00:00:00,000	Oh yeah Oh yeah All right Hi, good morning and welcome to the Bismarck Mandan Metropolitan Planning Organization, uh, Tech meeting. It is Monday, November 17th, and we will call the meeting to order beginning with roll call. Tracy. Daniel Nain Dan Schreo Yeah I’m here too, by the way. I just didn’t get to mute in time.

00:00:35,900	OK. Um, Deidre Hughes here. Gabe Schell. Loretta Marshach here Riley McAdoo Razor Here John Sai Logan Bezy Mitch Flanagan Yeah Natalie Pierce Will Hutchings here. and Chair Ripple here Thank you, Tracy.

00:01:21,870	Uh, with that, we will also call for anybody who has participating online remotely who would like to um speak up and know their presence known so that we can get your name recorded in the minutes. Grant Dr Thanks, Grant Is there anybody else This is Sherija Hassan from uh Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. Thank you, Sherry Jen Good morning, Kristiansbury Federal Highway Administration.

00:01:54,370	Kristian Is there anyone else online who would like their presents to be recorded. as attendees OK. If not, we will move on to item number one, which is public comment. Uh, we would be receiving public comment on items on the current agenda agenda or the prior tax agenda excluding public hearing items. Is there any such public comment. If so, please step forward.

00:02:21,630	If there is anybody online, feel free to speak up. calling for a second time for public comment. and calling a third time for public comment. seeing and hearing none, public comment period is closed. We’ll move on to item number 2, which is the minutes from the October 20th ac meeting.

00:02:46,170	They were included in the Agenda packet. Are there any comments or revisions to the minutes. If not, we would be looking for a motion of approval. Mr. Gabe moved to approve I have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Drill a 2nd. We have a 2nd and roll call, please. Daniel Naren Yes Dan Treo Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell.

00:03:15,000	Loretta Marshach Yes Riley McAdoo Raisler Yes Logan Bey Mitch Flanagan. Yes, Will Hutchings, yes, and Chariable, yes, and the minutes are approved. Uh, item number 3 on the agenda is the monitoring report update. We have Jeremy Williams with HDR online with us to provide that this morning, Jeremy. All right, good morning and thank you, Ja Ripple.

00:03:49,630	Um, yes, uh, Jeremy Williams, uh, with HCR and I was, uh, project manager on the monitoring report update, and I just wanted to present a few slides today to kind of give an overview of the project and some of the remaining steps.

00:04:08,370	So if I can remember how Zoom works I’m normally a Teams user, so one second I will share my screen. There we are. this up and we. Oh goodness Excuse me for one second. All right. And then are you able to see the slideshow? Yes, we can. Thank you. Perfect. All righty.

00:04:40,370	Uh, so, yeah, agenda for the day, just kind of talk through, uh, the, the project itself with a brief project background, uh, quick, uh, discussion of the review and update of the performance measures, uh, related to the report. Uh, quick over data collection and analysis before getting into the monitor and report update itself and then just a few final next steps.

00:05:00,170	So moving into the project background. I’m sure the monitoring report is a document, um, most of you are familiar with, um, so it provides a comprehensive documentation of the existing transportation conditions and trends and um things like that that are influencing transportation in the region and provides that resource for the NPO staff.

00:05:21,070	consultants, elected officials and public, uh, to kind of go through and kind of get a glimpse or a snapshot of the existing transportation conditions, uh, and with that, the geographic scope covers the entire NPO jurisdiction, um, and so finally the project goals related were uh essentially to update the monitoring report with the most

00:05:41,330	current data available, identify other existing trends in um technologies that are impacting transportation and really develop a more graphically driven, uh, document, something that relies a little bit less on, on taxes, a little less tax-heavy, and, uh, kind of becomes a little more streamlined and a little bit

00:06:01,070	more uh graphically driven, uh, and so, again, just a quick recap of the current monitoring report. Uh, it’s broken out into 4 chapters that cover the people, housing, employment, and travel.

00:06:18,170	Uh, it was published in 2016 with chapter one being last updated in 2019, so it’s been a, a few years and there have been some big changes uh in terms of transportation and other trends that have impacted transportation since 2019.

00:06:40,230	Uh, so an overall view of the process was again to update the existing report based on more current data, streamline that document, uh, but also, uh, work to provide a better linkage between uh existing MPO studies and projects that are going on aligned with the current planning initiatives at the federal level, the state level, and also reflect uh local priorities and also provide uh the data and the document itself in a format that’s going to be feas

00:06:56,100	ible for NPO staff to uh to uh conduct future in-house updates. Uh, so, a quick look at the timeline the project started, uh, back around March, uh, and the final documentation was delivered about a week or two ago, and then we just have one final task with the project, and that is an in-house

00:07:14,730	training that will be happening on December 2nd, so that’s upcoming, uh, so a big part of the project was again to uh review and update those performance measures, uh, with that goal of aligning it with the latest federal, state, local initiatives and priorities, uh, and so to that end, we held a performance measures workshop

00:07:33,900	back in May of 2025 with just uh representatives. of the, uh, the jurisdictions, uh, within the, uh, the MPO area and that really helped to set the direction for incorporating all those federal, state, local priorities and, and, uh, performance measures, things like that.

00:07:56,330	And so some of the key outcomes of that, uh, that were integrated into the monitoring report where I’m focused more on the localized data, uh, kind of a more general discussion of federal performance measures and providing intext, uh, web links to different, uh, resources.

00:08:13,600	So the uh, the reader would be able to access those resources and kind of view them on their own, you know, get into things that might uh have more interest in, uh, and finally, just to refine the topics that are addressed in the monitor and report update, uh, so in terms of the data collection and analysis, uh, used pretty accessible uh data sources, pretty common data sources, so that the United States census and the uh

00:08:34,330	the ACS community survey datasets, uh, some of the, uh, longitudinal employer household dynamics that LEHD dataset which provides some really interesting and robust, uh, informa their data related to commuting and then some other uh local sources of data including building permits, uh, school enrollments, jurisdictional budgets, uh, and then finally some of the, the

00:08:55,700	data available from the North Dakota Department of Transportation. Another, uh, facet of the data collection and analysis was an investigation of special data sources, so looking at things like replica, HQ, uh, Streetlight and Urban SDK and just kind of, rather than integrate those into the report itself, provide kind of a, a basic understanding to NPO staff

00:09:15,900	about what these provide and how they could potentially be integrated into the monitoring report in the future, and so the key outcomes of the data collection and analysis, a side of things was to develop those methodologies to analyze the data and then document those for that uh upcoming in-house uh training.

00:09:35,100	So moving into the monitor and reports, uh. it, uh, was broken out into 4 chapters, uh, with uh she’s a really brief introduction about what it is, um, but then moved into section one, which consolidated uh the people in the housing, which in the current monitoring report are

00:09:52,900	two separate, so we, in talking with uh, with Steven decided to be best to uh just consolidate those into, into one chapter since those are pretty related. And then still retain that employment and then the travel as separate sections.

00:10:12,630	So a quick overview of the people on housing, basically get into all those populations and the housing characteristics and kind of a description of how those uh all uh integrate with transportation and kind of help drive transportation and the transportation trends and things like that. And then again, as I mentioned, consolidated those standalone topics into one for the purpose of a little bit more succinct and streamlined report.

00:10:31,730	Section 2, employments, uh, dealt with all things employment, so different, uh, jobs by industry and by sector and things like that, get into some of the characteristics of employment for workers within the region and then finally get a little bit into trends and projections, a lot of that

00:10:47,730	driven by the tra uh travel demand model that was updated for the 2050 MTP. So, uh, in that end kind of tying in the monitor and report to some of the recent long-range transportation planning work that the MPO has been doing.

00:11:06,470	And then finally, the travel section uh is just providing an overview of the, uh, the region’s multimodal transportation system and some of the trends impacting it, for example, some of the uh impacts COVID had on transportation amongst others.

00:11:27,800	Uh, this section, uh, was also expanded beyond the current uh monitoring report to capture that discussion of performance measure s coming out of the performance measures workshop, but also highlights the current and planned work that the NPO is doing and also get the kind of the funding side of things, so that figure 25 you see there, uh, just a brief example of some of the, the funding related content in this section that just looks about, looks at how, uh, you know, funds our program for transportation within the region.

00:11:45,370	based on the NPO’s uh current tip documents. And that will bring us into our next steps and as I had mentioned that, uh, the project will essentially conclude with the, the staff training session, uh, scheduled for November 2nd with the NPO staff where we basically get together to talk through the project, the, the process of developing the

00:12:06,230	monitoring report and then provide some, um some information and some, some training again to uh help uh enable the staff to, uh, you know, update the, the monitoring report in the future in-house and just provide all those resources and things to help, help make that possible.

00:12:24,330	Uh, so with that I can leave it uh for any questions that anyone may have. Thank you, Jeremy. Are there any questions for Jeremy regarding the final report for the monitoring report update. In the room or online. questions or comments Gabe Thanks, Kim. Maybe it’s a Jimmy question.

00:12:47,330	Maybe it’s a you question in terms of updates to this monitoring report, what’s frequency or schedule would we look at and would this be foreseen that something that MPO staff takes this version and updates it or you’d use a consultant to to assist with that.

00:13:02,870	uh, thanks to the questions, Gabe, and I may defer to Steven on some of this, but um, yes, basically the intent of this monitoring report update project was to ensure that further and future updates could be made in-house by MPO staff that we wouldn’t have to rely on a consultant for those those periodic updates.

00:13:27,900	Uh, Furthermore, we’re kind of we’re addressing the frequency of the updates through the safety policy study, um, part of our ongoing monitoring uh with with some of the items in that study could very easily be addressed through a monitoring report and the updates that occurred to that. Um, so it’s very likely that the updates would occur on an annual basis in uh.

00:13:50,270	relation to performance measure targets that are being set and adopted. Steven, would you have anything else to add to that? No, I think that that covers it well. We, I can be flexible with the. amount of updates, some of the data fields will not be updateable every year, but certainly some will as well, so.

00:14:10,100	if I may, I think that maybe that was my, I guess, question. Some of this stuff looks like it’d be hard to change on an annual basis, so I, if it was an annual update or even if you need to do an annual update, I’m just making sure that

00:14:21,100	you’re not taking on more work than what you need to. It looks like a really great document is really good information, and then it’s just a question of Kate, well now what do we do with it if this is just like a, yeah, the idea is that this is

00:14:31,630	a foundation for us to work, work with going forward it by updating every year, that doesn’t mean it will be a comprehensive reset. It’s basically just using this as the foundation update applicable data that might be updateable, and, uh, retain that same similar format so that the public knows what to expect and can and can get

00:14:51,730	familiar with the layout of the report. My last one would be hopefully you get some of the as part of your deliverables, the. the the the data sources that were used, so if you can just add the 2025 information or 2026 information in and published the new document. It kind of looks the same.

00:15:08,000	You have to reformat the whole world. Correct, yep, that’s part of the deliverable package and uh we’ll be part of the staff training as well that we’ll be going to. Sounds great, thanks.

00:15:23,070	Question St Stephen, did you have anything else to add? Just that we just wanted to give, uh, Jeremy and his team at HDR. A shout out for the excellent work that they did on the project. They were extremely responsive to uh, all of our concerns, the, uh, workshop that we held in May with our jurisdictions was excellent in all of the suggestions that they had were incorporated into the report.

00:15:39,870	um, and I think, yeah, I think that they did an excellent job with that and as the staff level we would be just looking for a motion to, uh, to accept this uh final report.

00:15:55,470	get a motion a follow up if you don’t, yeah, thank you, um, uh, this is on, uh, the map on, uh, page 28 of the, the monitoring report and, and absolutely kudos to everyone on this as someone who did this and got deeply invested in it back in the last time it was reformatted, I, I’m really impressed with watching this thing grow, um, uh, uh,

00:16:14,630	regarding the, the map though, uh, just to note, it’s really impossible for people with a red-green color blindness to be able to differentiate between the two types of uh these unsatisfactory is supposed to be probably red, I’m assuming and inadequate being green and they look exactly the same.

00:16:31,330	If there’s any way like one or the other colors could be more dark or uh higher contrast in comparison to the other, it would help differentiate them. And then, um, the, the last commenter question actually is for the MPL in general, uh, and this, uh, is kind of coming out of another meeting I had with another MPO is how can this

00:16:49,270	report help um your future planning efforts and maybe help reduce the burden on consultants, um, specifically the idea that could this data then be referenced by default as opposed to having to have a consultant kind of do the background conditions of an MPO every single time.

00:17:06,870	It’s probably an introduction to every single plan. Um, I know Fargo Moorhead, uh, was looking at, you know, ways to say we don’t need to have them look at, you know, population statistics and reprint that in every single report when it’s already in this, this document has been adopted by the NPO.

00:17:20,170	So something to look at especially as you’re issuing RFPs in the future. Sure, very good comments. Thank you, Will. Appreciate it. Yeah, we can make a note of that map and change the color before we uh get the final version. 7% of the male population has that red-green color blind, so, yeah, thanks.

00:17:40,900	Any other comments or questions, Gabe? Maybe it just comes from my local angle on some of these things, uh, probably nothing has to be changed in the report itself, but when you lump all the communities together and look at the tip and then summarize to say here’s the expenditures that this community has spent on construction and preservation.

00:18:00,100	Yes, it’s according to the tip, but that’s not the right number related to what all the communities are actually spending on some of our, our roadways maintenance, uh, that’s not federally funded.

00:18:14,170	So I just want to make sure that that distinction is made, um, and anything that we’re doing MPO related that that’s that covers the functional class system and the stuff that’s in the tip, but there’s a lot of stuff that we’re doing that’s not in there. So if you generalize and say this is what Bismarck’s doing, that number’s not right.

00:18:26,870	But it’s right if you say this is what Bismarck is doing on the functional class system, then I have no objection to that language, but just kind of grouping it all together, um, I guess it gives me the wrong impression that would be an easy tweak to the text in that uh section if you wanna do that, do that’d be great, thank you.

00:18:43,370	Appreciate it Any other comments, questions? Remarks? OK. Again, this is the final report for the monitoring report update. Staff is looking for a motion to recommend approval of this final report Is there such a motion Is Gabe so moved Gabe, we have a 1st. Is there a 2nd Floretta, I would second that motion.

00:19:06,870	OK, we had a second in the room by Will Hutchings. Uh, any discussion? Roll call vote, please Daniel Naran Yes. Dan Treo. Yes. Deidre Hughes? Gabe Schell, yes, Loretta Marshiek. Yes Riley McAdoo Raisler Yes Logan Bey. Yes. Mitch Flanagan Yes, Will Hutchings, and Chair Ripple, yes. the, uh, final report has been recommended for approval.

00:19:48,000	Item number 4 on the agenda is a fiscal year 2028. Transportation alternatives projects and Stephen is providing summary and update of that. Thank you, Chair Ripple, um, the MPO issued its final solicitation for the fiscal year 28 TA program on September 15th, received applications through October 15th.

00:20:16,870	funding levels for the TA program are uncertain, but the current estimate DOT is provided for fiscal 28 is 840,000 in federal dollars for which we will be competing with a Minot and Grand Forks and their MPOs for that funding. For the FY 28 solicitation, we received a total of 4 project applications, and I will provide an overview of those applications for you, um.

00:20:40,330	first we had, um, the City of Lincoln, the Lincoln Park District, uh, submitted a preservation project, uh, the 66th Street Shared Use Path Safety improvements. This is to install decorative pedestrian lighting on two segments of pathway, one from Lincoln Road to Twenty-eighth Avenue and one from Santee Road to the southern city limits just south

00:21:02,730	of Humbert Drive. This will project would also include paving the gravel segment of shared youth Path from Santee to the southern city limits. So basically two segments of project, 2 segments of lighting, 1 segment of paving is the intention. So the, uh, total cost estimate of eligible expenses is 360,000 with a 291,000 federal requests.

00:21:29,470	um and I’m not, I believe that Matt Shample is here from, uh, Lincoln to represent them if he has anything he would like to add. OK, so I covered it, but he’s here for any questions as well.

00:21:48,070	If anybody has any que does anybody have any uh comments or questions on that application Maybe just the the clarification of Steven, you, you use the definition of preservation on this project type. Can you maybe explain? that? compared to in a a construction when it’s new lights and new trail. on top of a gravel section that’s there, maybe I, I was struggling with the distinction of preservation.

00:22:07,000	Now, I don’t know if that actually matters in, in the grand scheme of what we’re calling it, but yeah, I guess it doesn’t really, I because I was looking at it, I was like, um.

00:22:21,800	the lighting and the paving of an existing pathway are more like, um trying to kind of maintain and upgrade the existing system as opposed to laying down new, completely new pathway or building completely new infrastructure that’s generally the definition that we would use for that kind of to differentiate between the two, but it kind of if you squint, I suppose you could see, you could see it either way.

00:22:39,370	I had one question too. Do you happen to know the length of each one of these trail segments that are um proposal. I see one that uh shows 5700 linear feet, um, and the Claremont Trail one, the length is provided.

00:22:56,470	I’m just kind of looking at dollar cost and and trying to kind of get, you know, cost per foot or mile, you know. if you don’t have that, that’s understandable. I could look it up as well, based on the extents you provided. So the North segment is approximately 2500 ft, 33 light structures. and then the application the South segment approximately 28 life structures and, uh, paving would be about 1600 ft.

00:23:25,270	I will move on to summarize the next application, which is City of Mandan Mandan Park District. Their Highway 1806 pedestrian trail improvements. This is a project proposed to resurface the existing 10-foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail from 14th Street Northwest past 27th Street North and also under the I-94 bridge on

00:23:48,900	Highway 1806. So this project will include overlay and drainage improvements throughout to address flooding of the trail and deteriorated pavement. as well as pedestrian safety enhancements consisting of a separation barrier underneath the I-94 bridge. There is no existing barrier between the roadway and the trail at this location. Uh, they are total cost is 1.

00:24:15,100	1 million, of which 771,000 is federal aid eligible, and so the Federal request for the project is 624,000. and I grant more is the uh engineer that provided, uh, city of Mandan are assisted them with this application, so he is online if you’d like to add anything to my summary.

00:24:37,900	I think you did a good job, Steven. Uh, one thing I would add is just the, the growth in this north part of Mandan here, um, the high school was added in the last couple of years, along with the new middle school.

00:24:51,330	So if you drive down that, um, if you drive down Collins in 1806 before or after school. You do see a lot of um uh bicyclists and pedestrians using that trail to access the schools along with new residential development up there.

00:25:12,070	So making sure we have that connectivity and accessibility for these residents is important and um, if you drive under that I-94 bridge. it is lacking that separation, so it can be a little scary traveling that path right there with the car so close to you. And that Collins Avenue is now much busier than it was before with that high school as well. So just trying to maintain that connect connectability and accessibility for these residents is important.

00:25:33,900	Do you have any comments or questions from the board on this application? Moving on then to uh the third one, which we have a city of Bismarck. This is a, uh the State Street, multi-use trail rehabilitation.

00:26:01,170	The project is proposing to resurface the existing 10-foot wide shared use path, uh, asphalt overlay on approximately, so it’d be 5700 linear feet along the west side of State Street from the Capitol grounds at Divide Avenue all the way to Calgary Avenue, um, and just a couple of notes, this path was recently extended all the way to 43rd, so there is a new segment of pathway starting at Calgary going to 43rd now.

00:26:17,270	And I will also just say just driving, driving in that area there is clear deterioration of the, uh, the pathway. So they’re proposing total cost of 475,000 with a federal share of 380,000 And if Bismarck would like to add any comments to my summary. Welcome to do so.

00:26:38,000	Uh, no, I think this is probably our 4th or 5th time applying for this particular, uh, program, uh, Dave Mayor and Parks District district in the back giggling the, uh, as I say that, uh, it’s and, and maybe I’ll I’ll I’ll save some comments for at the end when we talk about all the projects collectively, but, um.

00:26:55,100	preservation projects, I think he had a hard time pre I guess in my terminology of preservation of that thing exists already. We’re trying to repair it or or keep it in a state of good repair, uh, I think they get a tough show at TA because that’s not really not what the TA program.

00:27:08,970	metrics are used for. So, um, we can talk more about that as we prioritize our projects, but well, Steven, you covered, um, the summary just fine thanks.

00:27:25,100	I would just add, I think this is one segment of trail and, and, um, bicycle and active transportation facilities we have in our region that is, you can clearly see people using it frequently. So, uh, you know, that argument gets made all the time that nobody uses these things, but that’s absolutely not the case, especially in this one. So then our final TA application for this year is a solicitation is from Bismarck Parks and Recreation District.

00:27:45,270	They submitted project for Claremont Trail Connections and uh this is to, uh, construct a 10 ft wide asphalt trail, uh, connections throughout Claremont Family Conservation Park from Gulf Drive to Claremont Road, it’s roughly 3300 ft, and I will attempt to um show the map on that because it is rather confusing uh, if you do not see the

00:28:09,870	project, so there’s a little bit of a little bit of a winding connection. Let me see if I can get to so kind of um a snapshot overview of what we’re looking at and also pictures of the existing park I will note that there is no currently there’s no proposal to remove any of the existing

00:28:32,900	kind of unpaved uh natural trails in this area. This is a this is purely new trail, and, uh, new connections in this area. to and the project has a total cost of 879,000 with a federal share of of 703,000, and Dave Mayor is from Bismarck Parks. He’s present if you would like to add anything to my summary.

00:29:06,430	Good morning. Uh, just a few comments to make the uh, the project for those who don’t know, um. we have a master plan for this park, um. and we’re looking at segmentally adding these new chair use paths to um.

00:29:25,900	basically make a connection through, through the city of Bismarck. Um, this is one spot where we’re kind of missing a few links. uh, to connect up the shared use pass, um, this east-west segment, um, and in the future we plan to do a north-south segment.

00:29:44,970	Uh, the east-west segment, uh, will connect eventually to the trail that we have along River Road, and that will connect through the sidewalk on, uh, Gulf Drive to our shared use paths that go along Century Avenue.

00:30:00,270	So this would be a nice connection excuse me, a nice connection piece, uh, for anybody that’s traveling, uh, on Century Avenue to get down to the river, uh right now they either have to go on what you saw on the, the uh couple of uh pictures on a very rough single track, or they would have to go down Berntboat Road or take the extremely steep trail down shared uses path down the switch back down from Overlook, um, Chiefooks

00:30:20,100	Village overlooked to um Pioneer Park, um, multiple routes where they’re, uh, there could be some issues, some clashes. There isn’t a dedicated pedestrian or bicycle way, um.

00:30:43,530	that is continuous to get from Tyler Parkway or Century Avenue down to River Road, and that’s what we’re looking to do with this connection and to, uh in conjunction with, uh, the City of Bismarck, we’re looking to make a sidewalk connection on Claremont Road and down the little segment, um, that you saw on that um. on that screen shot, um proposed is uh from Claremont Road down to River Road.

00:31:01,100	We’re looking to put a do a little sidewalk segment in there that could be 6 to 8 ft wide that will make that little little piece that we’re missing. um, ultimately our goal at the Park District is to try and make continuous connections, uh, with our shared use paths so that we don’t have those.

00:31:17,970	spots where it could be unsafe for somebody that’s traveling and on a sidewalk or um by walking or on a bicycle, um, in the street if we can avoid that, that’s our goal is to try and make those continuous connections. So this is one piece to that puzzle that we’re, we’re trying to fill in.

00:31:34,530	I’d argue if you’re coming from Bert, uh, if you’re going from cheap Looking’s village, getting down it’s in the prom. It’s getting back up that last little segment is impossible.

00:31:51,370	You don’t disagree with you, yeah, yeah, you’re you’re right this would open up, um, you know, access to the riverfront, trail system for almost all of North Bismarck, um, when you think about its connection to century and and even further out to State Street and and and so on. So, um, yeah, I think it’s a a worthy project overall. Thank you. All right, thank you very much.

00:32:07,470	Steven, do you have anything else to add as far as a summary or are you ready for the summary are any no comments or questions, I will just simply summarize the projects as a whole and uh leave the, let the board discuss.

00:32:26,630	So, uh, MPO staff scored all 4 of these applications against the goals and objectives of our arrived 2050 MTP using the new scoring rubric which was developed by the MTP steering Committee. Um, we also met, uh, the MPO’s Bikeped subcommittee scored the applications pairwise against one another at their October 29th meeting.

00:32:51,230	So these scores were then combined, um, to produce the rankings shown on the summary sheet, uh, which are provided for these, these scores and rankings are provided for your information and discussion. So the details of how those scores and ranks were arrived at are included in the packet, uh, following this summary. Um, and yeah, they’re provided for the information discussion for you guys.

00:33:10,100	Final prioritization or non-prioritization of projects sent to DOT for their consideration is of course at the discre tion of Policy board, and the USA can provide whatever recommendations you feel appropriate. Uh, the current, uh, ranking that we have is the Lincoln Project One, the City of Mannan 1806 to city of Bismarck State Street at 3, and then, uh. Claremont Trail at 4, so leave it open for discussion and comment.

00:33:31,730	Are there any comments or questions uh regarding the ranking. any discussion that needs to take place, Gabe. Yep, thank you. um there’s no, there’s never gonna be a perfect system in terms of taking 4 project.

00:33:49,900	I think all 4 of these are great projects of fulfilled needs and, and all these communities, um, and the concept of taking uh a representation of that bike ped subcommittee and having them look at these and and and weight them and, and, and rate them against each other is great.

00:34:04,370	Uh, the concept of NPO staff looking at this relative to the goals and objectives in the MCP is good. I still think we’ll we’ll never get the correct rubric that will adequately compare a, you know, safety oriented new trail over here to a recreational component over here compared to some maintenance thing over there. adequately.

00:34:19,370	I mean, it’s just tough to, to manage with those values should be for each of those things. And even if I look through some of those ratings of the MPO staff scores, and I thank you for including that in the agenda.

00:34:30,600	I might argue that some of these projects probably should have had more of those, you know, points given to them like, well, actually that project also should have got those points. So I don’t put as much weight maybe to the the staff’s score in particular or or the rating just knowing that there could be some flexibility there, um, but it’s not a it’s never a perfect system, I guess is what it

00:34:43,870	boils down to, so I appreciate the work that the MPO has has done to get us to this point to, to give us something to work through, um, but I guess I would be open to if, if there’s a, an entity that really feels passionate about their project or about their needs, uh, definitely I’m, I’m open to

00:34:59,270	taking the overall ranking and saying that’s great, but let’s move this one off to the side. Um, like I said before, I, I probably care more about what are the best chances for a project to get funded at the statewide level, like, what are the goals of the TA program? What are the projects that they’re looking

00:35:13,000	for and making sure that we’re putting the best products we can, uh, forward from our area so that we don’t say this is our great preservation project and then if the statewide group says they really don’t like those, like, well, we might have wasted our um project prioritization, uh, and letting uh Grand Forks or Minot

00:35:32,470	project, um, sneak its way above the list because we just didn’t put our best project forward. So I’ll rest there for the time being here. Thanks for your comments, Gabe.

00:35:50,000	I would just like to follow up to those, um, and, and let the tech know that um the ranking has been supported in various ways through previous years historically, um some, some years the ranking that’s presented has been recommended for approval and then approved by policy board and then of course ultimately it goes to North Dakota DOT and they, it undergoes a whole another selection committee, um, once it reaches DOT, so basically what we’re doing is

00:36:13,600	we’re, we’re providing DOT with our regional priorities. Um, also, in light of the preservation and construction, um, delineation for projects. In fact, last year, it, we were instructed by Tac to submit prior prioritized rankings for each um project type or category.

00:36:42,000	So we had number one ranked preservation and number one ranked construction last year and that ultimately is totally at the discretion of the ac and policy board if, um, you’d like to provide a directive in that. in that regard.

00:36:57,870	I’d also like to just remind you that again, while funding levels are quite uncertain one thing to keep in mind as we send projects on is that 840,000 federal total is um again, we’re competing with uh with Grand Forks and Minot for the distribution of those funds, so funding levels, well, we wish they weren’t applicable sometimes they do are, are a consideration for us.

00:37:21,330	Any other comments or discussion? Gabe? I’ll add one more component. I do want to give credit to Lincoln Park District and City of Lincoln in terms of what they’re asking for of this project is just the finishing touches on some other items that they’ve either locally performed in terms of the trail construction, um on the north segment or secured other

00:37:40,470	uh, state and federal funding sources as as for, for the gra graveling the segment on the south segment from Santeea the southern city limits.

00:37:59,170	So while this project might just look like a $360,000 you know, total cost, it’s likely much larger when you take into the perspective of all the, the, the dollars that Lincoln has either invested themselves or um sought other funding sources, so I, I guess I just applaud Lincoln for approaching it in that way. I think that’s a really smart way to try to piece these things together and in the end you have a really good facility that you can be proud of Thanks.

00:38:15,230	Any other discussion If not, staff would be looking for a motion to recommend um the prioritized ranking. as shown on the summary sheet to policy board to be forwarded on to North Dakota DOT. with the understanding that Policy board can change the prioritization at their discretion. Kim, I, I would make a motion to, um, submit the prioritization.

00:38:51,470	with both the preservation and construction component, but the Lincoln Park District one being a construction because I do a few installing new lights, installing new pavement as a construction element of new things and not of preserving what you have.

00:39:10,270	Um, so I think that would be a spectacular new construction on OSD probably fits better into what the TA statewide program is trying to get at anyway. So I think that would actually probably help its chances, um, followed by the City of Mandan, Mandan Park District as the number one preservation type component because that is really more of a preserving what’s out there

00:39:23,100	and, and making some tweaks to it and then we can have the, the city of Bismarck and Bismarck Park District projects follow behind that, I think would be more than appropriate for this go around in their respective um. categories.

00:39:36,370	OK, so it’s a really long motion, but I think it’s simple once you take all my words out and just that’s fine. I think that we can sum it up as that you recommend approval by the policy board as the City of Lincoln Construction Project, the number one construction priority and the city of Mand Dan Preservation Project, the number one preservation. project priority. Bingo. OK.

00:39:58,230	We have a motion. Is there a second? I’ll second that Riley, thank you. Any discussion? Anne roll call vote, please Daniel Naran Yes Dan Shreak Yes. Deidre Hughes? Yes Abe Schell. Yes Loretta Marshach Yes Riley McAdoo Raisler. Yes. Logan Bey. Yes. Mitch Flanagan Yes Will Hutchings? Yes and Chair Ripple, yes. motion has been approved. Thank you.

00:40:38,270	Item number 5 on the agenda today is the fiscal year 2030, Highway Safety improvement Program projects, and Steven will also be presenting those. Thank you, Chair. Um, so yes, the MPO, uh, issued its final solicitation for fiscal year 30. Highway Safety improvement program in September and accepted applications through October 24th.

00:41:01,800	We did receive a total of 3 applications for this year’s round, and so I will present an overview of the applications for you. Uh, the first one we have is the city of Mandan. has submitted, uh, for a construction project at the Sunset Drive 27th Street North Intersection.

00:41:24,500	They are proposing to construct a single lane roundabout with pedestrian islands to improve traffic flow, reduce queue lengths, and improve safety for all intersection users, um, their application does note that this is a very busy intersection has gotten, uh, has a lot of safety issues, uh, so this is a again a proposed project to improve safety and traffic flow

00:41:44,000	in this area. The total cost of this is uh about 2.67 million with a federal request of 2.4 million. Um, if the City of Mandan would like to add to my summary, uh, please feel free to do so.

00:42:02,700	I’ll just add that with the high school and the middle school kind of just east on 27th, most of the movements here are left turns and right turns. So right turns off of sunset on the 27th and left turns off of 27th onto sunset. Thanks, Riley Any additional comments on that The City of Bismarck has submitted then for a construction project.

00:42:29,900	This is a rectangular rapid flashing beacons installation at 4 locations. So they are proposing to install RFB at 4 pedestrian crossings throughout Bismarck, significant crossings. So the crosswalk between Century High School and Gateway Mall, crossing at Washington Street and Avenue B a crossing at Riverside Park Road just south of Memorial Bridge and the crossing at airport Road and Lee Avenue.

00:42:55,000	Um, again, all of these, they are trying to address, uh, pedestrian safety and conflict with vehicles, and the total cost is 690,000 with a 621,000 federal share, um, City of Bismarck, want to add anything to my summary? Sure, thanks, Stephen. Um, maybe just a couple items to crosswalk location at Century High School.

00:43:19,270	Uh, actually we had, we’d talked to our board to get approval to apply for this at the Bismarck City Commission level and then subsequently after there was actually a pedestrian vehicle crash at that intersection recognizing that yes, that the risk that we all knew was there manifested itself with an

00:43:32,070	actual crash I think for that that that student is, is OK or is just getting to be OK, um, so I, I want to note, note that one that uh in some ways we try to be proactive, but in this one, we were we’re proactive in the sense

00:43:45,170	but still reacting to to issues that are out there uh, the last one I want to mention too is just the, the crossings at Airport Road and Lee Avenue is a result of the safe routes to services study that the MPO did.

00:43:58,000	Um, identifying where, where our pedestrians are walking, trying to get to their places, uh, and recognizing that there’s some errors in our community that that’s not the easiest journey for them. um, so thanks, uh, once again to the MPO for, for. producing that study.

00:44:12,170	Uh, it’s given us some real good actionable steps, and this is, I guess the, uh, our, our next step in that process is looking for some funding to uh implement some of those recommendations. follow up to that Gabe did the um rill uh Lan East Bismarck Expressway.

00:44:29,870	Did that ever get constructed? I know it was talked about and the application was submitted, um, for one time because we were dealing with a lot of pedestrians who were walking along Bismar Expressway. I’m just curious what the status of those haven’t been down there in a while. Sure, will, uh, yes, that was a TA funded project from, I think we constructed in 2023 or so and with the same time that the DOT did a millen overlay on Bismarck Expressway.

00:44:46,070	So constructed a sidewalk on the north side of the road from about 26th Street to about 19th Street or so. yeah Any other comments on that particular project? There we have a Burleigh County. They have submitted for construction project at Apple Creek Road in the sixty-Sixth Street Southeast intersection.

00:45:12,730	They are proposing to construct uh either a hybrid roundabout or another uh applicable safety improvement. at this intersection seeking to reduce conflict points and allow for future street development in the area, and they did note that the exact nature of the improvement would be determined by the preliminary, uh, research and study, uh, at this intersection what would be most appropriate,

00:45:32,000	um, but they’re currently giving a cost estimate of 4.5 million with a 4 roughly 4 million federal request for the project, and I don’t know, Dan, if you’d like to add anything to my summary.

00:45:54,470	Uh, just a little bit, um, this particular intersection and project has been highly requested and supportive from the city of Lincoln. So even though this is a Burleigh County project, it has been um I think I said, highly supported by the City of Lincoln. Dan. Any other comments on that? Go ahead, Stephen.

00:46:18,070	So then you guys to summarize, uh, the MPO staff has scored the applications against the goals and objectives of the MPT MTP using the new scoring rubric. ah, developed by the MTP steering Committee. The scores are shown on the summary sheet provided for information and discussion. But, you know, as I said, there’s no perfect system for this.

00:46:38,170	We thought that all of these were excellent projects with different um yeah, just really good projects and I will also note that historically, the boards have usually elected to send HIP projects to DOT unprioritized. That has been the common practice. So again, scores are just there for informational purposes, um, and yeah, we would, with that we would leave it to tac to recommend approval, uh, and prioritization as they would like.

00:46:57,370	Do we have such a motion Dan, I’ll make that motion. uh, to submit to DOT un prioritized. Unprioritized. OK, thank you, Dan. Is there a second? 0, 2nd that, but I do want to have a discussion and is there any discussion Uh, it’s more just a clarification piece, uh to Dan and the HSIP application for

00:47:19,430	the roundabout in the text it talks about hybrid roundabout option 2 is recommended. and that the traffic operations report has been included for reference, but that wasn’t in the MPO’s attachment.

00:47:38,500	So I just want to make sure that that is, that is will be provided to DOT as part of the final submittal, but it was a very lengthy document and so we decided not to suck it in. That’s why I just want to make sure we weren’t just giving them three pages and say, here, this is what we want to do. It might not be the best application, so thank you for clarifying that.

00:47:49,630	OK, we have a motion in a second, uh, roll call vote, please. Daniel Naren Yes Dan Treo. Yes. Deidre Hughes, yes. Gabe Schell, yes. Loretta Marshak. Yes, Riley McAdoo Raisler. Yes Logan By. Mitch Blanagan. Yes. Will Hutchings and Chair Ripple, yes, the motion is approved.

00:48:28,070	Item number 6 on the agenda is a fiscal year 29 urban grants program projects, Stephen Larson. Thank you. I’m sure that everyone is getting tired of listening to me talk, but that’s the way the agenda played out this month. The MPO issued its final solicitation for the fiscal year 29 Urban Grants program in September.

00:48:51,730	We accepted applications through October 24th and received 3, so I will give an overview of those applications, uh, beginning with the city of Bismarck. We have, uh, the Washington Street traffic Signal modernization project, so they are proposing to replace the entire traffic signal system at Washington Street and Broadway Avenue. to enhance safety, improve trafficlo, and better serve all users.

00:49:13,530	The existing signal has passed its useful life, and there are known pedestrian safety issues, including a pedestrian fatality in June of 25. That will be addressed with pedestrian push buttons and leading intervals, uh, improving and modernizing the signal system at Washington Street and Rosser Avenue is also proposed this would reduce north-south congestion and eastbound emergency vehicle delays.

00:49:38,630	Upgrades will include flashing yellow arrow, left turnheads, video detection cameras, pedestrian push buttons, and the replacement of the signal cabinet. The project carries a cost of 968,000 of which 880,000 is federal aid eligible and the federal request is 700,000 for this project, as does Bismarck have anything they’d like to add to my summary?

00:49:59,900	Um, no, nothing really, uh, it’s this is a, we try to put together two projects, um, one that would be probably smaller in cost that might be able to fit better into the DOT’s, um, programming allotment, and then the other, which we’ll talk later will, which is a little more costly, so that was kind

00:50:16,100	of our strategy in terms of providing a couple of projects for DOT’s consideration. Moving to the Mandan project for this, uh, this is a construction project. This is their Downtown First Street and avenues reconstruction phase 2. they do, did, I believe, just receive Irving Grant’s program for Phase one of this project.

00:50:42,170	So, and we’ve seen we’ve seen, uh, aspects of this project come before us before. This would cover First Street Northwest from 2nd Avenue to Fourth Avenue, 3rd Avenue northwest from 1st Street to Main Street and 2nd Avenue Northwest from 1st Street to Main Street.

00:51:01,330	So they’re looking to do a full reconstruction on the First Street Roadway with concrete due to exceedingly poor payment condition and the need to replace water main, which precludes a millon overlay at this location. Also sidewalk and sidewalk ramp improvements to replace existing poor conditions and bring up to 808 compliance.

00:51:22,970	Kur Bobouts at the First Street intersections, uh, signage and striping, beautification elements, benches, bike racks, LED, and pedestrian lighting, uh, sidewalkeritz versus the roadway wits will be examined during the preliminary design phase for this. It is a standalone project, not dependent on phases 1 or 3. uh, and the total cost, uh, attached to this is 6.2 million of which for 0.7 million is federal aid eligible.

00:51:47,170	The request is 3.7 million for the project and if Riley has anything he wants to add to my summary, he may do so. All right then, the final project for this year, uh, was also Bismarck construction project. This is the main avenue.

00:52:09,170	This is a main avenue reconstruction from 7th to 9th Street. They are proposing to reconstruct the Main Avenue Roadway and its deteriorated pavement, so including new pavement curb and gutters, street, and pedestrian lighting, pavement markings, ADA compliant pedestrian facilities and upsized modernized storm sewer facilities.

00:52:30,070	The southernmost eastbound driving lane will be converted into a flex lane that will serve as a driving lane until development on the south side of Main Avenue, may lead to a conversion into a parking lane. The existing roadway will be narrowed and wider sidewalks with boulevards will be installed to improve pedestrian safety. Snow storage and redevelopment potential.

00:52:52,900	Access management discussions will be held with property owners during public input process to discuss consolidation of 3 corridor driveways. The project has a 3.5 million price tag with a 3.2 million federal aid eligible and a 2.2 million federal request.

00:53:11,270	Are there, you what, Gabe, you have anything to add to the summary? Yeah, I’ll just add this is, um, the, the concept of that flex lane is a change from our previous times that we’ve submitted on this, this project, um, the MPO’s Main Avenue corridor study identified this as a segment where we could take our, you know, 5 lane section that’s out, you know, from Airport Road to 26th Street and narrowed down to a three lane section closer to our downtown here between 7th

00:53:24,900	and 9th. We’ve already done that on the North, uh road that’s we have on-street parking on the north side of the road, um, and on the south side of the road, we still have two driving lanes and so when we’ve looked at if the uses on the south side of the road remain as

00:53:36,630	they are that are very auto-centric, um, even if we put parking on the south side of the road, there would be still multiple driveways and points of egress that would limit the number of really usable spots that we could use.

00:53:50,730	So our thinking would be let’s build ourselves a roadway that we can change as those needs change. So if, if in the future, um, uh, the properties on the south side of the road turned into a more uh pedestrian, uh friendly type of facility or, or, or uses, uh, that’s pretty easy to then convert their their driveway into full curb

00:54:07,330	and, and utilize this now wider sidewalk. So we’re trying to find a way to implement something that works both today but then also can be used into the future and that’s kind of how we approach this particular submittal. Thank you, Gabe So to summarize this, uh, we once again we scored the applications against the MTP.

00:54:28,530	The scores are shown on the summary sheet and provided for information and discussion, uh, final prioritization or non-prioritization of projects sent to DOT for consideration is that the discretion ofac and policy board historically they have UGP projects have normally been prioritized in some way by the boards, so, um leave that open

00:54:51,900	for a discussion and a motion as appropriate. And what are the wishes of the board? Mrs. Gabe moved to approve all three of the projects in an unprioritized fashion to the DOT. All three unprioritized. Thanks, Gabe. Is there a second to that motion? A second Thank you, Riley.

00:55:17,700	We have a motion. We have a second. Roll call vote, please. Oh, I’m sorry, is there any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Daniel Nain Yes Dan Treo. Yes. Deidre Hughes? Yes. Gabe Schell, Loretta Marshie. Yes Logan Bezy Riley McAdoo Raisler. Yes. Mitch Flanagan Yes Will Hutchings, yes, and Chair Ripple Yes, motion is approved.

00:55:54,470	Thank you all Uh, item number 7 on the agenda. The North Dakota DOT Bismarck Mandan MPO 2026 UPWP contract. Uh, exhibit O in your packet shows the standard annual contract between North Dakota DOT and the MPO.

00:56:20,470	This is tied to the MPO’s 2026, 2027 UPWP and to the MPO’s share of the 2026 Consolidated Planning Grant. The contracting parties are shown on this as North Dakota DOT in the city of Bismarck on behalf of the Bismarck Mandan MPO, and this identification is because the MPO’s funding is actually provided by the city of Bismarck and is then re

00:56:36,100	im b ur s ed back to the city by North Dakota DOT using the CPG funds. The 2026 UPWP contract runs from January 1 through December 31 of 2026. And the contracted amount is for a maximum, uh, federal amount of $799,699.55 in CPG funding to fund the federal share of MPO’s 2026 budget in the UPWP.

00:57:07,530	The contract is undergoing Bismarck’s internal contract review process right now. And upon MPO approval by the policy board and successful contract review by the city. The contract will be brought to the Bismarck City Commission on December 9th for their approval and electronic signing.

00:57:25,270	Staff is requesting a recommendation of approval of the 2026 UPWP contract. Are there any questions? No, no questions, no comments. OK. Uh, what are the wishes of the board? I’ll move to approve A motion to approve by Deidre. Is there a second? This is Gabel’s 2nd Thank you, Gabe. We have a second.

00:57:58,800	Any discussion? And will, will the draft I’m assuming the draft watermark would be removed, but the information that’s on that. idol sheet and talks about the federal award and the all the other information, will that be filled out or is that OK, yes, that will spelled out at the time it’s authorized.

00:58:16,900	It’s the very last step in the contract negotiation, so the contract, um, um, agreement, so basically it’s the last thing we have to allow and then the draft gets automatically removed at that point. OK, thank you for the clarification. Yep, and I’ll just add, uh, I want to give kudos to Kim, uh, for a work well done on getting the UPWP in the contract, uh, in place.

00:58:31,430	We, we had very little changes that had to be made along the way and it was very easy and pretty seamless, so well done to you and uh hopefully every year goes like this, so I appreciate that echo those thoughts. It’s been pretty smooth. Uh, again, we have a motion to recommend approval and a second, um.

00:58:51,100	roll call vote, please Daniel Naren Yes Dan Treo. Yes. Deidre Hughes? Yes. Gabe Schell. Loretta Marshiek Yes, Riley McAdoo Raisler. Yes. Logan By. Yes Mitch Flanagan Yes Will Hutchings and Chair Ripple. Yes, the motion is approved. Thank you. Uh. Number 8 on the agenda is the ATAC Addendum to the Master Agreement.

00:59:28,530	Um actually, this is exhibit P in the packet. However um, I did distribute, uh, handout earlier and Steven will share that on his screen as well. Um. So, uh, what you are seeing is an amendment to the ATA Master Agreement for automated traffic data collection at 5 Man Dans signalized intersections.

01:00:02,100	This is very similar to the data collection project that was successfully implemented in the city of Bismarck, Mandan’s pilot project would include everything provided in the scope of work, um, which has been provided in the packet exhibit with the project beginning in January of 2026 and concluding 18 months later, uh, the packet exhi bi t shows a project cost that

01:00:24,600	actually exceeds $45,000. That has been revised. What you tech members have in front of you is a a revised, uh, budget schedule that shows a total cost of $44,793 and that is because the project cost of 45,000 was included and approved as part of the UPWP um I will note that we are still awaiting a further refined

01:00:56,600	addendum from ATA, um, but it will be for the amount shown on the screen of $44,793. Uh City of Moundown would provide the full 20% match on this project. Are there any questions regarding the project or the addendum. Gabe. So Kim, the one you handed out still has a 45,867.

01:01:23,330	Is that what you’re referring to, that that will be revised in whatever version ATAC will send you. Yes, that’s correct. Um, they revised the second page in the budget schedule, but they failed to revise, uh, on the cover sheet of the contract.

01:01:39,330	So, and then maybe a follow-up question for Riley, which five intersections are you guys gonna do or have you, has that been determined? Uh, I know we’ve taken a look at Maine and uh Morrell Highway are kind of where we’re going to focus this effort. I don’t think we’re going to worry about 3rd Street and 6th yet.

01:01:52,270	We don’t have a ton of uh singleized intersections, but those are kind of the ones we’re talking about right now. Thank you. Right Any other questions or comments? If not, staff would be looking for a motion to recommend approval of the addendum to the ATA Master Agreement as presented. I’ll move to approve. Riley, we have a motion to approve.

01:02:13,470	Is there a second Ms. Gabel 2. Gabe, thank you. Any discussion Not roll call volt, please. Daniel Marin Yes. Dan Treo. Deidre Hughes. Gabe Schell Yes, Loretta Marshakk Yes Riley McAdoo Raisler. Yes. Logan Byy. Mitch Flanagan Yes. Will Hutchings, and Chair Ripple. Yes, motion is approved.

01:02:48,730	Thank you. Moving on to number 9 on the agenda is the 2025 safety policy study with Luke Champa. Are you with us, Luke? Yes, I’m here, Chair Rippletack, can you hear me? Yes, we can. All right. I’ll uh keep this brief.

01:03:11,870	So previous month here we’ve been putting together a draft report for the safety policy study. We held our 5th steering committee meeting last week on the 13th. Thank you for those who participated in that. And then for those, those who did not, I just want to provide a little background on the draft report. It includes 8 chapters Chapter 1, introduction and Background, Chapter 2.

01:03:37,900	Multimodal transportation safety, looking at the 5 year period of the 2020 through 2024 and then chapter 3 State of Practice looking at the solid foundation of safety and transportation safety plans, studies, and policies of the region. um Chapter 4 provides a summary of public engagement conducted for the safety policy study.

01:04:08,330	Chapter 5 uh dives into the data analysis specifically methodology where the crash data was gathered from and then introduction to the high injury Network methodology. Chapter 6 provides high injury network analysis results. Chapter 7 dives into the safety strategies and tool kit for engineering and non-engineering strategies and then Chapter 8 provides the implementation and road to zero.

01:04:44,000	information. Also included in, in with the report, um, our, our appendices, and there are several Appendix A through Appendix F. Appendix A is the historical crash trend summary, more technical version of that chapter 2. Appendix B is the state of practice. Again, a more technical version of the chapter 3.

01:05:12,330	Appendix C, um, is the public engagement summary, so that includes the key theme reports from our public engagement efforts. Appendix D is the high injury Network methodology and results that technical facing or the technical memo of the high injury Network methodology and then Appendix E is the high injury network.

01:05:39,600	One pagers, uh, outlining specific locations and the crashes that contributed to that high injury network location And then the one thing that you all haven’t seen is the safety strategies Toolit as discussed at our previous steering committee meeting. I’m just putting the final touches on that, including the relinking of some of the the buttons in that PowerPoint.

01:06:01,530	I’m hoping to accomplish that today. I thought it would be Friday, but it’s, it’s a little bit um more involved effort than I had imagined. So today I’d like to get out our steering committee summary notes in dra ft and then send also the draft Appendix F for everyone’s review on the steering committee.

01:06:24,470	um and then I will just really quickly go through our, our final uh steps here. So we had our, our draft report and appendices sent out on Friday, November 7th to the steering committee we’re expecting comments back by end of day Wednesday, November 26th, just before Thanksgiving, um, we’ll be turning around and discussing the final draft and the incorporation of comments

01:06:54,330	and feedback, the final steering committee meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday, December 3rd. We’re looking at a 60 minute meeting will be held 100% virtually to make it easier for everyone to participate. and then back in front of this committee on Monday, December 15th for final action.

01:07:21,530	and our final recommendation and then policy board action on Tuesday, December 16th. So we’re we’re coming, coming up to the end here. I appreciate everyone’s discussion, comments from from last week those are really helpful in making some refinements right away, but obviously we’ll be watching for more feedback, uh, as we, as we get closer to Thanksgiving.

01:07:41,370	So I think that’s the update, Kim, if I, if I missed anything, please feel free to add it, but I really appreciate everyone’s involvement so far, all the comments that we’ve received, it’s, it’s good stuff and it’ll only make for a better uh better final report for you all.

01:07:58,330	All right. Well, thank you, Luke. I think you pretty well covered things. Uh, are there any questions for Luke? Seeing and hearing none, thanks Luke. Thank you. Item number 10 is the 2025 ITS Regional Architecture update with Sherry Jad Hassan. Are you online with us? OK. Thank you, Cherry, uh, can you hear me? Yes.

01:08:25,530	Perfect. I, what I’m going to do I will, I have a couple of, uh, I have a small slide, uh, presentation slides already. just let me share my screen quickly over here. or speak Uh, can you see my screen Yes.

01:08:55,100	Perfect So, uh, thank you so much, uh, and, uh, still it’s good morning to all the TAC members, um, thanks for all the, uh, all of your, hm continued support and engagement in the um ITS architecture update initiative.

01:09:17,370	Um, I’m just going to, uh, go very quickly on some um more progress that we have made and uh I have already submitted a draft report for these, um, ITS architecture plan. And uh before I start, I want to make a couple of corrections which I, I thought I would do it in the beginning, but then I missed that chance.

01:09:34,500	Um, on page 5 of the draft report, uh, if I can pull that up for you right over here. So on page 5, which is the list of stakeholders, um, uh, on this draft, I have missed two stakeholders’ names. One is the ATA and one is the Bismarck IT.

01:09:52,600	It was just, uh, uh, while I was uh bringing the data from the Excel file, and that’s, that’s when I missed it. So, um, and obviously, I’ll, I’ll correct those for the final one, but uh this is something I want to, um, um, bring, I, I want to bring that in into the committee’s attention.

01:10:11,430	So these would be the, the uh ATEC and Bismarck IT. These would be the two stakeholders that will be identified in a, in this report. So, uh, just following uh, what, uh, Luke did, um, uh, in the last presentation. So it stays, uh, streamlined.

01:10:32,270	Uh, I have the, um, list of, uh, in this uh report, we have the, we have identified the region and the scopes uh of these uh architecture update we identified the stakeholders on Chapter 3. Chapter 4 is the all the ITS elements, um, chapter 5 talks about all the service packages that has been identified using the Reddit tool and the archit uh tool, uh, supported by the FHWA and uh then chapter 678, they

01:10:58,430	are, uh, for, uh, operational concept, um, they list of agreements and functional requirements from 9 and 10, so chapter 9 is very important for the um for for from the IT perspective because it includes all the um security standards that our security protocol standard s that would be needed for um uh for uh for the

01:11:24,370	um uh further discussion on this Is even beyond this, uh, beyond this project, and the number 10 is the planning aspect where uh we have included the uh associated, uh, goals and objectives from the arrive 2050. um in this version of these IS architecture update, we have two new items that has been added.

01:11:48,470	One is the project architecture and uh I’ll uh I’ll explain later on why, uh, we included it and uh some conclusive remark with some suggestions. So, uh, with that, let me, uh, give you a, a small overview on the update tasks, so, so far we have implemented all the updates and now it’s we are in these uh uh in the zone

01:12:08,730	on uh reviewing, finalizing and ratifying any of these documents. Um, this is, uh, this architecture was, this is an overview of these uh architecture.

01:12:31,330	So initially developed in uh 2005, we had already gone through 3 updates and, uh, so eventually this is the 5th document, um, and, uh, for this time we have kept the planning horizon as 5 years, so, uh, the, the reason is in for some of the stakeholders or some of the service user service areas. We have ident ified that uh there hasn’t been much change in um 5 or 10 years or even uh per se 15 years.

01:12:51,430	But there are some areas where technologies change very quickly or a Bismarck is adopting Bismarckmanan region is adopting those um technology changes, um, over the time of 5 years, so again, based on the discussion with different stakeholders, this is the shortest time that any one stakeholder would have been agreed. That’s why I kept it like that.

01:13:16,070	And uh uh obviously we have, um, the region, uh, as part of the region, we have the city of Bismarck, Manton Lincoln, and uh these portions of Barley County and Morton County, I have updated based on uh one of the documents from the Bism Bismarck Man and MPO.

01:13:34,100	So, uh, with that, uh, this is just a, um, difference in um what we had in our 4th update and the 5th update, the 4th update that happened in 2021, so the number of stakeholders, those two stakeholders that has been added, uh, I just mentioned that ATAC and Bismarck IT are the two,

01:13:55,630	specific, uh, stakeholders that we are going to uh add into these um servi uh into these ITS architecture update and uh this is something, um, um, the city and the Bismarck City engineer Gabe Schell has identified at the beginning of this, of this project and during the kickoff meeting and

01:14:14,900	uh thank you for that uh input which allows us to include, um, different IT sections in our discussion and uh based on which I have been able to identify some of the uh specific security protocol standards and that has already been included, uh, in this draft report.

01:14:33,430	Um, uh, we are also, uh, other than these, uh, identifying new partners, uh, we currently have 26 service package, uh, actually, uh, 28 service packages if I include the instances.

01:14:55,330	So, um, um, this 28, uh service packages it, uh, previously it was this, this number was 33, uh, so, uh, at that time we had lots of uh uh planned and future service packages, but uh after um lots of uh uh after a thorough discussion, uh over the uh over these years, IE service, um, I guess architecture update, we identified that, uh, um, reducing this number will guide us towards more specific uh towards more uh going towards

01:15:22,600	more uh achieving more um planning objective and goals and uh that’s why I have reduced this number, uh, this year, and uh this is kind of an indication that the region has made significant strides in executing their planned initiatives, um, uh, particularly in relation to these ITS components and uh the and this commitment of these of

01:15:46,070	completing these elements is really uh commendable and essential for uh any ongoing developments. Um, uh, there are some changes into these, uh, into the existing status planned status and future status of these, uh, service, uh service packages and uh on my next one, I’m going to talk a little bit uh more about it.

01:16:07,970	So this one, this identifies all those service packages which were either it was previously um mm in the 2021, um, uh, ITS architecture, um, uh, uh, planning, uh, but, uh, in, in the 2025, uh, architecture update we are going, we have removed some of them.

01:16:30,470	So starting with the PSO2, it was uh um the um part of how um ITS components have been used for emergency response and uh. we have identified several um ITS components, for example, the Bismarck Police Department, um, is recognized with its drone program, uh, that can upload video footage and the metro area ambulance has started utilizing.

01:16:54,900	a new system called Paulcera, um, that can relate critical patient information uh to their CAD. So this kind of information or this kind of ITS elements or the involvement of ITS elements have been identified within uh these uh service package. So that’s why this PS 02, which was previously identified as future has moved to existing.

01:17:16,270	Um, the next one is the PT 07. We had it as a planned, uh. service package, but uh we removed this one because uh according to the new, um, uh, definition of these service package, uh, there has to be presence of um uh uh E IS elements that can um uh that can separately identify uh a

01:17:46,100	passenger when they’re alighting on a um on a transit vehicle and uh currently we don’t have that, um, uh, application. uh, in this, in this region, so we have, uh, we kept it, uh, uh, we removed it from our, uh, list of um trans um transit service packages.

01:18:04,270	Uh, a couple more, uh, transit service packages that has been removed. Uh, one is this transit signal priority since there was no proof that we have the TSP activated in this regime and another one is the route ID for, for the visually impaired.

01:18:23,630	Again, this is one of uh one another service package, uh, which uh, whose definition has been changed over the new version of Archi 9.3 and based on that, uh, the service or the app system or whatever um uh other system that has been provided for fixed route or even dynamic route.

01:18:44,470	There is nothing specific provided for the visually impaired and uh that this one doesn’t mean that we are going beyond the ADA compliancy, the ADA compliance is over there, but this is this service package was an additional, um, uh, point of service for the visually impaired people which we haven’t seen to be um uh deployed yet in, in this region.

01:19:08,970	Um, there are, um, uh, on the traffic, uh, management side, uh, the traffic information, uh, dissemination, there were like significant improvement on that, um, uh, site, um, with the use of, uh, creating dashboard, um, by DOT as well as the ac, um, the, uh, um, AA, uh, and also the prominent use of DMS boards, uh, which are, uh, which came with more defied ownership and

01:19:31,870	shared users uh within these IS architecture update The PM 07, which is the uh regional traffic Management that was identified as a future service package, but, uh, uh, currently, um, we haven’t seen any such coordination, uh, so that’s why we are not keeping it um into these uh ITS architecture update.

01:19:57,470	Uh, however, uh, this would always be a suggestion for, uh, for any reason that, uh, any, any kind of coordinated um uh action in terms of management, uh, is, has always been proved beneficial for uh for a regime. So, um, I’m uh pretty sure that um uh associated uh stakeholders will be working towards it.

01:20:21,000	The TM08 that’s also uh it brought uh there were like significant um improvement happened on the traffic incident management system, so especially in terms of that uh and these TM08 service packages related to the PSO2, which is the um um exam, uh emergency response system. So when, uh, some improvement happens on that emergency response system.

01:20:44,630	It automatically makes the uh TM 08 more visible and uh that’s why we moved it, um, some of those information flow, we have been able to move it from the plant to the existing one.

01:21:06,370	The WX01 is one of the service packages that we, um, we thought in 2021 that it will improve uh over the or the use of um different weather data collection equipments on, uh, on the vehicles which and uh which is already there.

01:21:30,900	Uh, we’ll have those, um, uh, elevated, uh, or the use of those will be elevated in, uh, by 2025 or even 2030, uh, but nothing has been seen as of now, and it didn’t seem sound like uh there will be any future work towards it, um, so that’s why we have, uh, removed this one, as of now.

01:21:54,900	Uh, there are some additional changes, uh, for example, um, there are some service packages that I have discussed over the, um, uh, over the last 8 or 9 months and uh eventually that discussion didn’t go anywhere, so that’s why I could not include it in the ITS architecture update. One of those is the MC 09.

01:22:13,630	I, I remember even in the September update I mentioned it, uh, to this in front of this board that MC09 will go as a planned item which is the infrastructure monitoring, but, uh, when I reviewed the service package definition. I, I, mm, I identified that MC09 does not qualify as a transportation related infrastructure protection, uh, in the sense of how uh the Bismarck Maintenance Department planned to use the the camera system from our vehicle to um to check on their um uh on, on their uh garbage cans or

01:22:40,800	um uh sim or similar items. So rather what we, uh, what I did is, uh, uh, we, I have used an extensional functional requirement for the service package MC02, which will cover that specific service, and I kept it as a planned functional requirement item.

01:23:01,600	Um, there are some, um hm uh, so the another one is the Steam 285, which is the wrong way Detection Service. Uh, this was, um, uh, discussed a couple of times in in while we had the meeting with the stakeholders, uh, but these wrongly detection, I couldn’t include it um because this service package uh does not have any active

01:23:24,630	information flow that’s coming to the regional agencies or the local agencies or not even the DOT Bismart um, uh, the Bismarck district of the DOT. So it, uh, essentially goes to the, um, statewide, uh, uh go to the um NDDOD central office and uh these service package will be identified on the statewide regional architecture instead

01:23:49,370	of the only for the Bismarckmanden regional architecture. Um, they, we have also identified uh some uh couple of agreements, uh, this time one is uh very common, which is the state roads and the traffic signals located within those jurisdictions of Bismarck and Mandden.

01:24:11,230	They are owned by the DOT but are maintained by the um uh the Bismarck one is maintained by the city of Bismarck and on the Mandan side that’s actually still uh maintained by the uh by the DOT.

01:24:32,470	So for the city of Bismarck site, we have identified these partnerships into these, uh, architecture update, uh, since, uh, uh, this partnership ensures that the infrastructure is kept in good condition and benefit all the uh residents and the visitors and uh setting up uh the other one, other agreement that we have identified is the uh ATA work plan uh for the, uh, for setting up the connection with the Syntrax server and uh that’s uh uh been uh for, for

01:24:52,900	the identified intersection uh by the Bismarck Engineering department. So those are the two additional agreements you’re gonna see, uh, if you compare it, uh, with the 2021 uh 1 update. Uh, one more. item, uh, which, uh, we have, uh, identified is, uh, um. uh, the inclusion of project architecture.

01:25:16,270	So when, uh, maybe if I click into this one and this is something, uh, during the kickoff meeting, uh, we have identified that uh uh or uh uh W Hutchins, um, from DOT, he actually, um, requested, um, a way for, um, uh, um, so, so that this architecture can be easily um translate d for uh for users, uh, it

01:25:44,730	specifically in terms, uh, I mean on the level of uh on the on the project level. and that’s why we have, uh, added some, uh, project architecture and um um uh actually this is kind of connected with these agreements because, uh, identifying each of those agreements is always a big challenge, uh, for any kind

01:26:05,330	of regional architecture unless it is determined through the ITS plan or in the, at the very beginning, uh, when the architecture was developed. So therefore this project architecture which is essentially a well maintained regional architecture is really essential for pinpointing any necessary projects within the area, uh, and uh complementing these are projectture also helps to

01:26:28,370	identify any institutional agreements and technical integration that is needed for the ITS projects and uh with that I’m just going to briefly talk about, uh, this one, so this is again this is not the final version of the architecture website that you are going to see, uh, later on,

01:26:47,000	but uh this is where you can see the projects that we have identified um prior to these ITS architecture update, um, so the signal controller on Bismarck inter intersections.

01:27:10,470	So these uh project architecture this one happened when uh there was uh some work done on the intersections between 7th and 9th, uh, along, uh, different, uh, I think 5 different avenues and uh they were connecting with a video detection capability as well as they were interconnected with the fiber optic system and uh so all these uh uh were put into this project architecture and the, the main purpose of this architecture is not just to

01:27:29,630	show this information rather in future when there will be some new project, um, uh, uh, will be done, uh, our new IT projects will be done in this region. They can have a template on what, what kind of information should be over there.

01:27:49,470	So like specifically who are the stakeholders, uh, what are the inventory items you’re, uh, working on, what are the service packages you were, uh, implementing and uh also what kind of information is uh or information flow will happen from uh different sources and uh uh that’s why from uh from that point of view, um, we, uh, we’ll jump into some

01:28:10,900	suggestions for this uh for the future IS development on this region. So first of all, um, I, uh, one of my suggestion, uh, would always be to go through the teeth and uh uh identify different projects where uh we can uh identify the, uh, the projects and request the

01:28:32,100	um contractors to provide some kind of uh architecture, uh, information which can be used in the time of the next update, which might be in 5 years, 6 years, we don’t know yet.

01:28:51,330	Um, the other, uh, other one I have already talked about previously, which is the interagency data exchange and uh that uh that happened because there because of the new network security protocols and there are different for the cross agency data flows, there are, uh, significant, uh, procedural overhead, and that is all needed for the uh for the sake of, um, uh, security and protection of your of our

01:29:11,630	information. But, uh, to, this is this can also be an opportunity for us to collaborate with the uh state IT department to explore any technical solutions and uh when they will be, uh, so if we can develop a technical working group.

01:29:31,100	uh, with representatives from, uh, concert agencies and state IT, uh, IT team, uh, they can look into this architecture. They can look into the um security protocols, the standards, and the, the list of agreements which will help them to have a start point of discussion for for this uh one other suggestion that I have identified is, uh, um, in the uh MTP uh the arrive 2050.

01:29:55,970	There was a goal for forward thinking where uh specifically they use the accommodation of the EV market trends through planning efforts and development opportunities, especially promoting expansion of charging stations, so that’s something I was looking for when I was updating these one because they’re very specific service packages that could

01:30:14,370	have been included, uh, as part of this one. um, but, uh, since I haven’t seen anything or nothing have been discussed of similar uh sense, um, so I haven’t included, uh, yet, but um I’m pretty sure that with time, uh and uh with they arrived 2050, um, on, on hand, we will go towards that route.

01:30:37,530	So that’s kind of uh where uh where we’re standing right now and uh uh I am, what I’m working on currently is I’m preparing that specific feedback form that uh I, I, I was, I was actually preparing it for uh almost 15 days now, but things keep changing and uh when new information keeps

01:30:57,500	coming in. I just make changes and never have been able to um uh sort it out, but, uh, as of now I have all those uh feedback forms ready.

01:31:15,530	Now um with after this update, I am, I’ll be in process of sending those, uh, small feedback forms to all the uh stakeholders and uh this will be very specific, not the whole draft, and uh which will help them to provide any feedback and uh hopefully uh we’ll have some feedback by the first week of the December, so that I can include those in the next package for the recommendation from the board,

01:31:35,270	um, in the upcoming meeting. Uh, that’s all from my side. Uh, any comments would be appreciated. Does any of the tech have comments or questions on the draft final report for the ITS Regional architecture Gab. Uh, thank you, Sherazad, this is Gabe.

01:31:57,800	Uh, thank you all for, for us hearing, hearing me out on the security-related things and the coordination of of ITS elements related to our IT in the state’s IT. I think that’s, it’s good that we recognize those challenges and good that we try to recognize some opportunities to improve that as well, so I appreciate your efforts in that, um, location.

01:32:12,970	Maybe my question is then for Kim, are you looking for comments? Are you looking to adopt this now? This wasn’t an action item on the agenda, but as I’m looking through the document that was posted, there’s some, you know, clerical minor type things that I’d like to just update if if we have the opportunity to do so still.

01:32:23,430	Sure, thanks for the question, uh, Gabe, this is a draft final report right now. um, She Judd did indicate that he is developing a form that he’ll be sending out to all the stakeholders for um a little bit of additional information and final comments, uh, those comments then would be incorporated into the final

01:32:42,530	draft report. So Sherri Judd, is there any additional means that you would like to receive comments, or is that form that you’re going to be sending out, uh, will that be all inclusive so that stakeholders can put everything on that and you can receive that for incorporation into the final product or how

01:33:00,730	are you looking at this? So it will be all, all inclusive. So in a sense like let me give you an example, like City of Bismarck will not see any of the elements for City of Mandan.

01:33:17,730	So they will only look into the specific information that is uh required for them and uh based on that, they will provide some feedback if they have any, again, um, these all these are made uh based on the, uh, discussion that we had, uh, you know, our, um, stakehold during our stakeholders meeting, either it, it’s a group meeting scenario or it’s an individual meeting. So yes, it would be an all inclusive one.

01:33:38,000	OK, thanks, and there would be, there would be a, like a field on this form where they can put in any optional comments regarding anything else that they’ve seen on the report that they just want to comment on or typos or anything like that.

01:33:57,270	Yes, yes, so like they will see um like different areas and after um after the description of those areas, there will be a small box where they’re just going to type down if they have any comment, if nothing, they can just say no comment. OK, great. Any other questions Comments? All right. Thank you, Sherry Jad. Appreciate it.

01:34:15,530	We’ll be looking forward to that final report next month and to bring before the attack and Policy board. Uh item number 11 is the Fringerry Road master plan update, Steven. Thank you, Chair. A very brief, uh, today we just had our kickoff meeting for the project on October 27th and then our first steering committee meeting, uh, for the Fringeer Roadmaster plan was on November 13th.

01:34:38,500	We had very good participation in discussion. So when the consultant and I will be working on processing the, the results of that, uh, that discussion and incorporating that into uh our next steps over the next month, we’ll be working on starting our data collection, preparing for our first major public engagement event, which we are still hoping to hold in

01:34:59,730	early December, and then we will be finalizing a couple of important mapping tools we will be using to to collect information from the steering committee, our jurisdictions, and the public. So we are excited to get this underway and uh there will be more substantial updates in coming months. Great, thank you.

01:35:17,630	Any questions for Steven on the Fringerry Roadmaster plan? Not hearing or seeing any. All right, we’ll move on to the next item, which is a discussion on the administrative modifications process, Steven.

01:35:37,800	So again, I’ll try to keep this, uh, brief, but on a regular basis, the MPO has to make changes to our major documents, so unified planning work program, the MTP or the most often the tip, um, so our public participation plan lays out a specific process for handling these changes. If changes made are substantial and meet the thresholds provided in the PPP. They are processed as amendments which have to be approved and advertised accordingly.

01:35:57,500	If changes are minor and fall below the amendment threshold, they are processed administratively as modifications. So these minor changes are then normally presented to the TTA and Policy board as an informational presentation, but there’s never any action required of you.

01:36:19,870	on those modifications, uh, after some recent discussion about the process at TAC, the MPO would like to suggest that in future we provide you official notice of administrative modifications on the meeting agendas and in the packets but no longer include them as a presentation at the meetings to save time. Uh, board members could always question or comment on these modifications at the meetings if desired.

01:36:40,700	but normally they would simply be included in the agendas and packets as again I called out as informational items. We wouldn’t need to change our public participation plan in order to do this as long as we are providing notice, uh, it doesn’t matter what format that notice is in.

01:36:56,630	But we did want to bring this to the boards in case you had any questions or concerns before we move forward with this. This is in response to a discussion that came up last month at the TA meeting and so we’re wondering if there’s any thoughts on this at this point.

01:37:13,330	Um, one thought I have is I know a lot of the MPOs and I believe the, uh, Bismarck does as well. You hold back sending your administrative modifications, those, those that don’t require board approval until after the board has been notified, would that still be the case for you guys, or would you in most cases it would be.

01:37:28,100	That’s just usually the way the workflow kind of works best for us. There are rare occasions where if DOT is really in a hurry to see something changed, we have sent it beforehand, but yeah, most of the time it would still be coordinated that way. Perfect.

01:37:42,630	And then the one thing I’ll know is when you do update your PPP, I think in the past there was, uh, there are 3 versions of A’s being used or sometimes amendment was being used to describe an administrative modification and amendment, um, the, the language and CFRs for specifically for tips only is a tip revision, uh, and then underneath that it’s like an umbrella, which there’s in

01:38:02,270	amendments and administrative mods. Unfortunately, they didn’t make it the same for UPWPs for some reason, so. Thanks for that comment. Well, um, the MPO staff will actually be looking at updating our PPP and so I think that we can uh address that terminology at that time, so good thing to keep in mind.

01:38:19,900	Any other comments, Gabe Yeah, I’m fully supportive of this, this change. I think it is important though to still communicate that out because I think a lot of times the DOT might be communicating with the MPO with the expectation that the MPO is communicating to the, the local agency, um, so we

01:38:34,900	might not find out that that project moved out a year or is getting advanced somewhere if that wasn’t transmitted through the MPO, um, so I would definitely encourage that to still be done, uh, but yeah, we don’t need to spend a lot of time at the meeting, so sounds great to me.

01:38:48,730	I hear that that happens because that’s the purpose of it and then I, I’ve always wondered whether or not that’s how you guys even know this or not, so and that was our thought is that we would still include that exhibit, that administrative modification exhibit in the packet.

01:39:02,600	It would still be listed as an item on the agenda, but it’s an informational only type item with no presentation unless um attacker policy board member would want to call that forward for consideration and discussion. And if that seems agreeable to everybody, that’s the um that that’s the path that we would like to move forward on. Hearing no objection. All right.

01:39:29,870	No, no, I don’t think we want to do that. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, Will. Um, next item on the agenda is an update on the transit development plan RFP that was presented last month, Paulette Jacobson.

01:39:53,000	Thank you, Chair Ripple Last month, the tac had recommended approval with some noted changes of the requests for proposals or the RFP for the transit Development Plan or TDP. and the policy board, however, has decided to delay the RFP for at least 3 months due to the timing of it and everything that’s going on with Bizan Transit and their plans regarding the driver’s salary increase, the um service hours extension, and possible what could result.

01:40:16,330	from the sales tax ini initiative that’s going on. And they just want to see all these uh upcoming changes implemented. before we go forward with the study. So the delay would allow Bismarck, Mandan, and the community’s time for further discussion and identify how the TDP study should be focused from that point.

01:40:36,070	And if there’s anything else Dieter would like to add to that or any questions? We’ll visit it again in January with the policy board.

01:40:58,000	Anybody have any questions on the update for the EDP RFP Uh, Kim, what does this have? what impact does this have on your budget for 2026, um, knowing that we had programmed work for funds that were only dedicated in 2025, and now you’re not going to have that work happening in 2025. That means you got to do something in 2026 to adjust for that. Is that correct? Yes and no. Thank you, Will, for the question.

01:41:13,600	Um, so the motion by the policy board was to delay it for 3 months. We’re hoping that in 3 months, in January of 26 that we can bring the same RFP back to the policy board for their approval, and you know, if we can get that off of the ground and get the consultant selection underway immediately.

01:41:35,530	There is such a way of kind of um loading the study with the public engagement kind of on the front end and still expending those funds in a timely manner where we may not have to do a budget revision to our UPWP.

01:41:54,630	It would remain to be seen what action the policy board actually takes in January when we bring that RFP back if they have concern s with any of the um the scope of work, uh, specifically in regards to the sales tax initiative because that was their their concern this time around.

01:42:13,270	If we have to make any changes to the RFP that would cause a further delay, and then, yes, obviously we would have to um take that into consideration and we would have to propose a UPWP amendment, um for budget and schedule and follow up to remind me that this study pushing the 2027. Yes, it does. OK, so you delay from not doing it in 2025, which is gonna get pushed into the 2027 and use funds from later years. Correct, yes.

01:42:31,330	All right, thank you. Anything else on the TDP? OK. Thank you, Paulette. Appreciate that. Uh, Tracey has a 2026 meeting calendar for tech and Policy board to present. I think we’ve got all our dates worked out. OK. Thank you.

01:43:26,900	Um, on the last page of your packet is the 2026 MPO calendar of meetings. Um, the tacac meetings are held. on Mondays at 10:00 a.m. in Bismarck from January through June and in Mandan from July to December, and the policy board meetings are held on Tuesdays at 1:30 in Bismarck, um, from January to June, and in Mandan from July to December, with the

01:43:50,370	exception of January and February, um, they will both be held on Tuesdays due to holidays, um, January is for Martin Luther King and February is for President’s Day. They’ll both be held on Tuesday, um, January will be the 20th, February will be the 17th.

01:44:10,170	tac will be in the morning at 10, and policy board will be in the afternoon at 1:30. All other meetings from March through December will be held at their regular day and time. Does the board have any questions? Not seeing or hearing any Thank you, Tracy Uh, item number 15, the government partner program membership renewal update, um, the Big Sky passenger rail

01:44:35,900	Authority government partner program membership is designed to assist communities along or adjacent to new passenger rail service routes with planning activities so that they can maximize benefits and address challenges presented by new passenger rail service to an area, um, the, the BSPRA government partner program membership has a term of one

01:44:57,600	year. It begins from the time that the membership fee is received and then it expires 12 minutes, 12 months from that date. This membership does not automatically renew.

01:45:18,730	The memorandum of agreement for the GPP membership between the MPO and the five paying participating jurisdictions was signed last December after approvals were received from each of the jurisdictions governing bodies because the MOA follows the term of the membership and the membership does not auto renew. Jurisdictions were told at that time that they would be given the option to consider renewal again this year.

01:45:37,730	The annual membership fee for 2026 remained static at $6000 and this was included in the BismarckMandan MPO’s 2026 UPWP work program and budget, which was presented in detail in July as a draft and approved by policy board in August this summer.

01:46:01,170	There were no objections to the inclusion of this $6000 membership fee or to its jurisdictional match amounts Now, if any jurisdiction requires approval of the 2026 membership through its governing body. This would actually be the time for the principal representative of the jurisdiction to request that approval prior to years’s end.

01:46:22,700	The MPO will verify which jurisdictions are participating in order to develop the MOA for 2026, and it would be our intention that we would have assigned MOA by the, um, prior to the end of the year so that we could begin our January 1 membership, um, right away. Um, the principal representatives of each jurisdiction have been identified by each jurisdiction. uh, and so I will be in communication with them, uh.

01:46:45,000	So after this meeting just to find out what the intent of each is and whether they need to take you know, uh, take this to their governing bodies or not.

01:47:04,800	So we, we should have a, a final MOA, um, with participating amounts, um, for this board to look at in December, but as a reminder what we were functioning off of this year, uh, $6000 membership is paid, uh, primarily by the MPO with $1200 being split, $720 by the city of Bismarck, Mandan pays $240. Burley County $180. Martin and Lincoln, each paying 30, so.

01:47:30,530	are there any questions right now? This is, um, pretty preliminary, but I wanted to kind of get it out there. Yeah OK, great. Um, this may be our last month for roadway Pro updates, um. why don’t we just start at the, well, do we still have Dan Trio on the line. Yeah, I’m here. We don’t have any updates this time. All done.

01:47:48,470	OK, great. Thanks, Dan. Uh, how about Riley? Anything in Mountdown? Everything’s just getting kind of wrapped up for winter shutdown. I would say Memorial Highway’s uh getting there. I don’t think it’s completely ready for winter shutdown, but it should be ready soon. Alright, thanks.

01:48:05,000	How about Logan? What’s going on with district? Yeah, they’re doing, um uh, exit 161, concrete pavement is done for this year. and gutter’s done. Most of the striping’s in. They have a little bit of crosswalk and arrows to put in for striping. Um it’s time to switch traffic on the 20th for the new orientation.

01:48:23,100	we um interchange that they built That’ll be done, I think at that night, I think, so it’ll it’ll be like he said Memorial Highway is kind of narrowing down here. All the concrete is down. They planned for, uh, a traffic switch midweek. Um, and have a little bit of concrete left on the, on the slip ramp at 194.

01:48:45,000	And then the interstatees, um, should be fully open today. OK. Great. Thank you Gabe, uh, do you have anything for the City of Bismarck for us? Sure, our Century Avenue project reconstruction and extension east of Centennial Road is substantially complete and open for traffic at this point in time.

01:49:06,170	So we’ll see some miscellaneous work next year, um, final landscaping and some seeding potentially, uh, but for the all intents and purposes of the project’s complete. All right, thank you. I don’t know if we still have Loretta on the line.

01:49:32,600	Anything for City City of Lincoln, um, any project work that we were involved in is wrapping up for the um winter season. um other than that, I don’t have any updates for the group. OK, well, thank you. Thank you OK, um, that brings us to other business. Is there any other business at any one would like to bring forward. Gabe.

01:49:56,630	Sure, I just, uh, notification, we’ll have a public input meeting tomorrow, uh, at our public works building from 6 to 8 p.m. to talk about a proposal to create a street utility, uh that would replace street maintenance special assessments in our community, um, so we’ll get out, talk to the public, see what sort of um input they would want to to provide.

01:50:14,900	We will have some information on our website at Bismarckndde.gov/streets. That’ll include a story map that kind of has the same information that we’ll have at our public meeting as well as an open survey for a couple of weeks, uh, after the meeting.

01:50:31,870	They’ll go through December, I think 6th is when we’ll close that or December 7th, um, that we’ll try to tabulate what information we can get from, from the public. So I encourage you to look into it. It’s not federally funded. It’s just how do we fund our, our local street improvement type projects. Great. Thank you, Gabe.

01:50:46,230	Anything else for the good of the order? Oh, well, that concludes our meeting then for November 17th, and we will Adjourn. Thank you all for attending. Have a great