. The USGS would pay $150,000 of the total $450,000 if the Joint Entities
act now. On the morning of May 25, 2022 the Johnson County Board of Supervisors gave
authorization to its Planning Development and Sustainability Director to enter into a contract
with the USGS for this project. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors will be reaching
out to Board members as well as Linn County and the City of Cedar Rapids, among others,
to ask for participation in some way to offset the cost of the aquifer study. The Johnson
County Board of Supervisors are committed to doing the study but are looking for support.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Sullivan; Bergus seconded. Meeting adjourned by Thomas
at 5:17 PM.