Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the I69 Corridor topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Madison County adopts I‑69 corridor memorandum of understanding to coordinate development

Madison County Commissioners · June 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Madison County Commissioners voted to adopt a nonbinding I‑69 corridor memorandum of understanding, endorsing Heartland MPO standards to guide land use and transportation coordination along the interstate between Exit 214 and Exit 226.

Madison County commissioners voted to adopt a memorandum of understanding on the I‑69 corridor, endorsing regional design and coordination standards proposed by Heartland MPO.

John Levine, project manager for Heartland MPO, said the roughly yearlong study created a set of minimum standards and user‑friendly drawings for a one‑mile buffer from Exit 214 to Exit 226, developed with a steering committee that included Madison County and representatives from neighboring towns and NDOT. "We put it in our unified planning work program," Levine said, describing NDOT participation and review of the standards.

Levine told the board the MOU is nonbinding: it is intended to encourage coordinated planning across jurisdictions rather than impose legal requirements. The study includes examples such as cross‑access easements, shared‑use path coordination, signage and access control, and contains a 30‑day written‑notice exit clause. Levine said the goal is to reduce piecemeal development that can create traffic and safety issues and to provide a consistent set of expectations for communities and developers.

Commissioners discussed practical applications, including aligning bicycle and pedestrian facilities and planning for future roundabouts or access control where development is concentrated. The chair called for a motion to adopt the MOU; the board approved it by voice vote. The planning commission had forwarded the study with a unanimous recommendation.

Next steps described in the presentation include making digital copies of the standards available to local planners and reviewing potential project lists identified in the study. The MOU does not create regulatory changes; any jurisdiction wishing a different outcome would revisit the document, and the MOU includes an exit option for participants.