Minutes - Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization

Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council
Organizational Structure Study Committee Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2013; 9:00 am
Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors
1912 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis
Committee Members Present (voluntary; open to all interested IRTC Tech and Policy members)
Mike Terry, IndyGo
Samantha Cross, IndyGo
Karla Vincent, Greenfield
Brad Davis, Hamilton County
Devin Stettler, United Consulting (Hancock Co.)
Deb Luzier, Whitestown
Mark Richards, Greenwood
Mark Myers, Greenwood
Others Present
Anna Tyszkiewicz, MPO
Stephanie Belch, MPO
Jerry Bridges, Madison Co. Council of Gov’ts
Chad Lance, Whitestown
Randy Walter, INDOT
1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Larry Jones, Indianapolis
Rich Carlucci, Plainfield
John Beery, Noblesville
Ehren Bingaman, CIRTA
Bruce Northern, Lawrence
Christine Altman, Hamilton County
Larry Heil, FHWA
Sean Northup, MPO
Steve Cunningham, MPO
Ryan Wilhite, MPO
Austin Gibble, CIRTA intern
Anna Tyszkiewicz welcomed the attendees to the fourth meeting of the IRTC Organizational Study Committee,
and then turned it over to Ryan Wilhite for the results of the IRTC Surveys and Interviews.
2. SURVEY AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS
Survey Results
Ryan Wilhite presented the results of the on line survey. Three of the things that the responses indicated:
MPO 101 Education Needed for IRTC Members
o Explaining the Function of the MPO, the Federal-aid Process, and the Metropolitan Planning Process
MPO Staff communicates well with the LPAs and Partners, especially via e-mail and phone, and at IRTC meetings.
Mixed Results on MPO bias toward Indianapolis:
o There is split sentiment on whether the MPO’s structure is biased towards one jurisdiction; and narrative
comments indicated jurisdictions other than Indianapolis.
o Project selection is unbiased in general.
o Neutral on staff being influenced by the current structure.
Interview Findings
In addition to the online survey to obtain IRTC member feedback, Ryan and Stephanie Belch conducted inperson
interviews with a sampling of member jurisdictions. Prepared questions, along with follow-up questions,
were asked of 14 member jurisdictions and 5 partner agencies (both policy and technical representatives). In
addition, informal interviews were conducted with current and former MPO staff, and the Anderson and
Columbus MPO directors.
Regarding the responses to the question of Indianapolis influencing the metropolitan planning process, what we
found was that a majority of those interviewed indicated that Indianapolis does influence MPO staff but not to a
fault. Factors that shape this influence are population (Indianapolis is largest public agency), land area,
infrastructure age, location of MPO in City-County Building, and hiring/firing decisions. There was also
Page 1 of 7

perceived influence on specific projects (Georgia Street Super Bowl Improvements, transit/Indy Connect, and
96 th St. at Keystone project).
In addition to the City of Indianapolis influence, a few responses indicated that other jurisdictions, including
their own, also influence the MPO. An LPA’s staff capacity, knowledge, and experience with the process can
also carry influence. As well, the characteristics of the LPA’s representative carries influence – is that person
knowledgeable of and experienced in the federal-aid process? Is that person outspoken at IRTC meetings?
One thing that was clear from all interviews is that most members feel the project selection process is
transparent. This idea is also supported by the survey results. We have a data-driven project selection process
that may need some tweaks or modifications, as brought up in interviews. Improving the scoring process is
something that everyone agrees MPO staff strives for.
Other responses in the interviews indicated that most feel the MPO provides value for its jurisdiction. The MPO
could, however, provide more value by spending more time educating members. This idea of an MPO 101 was
brought up in the surveys and in almost every interview, so education is critical. Members do feel comfortable
speaking/asking questions at meetings – but only after they understand the process - which can take several
years! Understanding the process is key to engagement. Many members stated that “You get out of it what you
put into it.”
Some other common responses indicate that MPO staff communication and response is excellent; IRTC
quarterly meetings provide updates on projects, networking opportunities for members, and contact with MPO
staff.
When asked about a regional land use forum, many members indicated an interest. Many also indicated an
interest in water and thoroughfare planning forums.
In summarizing the interviews, the key findings are:
Some members felt that the city of Indianapolis’ influence of the MPO is subtle – location in the city-county
building, HR, perception of influence on specific projects.
But, when it comes to money being distributed, members feel that the project selection process is
transparent.
Another key finding was that a regional ethos seems to be missing.
Some of the interviews brought out a focus on the local jurisdiction – a problem common to all MPOs. It’s
something that is not the fault of local jurisdictions – IRTC members are elected or staff of local
governments. But for the MPO, it’s our task to think regionally, and it’s our task to educate members. This
will be something the MPO can work on.
Larry Heil asked if the jurisdictions had specific recommendations. Ryan responded that what we’re reporting
today are trends, but we will be looking at individual responses for ways to improve the process. And, how we
can incorporate everything in the organizational study outcomes. We already know that an “MPO 101”
education effort will be a recommendation. Education of the transportation planning process is a need that we
heard through the responses across the board.
3. MPO FINANCES AND BUDGET PROCESS
Anna Tyszkiewicz took over the presentation to talk about the MPO’s Financial Structure – through the
expenditure of Metropolitan Planning Funds (PL) that are received from the FHWA and FTA to carry out the
metropolitan planning process.
Page 2 of 7

The MPO uses PL funds to cover annual operating expenses through the UPWP (Unified Planning Work
Program). Under MAP-21, PL funds have been reduced; and in Indiana, because the USDOT found Indiana’s
open container law was non-compliant and assessed a $65 million penalty, there’s a further reduction in the
amount of PL funds administered to MPOs in the state.*
*MPO staff has since learned that some or all of the $65 million has been returned to Indiana as HSIP
funding.
Sharing Agreement
Through the INDOT/MPO Sharing Agreement, federal funds are distributed to Indiana via the federal budget
process. The State receives 75% and MPOs receive 25% of all federal funds, balanced between various federal
funding categories. This Sharing Agreement was established through the Indiana MPO Council. Membership in
the MPO Council is comprised of the executive directors of all 14 Indiana MPOs. This is a unique arrangement
in Indiana; there’s no known occurrence elsewhere in the country.
The table below shows the total planning funds each Indiana MPO received for 2013. The allocations include
both FHWA and FTA planning funds.
URBANIZED AREA
Page 3 of 7
2013 PLANNING
ALLOCATION*
ANDERSON $320,490
BLOOMINGTON $255,286
COLUMBUS $193,572
CINCINNATI $7,856
EVANSVILLE $433,819
FORT WAYNE $633,830
KOKOMO $188,858
LAFAYETTE $383,546
LOUISVILLE $304,790
MUNCIE $303,010
NORTHWEST $1,335,547
SOUTH BEND $920,201
TERRE HAUTE $230,986
INDIANAPOLIS $1,981,189
*INCLUDES FTA PLANNING FUNDS
There’s a complicated administrative process for the MPO to receive the planning funds. The Power Point slide
shows the timeline from the federal allocation to UPWP Approval to contract development and invoicing. Anna
pointed out that the City of Indianapolis floats the MPO during the first few months of the year as there’s a lag
between contract agreements, invoicing and receipt of payment from INDOT. Typically, according to DMD
Financial Services, this is usually around $1 to $1.5 million each year.
Financial Oversight
In 2009, the MPO transitioned to a pay-to-play process for local match, and also moved-out from under the
Division of Planning and is now its own division within the Department of Metropolitan Development. Prior to
this transition, the Metropolitan Development Commission approved all of the MPO documents (UPWP, IRTIP,
LRTP, etc.), after being approved by the IRTC. Currently, the IRTC approves our UPWP, IRTIP, and LRTP;
while the MDC approves our contracts for PL and other planning funds, and consultant contracts. And, as the
fiduciary agent for Indianapolis, the City-County Council approves the MPO budget (but not planning
documents).

The Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD) organizational chart is shown on the Power
Point slide. Anna reports to the director of the DMD, but is different than the other DMD divisions in that she
does not meet on regular basis with the director as do the other divisions. The MPO does utilize the DMD Public
Information Officer to help with press releases, and to a much greater degree the MPO relies on the Financial
Services section of DMD for grant/contract management.
The fiscal ordinance process is much like a budget amendment. Because we’re on a different grant cycle, we
don’t know what our budget will look like for the following year, and therefore we often have to amend our
budget through the City-County Council after the start of the calendar year, usually during the first quarter. This
usually happens on an annual basis. Christine Altman asked what length of time the fiscal ordinance takes?
Anna responded that ideally it takes 4 to 6 weeks. Christine asked how long it took during the last two years?
Anna explained that this year we received the additional planning grants for the Red and Blue Rapid Transit
Corridors after the 2013 budget was approved in 2012. This fiscal ordinance was introduced in January but was
not passed until April; however, there was no delay in the project and the MPO maintained operations.
Overall Budget 2013
Anna presented the overall budget for 2013 (including PL, CMAQ, and Federal Transit Administration/Federal
Railroad Administration planning grants). Our total federal funding sources are at $1.9M and the local match is
just under $500,000.
The organizational chart for the MPO was shown. Beyond the Executive Director, Assistant Director and Office
Manager, there are 4 staff sections in the MPO. Staff costs equal approximately $1.1 million with $770K for
salaries, $330K in benefits; and $70K to DMD for employees in Division of Planning, a legacy contribution
which will be eliminated in 2014.
The $330,000 was further broken down by benefit (health insurance, PERF, Social Security, etc.). Christine
Altman asked if we had the breakdown of percentages for Full Time Equivalent (FTEs) to allow comparison
between LPAs. Some costs are fixed, some fluctuate. Staff will prepare this info for the next meeting. Fixed
costs per employee, and variables (social security, PERF, etc.) like how generous our health plans are; how
healthy our workforce is; health plans, copays, etc.
Overhead costs consist of Information Services Administration (ISA), Financial Services, Building Rent, and
Miscellaneous. Those costs are $153,814; $134,400; $34,000; and $66,220 respectively. Anna explained the
costs associated with ISA; until recently, the costs were not nearly as high. Ryan explained that the amount of
the ISA charge back has increased due in part to a number of factors. ISA had been using reserve funds which
were exhausted about two or three years ago. At that point they adjusted their model to base it more on usage.
The number still seems high, but we won’t know until we do research based on the market. The MPO’s work
requires a huge amount of data, especially the modeling section.
Christine Altman asked what the square footage of the MPO’s office? Ryan responded approximately 1600
square feet. Christine asked if that was enough space? Sean Northup said that it is not enough. But, at this
point in the process, we’re just looking at our current expenses. In the process of the organizational study we
will be looking at our optimum space needs and identifying the gap of where we are today, and where we want
to be in the future.
The group discussed regional GIS data needs and the IMAGIS (Indianapolis Mapping and Geographic
Infrastructure System) consortium. Have we isolated these costs? Does it make sense to combine some of these
services on regional basis?
Challenges of Indianapolis as host:
• Subject to City’s Pay/Hiring Freezes
o Despite potential ability to raise salaries through PL funding, City policies dictate salary, wage
increases
Page 4 of 7

• Subject to City of Indianapolis Human Resources Guidelines
o Residency requirement -- full-time employees must be Marion County residents within 6
months of hiring date
o Since MPO staff are city employees, they are not allowed to be appointed by Mayor to boards
• Limits ability of Executive Director to sit and vote on boards of related interest
• No administrative rights on computers
o
All new software and hardware upgrades must be approved and installed by Information
Services Administration (ISA) staff
• Subject to City of Indianapolis budget processes
• Housed in city building
Christine Altman recalled that in the past, when new Mayor came in, the budget was drastically cut by
removing grants that were later reinstated. This happens everywhere; it’s political manipulation. But it is a cost
of being hosted – being subject to administration changes and the changes that brings to city government.
The miscellaneous Overhead Costs were further broken down:
• Travel & Mileage 19%
• Employee Parking and Bus Passes 19%
• Printing and Copying Services 15%
• Supplies 14%
• Memberships 12%
• (to organizations like the National Association of Regional Councils)
• Communication Services 9%
• Motor Pool Charges 9%
• Equipment 3%
Benefits of Indianapolis Hosting
City Float
o Covers operating expenses between start of fiscal year and distribution of reimbursement from INDOT
• 6-8 weeks, $1-1.5 million needed to cover
o When IMAGIS could not cover costs, City paid for IMAGIS until IMAGIS could find the funding
($100k)
Not charged for legal counsel
o DMD pays using other local sources
Human Resources
o Training, other expertise provided as a service
Access to motor pool (especially for traffic count vehicle)
Plotters
o Used to print posters, maps for public meetings or internal use
Wellness Center - Onsite
Copying, printing at reduced cost
Christine asked whether the city or Marion County also pays for IMAGIS or whether the MPO is covering their
portion. Larry Jones believes the city does pay as well. MPO staff will double check the arrangement.
Randy Walter pointed out that the federal cognizant agency is Housing and Urban Development, not U.S.
DOT. This is because the MPO is within the Division of Metropolitan Development and HUD is the federal
agency that provides the most grant funding to DMD. The definition of the federal cognizant agency is the
agency that, on behalf of all federal agencies, is responsible for establishing final indirect cost rates and
administering cost accounting standards for all contracts.
Jerry Bridges offered that it took some work to first determine their indirect rate, but once it was established,
it’s not a lot of work. Christine suggested this be added to our list of benefits.
Page 5 of 7

4. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING
Steve Cunningham presented the MPO Funding Distribution starting with the Project Selection Process. Each
funding category has its own application process, developed by staff and approved by IRTC. And for some
categories of funds, the MPO does not have control over the project selection (for example Enhancements used
to be selected by a statewide committee). Here are some additional points:
• Projects submitted, scored, and then funded based upon their scoring and available funding
• Processes are implemented and continuously reviewed
• The selection criteria are publicly available on the MPO website
• Federal law prevents the MPO from allocating to jurisdictions based on a percentage or a formula
There are a number of external factors that affect project selection.
• Funding availability
• LPA submitting a project;
• LPA’s familiarity with the funding category scorecard
• LPA’s experience with MPO’s processes
o Specifically, the experience of the technical staff
• Size of LPA staff
o The larger the staff, more capacity to handle more complex project calls
• Complexity of the project
• Complexity of the project call criteria
o The more data, the harder for some of the smaller LPAs
• Involvement of Policy, Technical representatives
• Availability of applicable project to funding call
Steve then passed out “the spreadsheet” which shows the federal funds distributed from 2002 to 2015 by LPA
and the population of those LPAs that are within the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). These population
numbers are the same ones used to calculate the local match dues.
It was suggested that we look at the numbers by county rather than jurisdictions. This means add Indianapolis to
Speedway, Lawrence, and Southport for the Marion County number; and add Carmel, Fishers, and Noblesville
to the Hamilton County number; and so on. Staff will complete that task for next meeting.
There was a discussion of which census numbers to use (2000 or 2010).
It’s just a snapshot in time, and only one piece of information.
John Beery suggested that we look at how many projects have been constructed by a jurisdiction. This would
address the problem of projects being awarded, but not managed well and ends up costing more and taking more
time.
Anna responded that we will be starting to track projects better, and that INDOT and FHWA are pushing this.
Our next TIP will include an illustrative list of projects that can be shovel ready – if a project isn’t moving
forward, we’ll have the option to move a project from the illustrative list into the TIP for funding.
In addition, the MPO has formed an Ad Hoc Peer Review committee to make sure all of the MAP-21 funding
we receive is spent by the end of MAP-21 (September 30, 2014). In previous years, INDOT has allowed funding
to continue passed the end of the highway bill.
Obligation authority must be used before August 2014.
Ehren Bingaman asked whether earmarks are included on the spreadsheet? Steve explained that they are not.
Page 6 of 7

MPO staff will add another graph and/or spreadsheet to indicate county totals – and better show how money is
spent regionally and not by LPA. Ryan Wilhite offered that one reason we analyzed by jurisdiction is that in the
interviews, most members were interested in how their jurisdictions compared to others in the MPO in receiving
federal funding, even if they understand that every jurisdiction has different needs and abilities.
These charts and spreadsheets are politically powerful, and so we need to show some different analyses, which
will be addressed at the next meeting.
Larry Heil offered that we could do allocations based on population groups – just as the feds do with Group III
and IV funding pots.
Ryan closed the meeting by going through the next steps:
• Next Meeting Agenda
o Overall Findings, potential by-law changes, potential board structure changes
• Using research gathered to this point, we will present our findings to the committee
with some potential changes based on our observations and member feedback. We do
not anticipate presenting major structural changes at this presentation but to examine
the underlying problems and some resolutions to overcome those challenges.
o Next Meeting Date is August 23rd
o Future Meetings on September 20 th and October 4th
Page 7 of 7