thank you all for your continued support and engagement in the ITS architecture update initiative. I’m really happy to hear that we have submitted the final report, um, in front of this committee pro, uh, and, uh, uh, we want to, uh, we are here today to for the approval of that uh final report. So, uh, these were the updated task. that uh we had planned in the beginning of the of this project and uh uh we have completed all of these steps as of now. Um, uh, uh, if you remember in the kickoff meeting, I, I mentioned that uh all of our works would be based on the service packages because uh when you collect the data for the ITS architecture update and to make this process organized and aligned with the national architecture guidelines. We use this idea of service packages which, which identifies the each service, uh services provided currently or will be provided in the future, uh, and this component within the service package. So this was the first requirement for this update, uh, procedure which we, which is discussed in chapter 5 of this report. Uh, the broader service areas were identified initially to determine the uh stakeholders who serve as primary point of contact for information regarding the services and uh related uh intelligent transportation system elements and those elements are discussed in Chapter 3, or the stakeholder are chapter discussed in chapter 3, whereas the ITS elements were discussed in Chapter 4. Um, uh, additionally, uh, there are, um, cert other certain other uh items which are uh discussed in the report are the scoping her where we discussed the region, the service boundary, and the timeline of these architecture, uh, chapter 6, we discussed, um, on the operational concept or which is the uh roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders. We identified different agreements among the stakeholders to provide services in Chapter 7, chapter 9, or chapter 8 talks about, uh, different functional, uh, requirements which assigned for every element and stakeholders and the, the functional requirements is also um uh it broadly like the full a full list of functional requirements are found, can be found in Appendix B. The IT St standards, which is uh part of the communication, uh, standards mainly are, uh, identified in chapter 9 and uh also the uh there is one more appendix section, Appendix A, which shows the uh interface requirements and uh information exchange, uh, or information flow, uh, for each service packages. So, uh, after the, um, uh, after this update, this is the final overview on the BismarckManan regional architecture. So the number of stakeholders, uh, obviously, uh, it, uh, uh, increased from 24 to 28, uh, we have the similar number of, uh, service areas. Uh, currently we have total 26 service packages, uh, which are, uh, in progress. It will be 28 if we include the instances, so that’s what you were, uh, seeing on this list and out of these, uh, 26, there are total 24 at the existing status and there are two in future status, so we can align it with the um states, regional architecture, and obviously that service packaging stands there are, uh, one service package instance for, uh, I mean, there’s one service package which use the instance component and their total 2 service packages under that. So, um, uh, at the beginning of these, uh, uh, of this project, uh, we had some recommendation from the, from this committee, uh, specifically, uh, Mr. Schell, um, and guided us to have the inclusion of the technical stakeholders, uh, in, uh, from, uh from the IT department as well as uh from the NDDOT Bismarck district, and we have included, uh, both of them, uh, in these, um, in these architec ture update, uh, we have addressed some, uh, some of the communication standards. I want to give a, uh, thanks to the Bismarck Engineering, um, uh, traffic, uh, not traffic engineer. Gre soldier, uh, he, uh, helped us with some of the communication standards especially especially with the uh traffic signal control, um, and, uh, so, uh, the architecture currently identify and extensively explain the communication standards for all the services, so it is, uh, very much ready to address any of the cybersecurity issues and especially for those third party owned equipment that has been used in this region for which the data is posted in the cloud, the standard communication, uh, were identified within the architecture. Um, uh, we had some other, uh, recommendation from this committee, um, um, from the NDUOT side about the uh about uh how we can uh connect these architecture with the planning goals and objectives, uh, at the same time, um, uh, they want to understand or they, they want to include the suggestions on new activities that are needed on the municipality level, uh, there was another suggestion, uh, on how we can use these architecture, um, when we are talking about specific ITS projects in future. So, uh, to address those we have made some addition to the reports and uh and that covers in chapter 10. 1 is the planning aspect. So the planning aspect, uh, we, it, it’s not something new. We had it, uh, the last time too. But this time for every goals and objective that has been identified in the Arrive 2050. We have included the performance metrics for those objectives within these, um, within these ITS architecture report, um, similarly, we have included the project architecture in Chapter 11, which is, which would be a, um, guideline for, uh, for, for any future consultants or contractors to use these architecture on on any smaller, um, uh, project level, uh, ITS work. and then finally in chapter 12, we included some, uh, remarks and suggestions, uh, for, uh, future improvement, which uh, which also includes that, uh, um, the group, uh, creation and creation of a, uh, IT, uh, discussion group, uh, among, uh, among the stakeholders within this region. Uh, uh, after our last, uh, update, we had, uh, send out some online feedback system, so, uh, uh, we have set up an online feedback system where we send out, uh, some survey, and again I want to thank all the stakeholders who reached, uh, reached out to us with some, uh, with the feedback, uh, here you can see the feedback percentage, uh, we’re, uh, a little bit low on the emergency and the maintenance side, but uh if you, uh, the, the total number of emergency um. uh, stakeholder was 19, out of which we got, uh, 6 responses, uh, but, uh, those who responded, they mainly talked about the functional requirements and the user needs for uh the uh where we need to meet some update. for the maintenance part, uh, we had, um, uh, 33% feedback and uh they also identified some of the functional requirements where we need to adjust, uh, those requirements as well as the user needs, uh, the traffic one, that, uh, we have, um, you know, feedback from both NDOT and the Bismarck side, and, uh, since the Mandan side uh is mainly spe specifically when it comes to ITS elements, uh, all those, most of the uh, Mun side ITS elements are um a maintained or uh used by the uh sorry uh maintained by the uh NDDOT. So that’s why, um, the 67% is actually a very much acceptable number, I believe, and uh there were some um uh feedback on the uh ITS elements, uh, the stakeholders who were involved in agreements and the rules and responsibilities and all those feedback has been taken into account and included in these final report, and, uh, uh, for the transit we have only one, transit stakeholder, so we have the 100% feedback uh, but there was some specific feedback on the automatic passenger counting and the, um, no automation on the maintenance system and uh we have addressed all those, uh, within these, uh, final report to. Uh, the next step from here is, uh, uh, if this committee approved this final report, we will, uh, the, the Reddit data set or the uh Ranit software where we, uh, maintain these architecture, we’ll automatically be approved and I’ll be able to, um, publish that one and uh with that uh with the um same uh, I mean, at the same time, I will be able to clear uh uh update these websites, so this is just an example that I have or the draft that I have prepared, uh, on the side. So, um, this, uh, website will be dependent on the approval of these ideas, uh, final report. And if there is any, uh, suggestions that need to be included, we can easily, uh, make those inclusion within this website as well as within the report. So, um, with that, uh, that was my brief, um, uh, discussion about the, uh, final report, um, if there’s any question, I’ll be happy to, um, answer that. Thank you for providing that nice overview. Sherri Jad, are there any questions for Sherry Jad regarding the ITS Regional architecture update itself or the final report for the project. No questions, OK. Um, Stafoo, uh, be looking for a motion to recommend approval of the final report for the Intelligent Transportation Services, Regional architecture update. Would there be such a motion This is Gabe, so moved I have a first from Gabe. Is there a second? This is Deidre’s 2. Deidre’s 2nd. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please Dan Treo Yes. Deidre Hughes? Yes, Gabe Schell? Loretta Marshachk? Yes Riley McAdoo Raisler Yes. Logan Bey? Yes, Mitch Flanagan. Yes. Will Hutchings and Charippel, yes, motion passes. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the 2025 Safety Policy study, uh, this is a, a final report, uh, tool kit and adoption of the leadership commitment resolution. I believe that we have Luke Chaampa with SRF on the line with us. Thanks, Char Ripple. Can you hear me all right? Yes, we can. All right, I’m gonna share my screen here. so I can hit the button. Are you seeing the presentation? Yes. Great All right, well, uh good morning everyone. I’ll dive right in. to the presentation here. I just want to give some acknowledgments, dive into the final report. and then provide an overview of uh next steps or discussions Um. I’d like to acknowledge those that were involved in our uh schedule here. Um, we started this late last year, and it’s hard to believe we’re at the very end. It wouldn’t be possible without our dedicated steering committee members. I want to give a big thank you to everyone listed here who helped and stayed in in tune with this with this study and provided really great direction throughout to get us to this point. from the consultant team led by yours truly. We also partnered with emergent Strategies Group. I believe Jolene is in the room as well as Scott. I can’t see them, but I believe they’re there amongst some other technical professionals from SRF. Dive into the final report. Um, there are 8 chapters. Chapter 1 presents the introduction of the study and background on the study provides some background information on why the safety policy study, including national and statewide safety trends, it presents the modern or updated approach to traffic safety, the safe system approach, and also presents the SS-4A program or the Safe Streets and Roads for All program as well as how this study opens that door to future funding through that program. Chapter 2 is an overview of multimodal transportation safety in the region. It summarizes a historical crash trend which is tied directly to Appendix A, which is the technical memorandum. of that trend summary, and then chapter 2 also outlines the study’s vision and goals for the region. Uh, the uh trend summary analyzes crash data from a five-year period, 2020 through 2024, and it includes a breakout by mode, including transit and railroad. incidents. Some of the things that stuck out include, you know, the proportion of severe outcome was a lot higher for motorcycle involved crashes. Pedestrian involved crashes and cyclists involved crashes. For example, 27% of motorcycle crashes in the BismarckMandan region resulted in a fatality or a life changing injury. Those vulnerable users they crashes peaked in 2021 alongside vehicular crashes. Um, however, you know, crashes have come down after 2021, but on the table on the right you can see that that proportion of crashes involving those vulnerable modes, those three modes appears to remain or or is growing actually. Um. at 3.7%, which is somewhat concerning. Uh, we saw an interesting seasonality component Summer and fall seasons, um, are overrepresented with their severe crash outcome based on percent, you know, the percentage of annual travel and actually percent total of crashes, uh, winter had the least amount of severe outcome, which is interesting given sort of the public perception that we heard about regarding, you know, seasonality of crashes and when people have a perception of danger on regional roads. Um, I do want to highlight too, it’s important to note that um although crashes are concentrated in the urbanized area of uh the Metropolitan planning area, um, county and township roads, those rural roads have, have a higher percent um uh fatal and uh life-changing injury, uh, crash outcome. almost double, sometimes triple of what, what you’d see on state and. municipal routes We also compared uh the MPA’s performance with the crash emphasis areas. These are recorded in all crash records in the state. They’re established by North Dakota’s Vision Zero, and you can see the categories listed here. So we presented the MPA’s performance over the five year period as well as the uh performance as listed in, in, in uh the Vision Zero plan to compare, you know, to the statewide trends that that we’re seeing. Chapter 2 also lays out the vision and goal. you know, the vision being uh, a vision zero traffic related deaths and life changing injuries on streets within the Bismarck-Mandan region, and then the goal was set at a 50% reduction in annual fatal and life changing injury crashes by 2050 or 35 of those severe crashes or fewer by 2050. Chapter 3, provides an overview of the state of practice, so it, it uh lists and summarizes the solid foundation for the region around traffic safety, the good work that you, you all have been working on to date, including state and then local or regional. plans and policies. This chapter also identifies policy and process changes, things that are new or different as set by this study, including the establishment of a vision Zero, identifying a high injury network in the region and then aligning with the USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy NRSS and safe system approach SSA, um, those are all new. or updated things for the region. For Chapter 4, I’m going to kick it over to Jolene, um, as long as Jolene’s in the room, I’d like, um, Jolene, if you can present these slides and then just let me know when I need to advance, please. Sure Hi, I’m Jolene Reek with the Emergent Strategies Group, um, worked with SRF and um Scott here on this project. I was responsible for the public engagement activities. Uh, we had a lot of, according to the MPO’s public participation plans which we followed. We had quite a few different types of ways to engage with the public. The community conversations just want to give a shout out to the uh man Mandan uh Progress Organization who allowed us to have a pop-up booth at their Touch a Truck event. And then we also on the Bismarck side, um, had a booth at the Earth Day celebration event. And I think these are really great events. We were able to get a broad, um, demographic cross section not only of uh the local MPO residents. We had a broad demographic of age. We had people who were visitors to our community, um, be able to participate in this. So that was really great. Um, they were able to tell us their concerns, not only in the Y, but also in the where. We had um facilitated focus group discussions, first responders, active transportation advocates, um, really had some really rich information on how um they saw that safety was being addressed or concerned in our, in our area. stakeholder interviews, um, representatives from the freight industry, um, gave us some really good insights. I really feel that the freight industry, uh, where our trailblazers in helping idea of driver behavior and safety within the confines of a vehicle. And we also had uh interviews with the OHB uh state program manager and then we had, um, youth perspective surveys. We tried really hard to get into the schools to do a focus group face to face with different students. Um, unfortunately we were unable to do that, but we did get some good feedback from the online surveys, um, that gave us a real good youth perspective. Go ahead next So the key findings and outcomes from this, um, first and foremost, distracted driving. It came up in almost every single conversation that we had, um, oh to even to the point where we had law enforcement say they pull up next to someone in their vehicle at a stoplight on their phone and they’d honk the Horn and get the person’s attention and they kind of look at them and then go back to all, they’d honk the Horn again and be like, hey, you know, put your phone down Um, that was first and foremost, uh, certain intersections people had concerns about the way they were designed. The public perception versus the intersection safety is something that always needs to be reconciled from an engineering standpoint. Um, there may be an intersection that might feel the design might feel inconvenient to drivers, but then when you look at it from a safety perspective. does the intersection design work to reduce, uh, fatalities and serious crashes. And if the answer is yes, then that inconvenience may not weigh as much on the other side. Uh, transit systems, we asked a few people about their transit. Most, uh, people felt that that was good. There’s some aspects of safety, um, particularly around, uh, females, you know, getting off sick feeling like they’re being followed or watched or things like that, um, just making sure that we have good transit, uh, safety and lighting, and of course access to those transit for those who do not have any other modes of transportation. Go ahead, Luke Uh, the off-highway vehicle and micromobility, so micromobility is things like the e-scooters and things like that. These are rapidly changing, um, technologies, our OHB statutes are written primarily when we had ATVs, um, since then, it’s grown from golf carts are becoming a big thing, uh, side by sides, we talked about potential legislative, uh, partnerships. Maybe there’s some things that need to change in the state code in the micromobility issues, um, there is emerging best practices starting to show now that these have been in place and a lot of communities for about 5 to 10 years now. Um, so there’s some best practices that we can get on that. Seasonal conditions and maintenance, actually the perception on this was actually really well. They felt like the community’s do a nice job, um, within their means to be able to get roads and trails cleared for those users and I think the biggest thing that came out of um our key findings is collaboration on education and encouragement. People seem to have a lot of questions about um what happens when they get into a road rage, uh, scenario or things like that. And then partnering with the schools, I think was a big key thing that can come out of that, um, for the opportunity that might be able to come forward. And of course, once we start to educate better, our younger generation, they become our middle aged and older drivers and then help pass that along to the others. Thanks, Charlene I’ll keep things moving here. Um, chapter 5 presents the data analysis, uh, focused more on the methodology and introduction of the high entry network. Um, this is tied directly to Appendix D, the High Injury Network methodology memo, which is a technical memo. Um, the high injury network is um a, a focused subset of the Bismarck Mandan MPO’s street system that identifies streets where a high number of severe crash concentrations have occurred, and I should note that this is a corridor approach. So for example, the high injury network may identify a 1 mile length of roadway. However, crashes may be concentrated at one particular location within that that that mile, but it, but it does present a more holistic identification of corridors across the region. Real quickly, I want to note that for all the all mode hate HIN or high entry network it identified 99% of the streets in the metropolitan planning area, which account for nearly 74% of all fatal and incapacitating injury crashes. So it really focuses on that severe, the severe crash locations. It’s more than just a heat map shown on the left hand side of severe crashes on the right hand side. You can start to see the corridors that are sticking out in in the region. Uh, chapter 6 dives into the high injury network results, specifically into the modal results, including a pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, or, or passenger vehicle, high entry network, and then an all mode high entry network, and this chapter is tied directly to the high entry network one pagers, which I’ll describe in just a moment. Um, an example of how this looks in Chapter 6. This is the motorcycle high injury network which uses a map and a table to identify the specific corridor locations and then it highlights the top, the top scoring or the most the corridors with the most severe concentration of crashes. In this case it’s those bold in the table and highlighted with a red label in the map using these top scoring locations, we we assembled a motorcycle, high injury network profile which describes the characteristic of the streets that where these are occurring as well as the type of crashes, and you can see the information from those top scoring motorcycle corridors. We have the characteristics of the street listed out as well as the characteristics of the crashes themselves. And this is accompanied by Appendix E, High Entry Network 1 pagers, which takes those top scoring corridor locations by by mode. So on the left hand side you’ll see a motorcycle, a high injury network, one pager for Main Ave on the right hand side you’ll see an all mode high entry network, one pager for Bismarck Expressway. This provides more detail of the corridor location map as well as the contributing crashes and where those occurred along the corridor. It provides the key characteristics of the corridor and then a narrative, a two paragraph narrative describing the crashes, the severity, uh, as well as, um, the location, um, and description of the, of the corridor. Chapter 7 presents the safety strategies and tool kit focused on engineering and non-engineering strategies, and this is tied directly to Appendix F, which is the safety strategy’s tool kit. We identify the priority engineering strategies based on Chapter 2, Safety analysis, as well as Chapter 6, the High Injury Network, results. So for example, we identify some specific priority strategies for um vulnerable road users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists. We also identify strategies for intersections, speeding related um crashes, single vehicle runoff road and impaired driving. and then there is a robust table for uh there’s two tables in this chapter actually one for rural safety countermeasures and one for urban safety countermeasures, which includes an estimate of cost estimated effectiveness, or expected crash reduction, and then we also have categorized countermeasures with their safe system hierarchy tier shown on the left hand side, the 44 tiers are shown. Uh, Jolene, you want to present this, um, non-engineering strategies slide. Yes, thank you, Luke. Uh, so for non-engineering, um, the first thing I think that came out of this was the education and awareness. So partnering with the schools came out as probably your lowest hanging fruit, um, to be able to get in there with law enforcement, uh, the freight industry has a great program that the BismarckMandan Lincoln Schools have not yet adopted, uh, community collaboration. So this is, these are always the things that are probably part of your, you know, up in the upper right hand corner of your desk that you would love to get to, but you’re busy, you know, with the typical stuff of your day, um, and it’s tough to really enforce behavioral change, right? We’re talking about social strategies, education, and outreach strategies that really have to work through to get, um, people pulled together Some of the other small things that you can do is, um, emergency services coordination, just taking a look at how the reports are written. I get some consistent data that comes through across in the reports and then policy and changes. So there might be some things that you can do at a partner in the next legislative session, as I mentioned before, um, to really, you know, get things more modernized and with the things that are moving together. And so we have those in that particular chapter. Thanks, Jolene. There’s other multimodal strategies included as well, uh, including transit-specific and then railroad at grade crossing specific strategies listed in, in Chapter 7. and this is a company that as mentioned by Appendix F, the safety strategy Toolkit, uh, which allows local jurisdictions and, and people who are curious to start filtering these strategies and I will share an example of how that works. So on the right hand side, what is the street cross section, and I’m going to select urban which would be curb and gutter underground utilities and urban land use densities, then we can select by what is the urban location typology. In this case I’m interested in non-intersection or like a mid-block segment strategy which takes me to the right hand page of the full table of urban segment strategies, and from here I can, I can start to click on a specific strategies to learn more, or I can apply some more filters. So in this case I will filter by vehicle speed, um, because I’m concerned with speeding at this mid-block location that will take me to the urban segment strategies filtered by the vehicle speed hierarchy, I can apply an additional filter, for example, uh this is a local, uh, a local neighborhood street, and so I’m going to select low classification, which filters the list even further, and from here I’m going to uh explore horizon tal chicane so each strategy in the in the tool kit has a dedicated page which provides an image of what that strategy looks like an estimate of cost. It lists the purpose as well as additional considerations. Uh, that’s tailored more for um uh Bismarck Mandan region and locals. In this case, horizontal chicanes should not, you know, they should only be considered on a local or collector roadway and are considered a traffic calming strategy. We also list the effectiveness, so it looks like a 29% reduction in of all crash severities and types, and then the the safe system roadway design hierarchy tier is also listed again on the page. and every urban and rural strategy has dedicated page through that tool kit. Chapter 8, is the final chapter, uh, implementation and Road to zero and in here we identify prioritize locations, for example, this is the pedestrian prioritized locations which overlays the high injury network with NDDOT’s high crash locations. It also includes some additional criteria that you wouldn’t find in the passenger or automobile passenger vehicle or automobile table like uh does the route connect to a trail? Does the route, um, connect to a transit route. Is there a public comment? Those things are scored and can be used by the NPO and local jurisdictions to begin prioritizing where, where to start, so to speak. Uh, we’ve also included uh prioritized implementation actions which include infrastructure actions, behavioral actions, growing safety culture within the Bismarck Mandan Metropolitan Planning Organization itself, and then also listing potential, finding opportunities. Table 23 lists those NPOspecific cultural actions, you know, starting with adopting the study and formally committing to vision Zero and goal, um, and, and continuing on, you know, tracking the goal through current processes which I’ll discuss a long term vision would be to establish a specific regional traffic safety or multimodal traffic safety sub subcommittee, you know, something outside of tech that we’re where people could work on on the recommendations of the safety policy study, but really we’ve built this so that the MBO can can include tracking and evaluation of this Vision Zero and the goal of the study through current processes, including the performance measure 1 safety requirements of the MPO and the state, which the NPO does annually as well as the monitoring report, which will be updated annually, and the, the last thing there uh is a bolded list of things that the NPO. Intac can can track to evaluate progress being made towards this ambitious ambitious vision. Implications of the study on the left hand column here is the SS4A eligibility component. These are the seven components required for eligibility to pursue future funding, and we’ve listed out the applicable safety policy study sections or chapters that apply to those. The only outstanding thing is the leadership commitment and goal setting, which is formal resolution of adoption of that Vision Zero, and just to reiterate, it’s a planning tool similar to the performance measures set, set by the state. It’s a planning tool used to track and evaluate traffic safety in the region. There are no listed repercussions for not meeting the goal, and it really is something that is intended to keep us thinking about and tracking safety in the in the MPA. The high injury network is referenced in implementation Grant submittals. However, it’s not a requirement. It’s um I’m assuming uh at the federal level, more of a a competitive type of question, um, about the high entry network and then the toolkit which guides decision making and project selections for implementation. So we have not through this study identified specific projects for specific locations. However, we have provided the tools necessary for local jurisdictions and the NPO to start making decisions and prioritizing specific locations and projects in the region. and with that I will be quiet now and open it up for uh any discussion Chair Ripple, I have listed as well today’s potential actions by tac on the on the screen. All right, well, thank you, Luke. Thank you, Jolene for um an excellent and um comprehensive overview of that report and also thank you Luke for the demonstration on the safety countermeasures tool kit, um, that will be a, a very user-friendly and, um, easily utilized tool, uh, by our jurisdictions. Right now, uh, we’d be willing to stand for any questions regarding the study itself or the final report as presented by Luke and Jolene Gabe, uh, thanks, Chair. Uh, not so much a, a question, but just a comment, just the, uh, it’s a unique study in the sense of trying to capture both um hard infrastructure components as well as what can we do in, in policy to help improve safety in our community, so I think it’s a it’s an important study and I appreciate the efforts and the, the approach, uh, that the consultant team took to get us to this point. Thank you, Gabe Thank you Any other questions or comments? All right, if not at this time, uh, staff would recommend and, uh, be looking for a motion to approve the final report of the 2025 Safety Policy Study. Wishes of the board Mrs. Gabebo had moved to approve the study as well as what was the second motion on there, Ken, the recommendation to accept the to recommend adoption of the leadership commitment resolution. Did you want to combine those into one motion? I guess I I would unless there is a particular reason to separate them, but I, I think that’s perfectly appropriate to approve both at the same time. right Thank you, Gabe. We do have a motion to approve the final report for the safety policy study, as well as recommend adoption of the leadership commitment resolution. Is there a second? I would second that. This is Loretta. Thank you Any discussion If not, roll call vote, please. Dan Treo Yes. Deidre Hughes? Yes. Abe Schell Yes Loretta Marshakk, yes. Riley McAdoo Raisler Yes Logan Bezy? Mitch Flanagan Yes, Will Hutchings? Yes, and Chair Ripple, yes, motion pass passes. Thank you. Item number 5 on the agenda is the 2026, 2029 transportation improvement program, Amendments, and Stephen Larsson will be presenting those to us. Thank you, Chair All right, so this month, uh, the MPO processed 5 amendments to the 2026 to 2029 transportation improvement program. The amendments were advertised for the required 15-day public comment period. We did not receive any comments on them. Uh, so the First Amendment, which is on the screen here is, uh, the removal of a project for the reconstruction of 19th Street and Century Avenue, turn lanes from the current tip because DOT has indicated the project is being funded with FY 25 funds in the 25 through 28 tips, so, well, that project needs to be moved in this way. The next 3 amendments are all to add new projects for microsurfacing on roadways in the Bismarck area to on I-94 and 1 on Expressway. and the details are in the packet under that exhibit. And finally, uh, the Fifth Amendment adds a new project for rightway evaluation and preliminary engineering next to the old Kmart on Interstate Avenue. So nothing to uh significant, just really, uh, house cleaning amendments that are, uh, normal to expect when we’re changing over to a new year, uh, for the tip. So, uh, are there any questions? Any questions for Stephen on the amendments being presented. If not, this was advertised as a public hearing. I’ll open the public hearing for public comment on the amendments that were included in the packet. Second call for comments. and a 3rd call for public comment on the TIP amendments that were included in the packet. Hearing and seeing none, public hearing is closed. What are the wishes of the board Mrs. Loretta. I moved to recommend approval of the 2026 through 2029 TTIPP amendments. Thank you, Loretta. We have a motion to recommend approval. Is there a second? This is Deidre 2nd. Deidre, thank you Any discussion Roll call vote, please Dan Treo Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes, Gabe Schell, Loretta Marshie, Logan Bey. Mitch Flanagan. Yep, Will Hutchings, and Chair Ripple Yes motion is approved Item number 6 on the agenda is the fiscal year 2026 urban rail highway crossing Safety Program projects, and Stephen has those for us as well. Thank you. This year, uh, we received one project for urban Rail, uh, from the city of Bismarck for the FY 26 solicitation. So IPeel staff, we do not score urban rail projects. Uh, we did determine the project consistent with the goals of our current MTP, uh, DOT solicitation for this program is much less formal than the other grant programs. They solicit, they do not require an application form, um, basically they’re just seeking project idea s and concepts from the jurisdictions, and I, I will know FY 26. This is the last year in which urban rail projects that are awarded funding will be funded 100% federally. Um, we will have to after this year, we will have to wait to see what the new transportation bill may indicate for funding levels for this program. So the Project Bismarck submitted is for railroad panels at the Morrison Avenue crossing just west of Jaegen Road. There is a sidewalk project planned for calendar year 2027 east of the crossing on the south side of the road. They are looking to add new railroad panels to the crossing to complete the sidewalk project, otherwise there would be a gap once the new sidewalk is completed and uh exhibit D summarizes the project and then we have a kind of an illust a map uh illustration of where the project is going to be located. So, uh, are there any questions? Any questions for Steven or um even perhaps Gabe if you’d like to add any more information on this particular application. Uh, sure, I mean, just, just note that, um. the, the two adjacent property owners have constructed sidewalker in the process of constructing sidewalk as part of their normal site plan development, and we’re left with this rail short, uh, area, uh, and the request is just for the panels themselves at the rail crossing to have a flat surface through the rail itself, and then the city would construct the sidewalk up to the rail panels. All right, thank you Any other questions or comments? If not, I believe, Stephen, that we are looking for a motion to recommend approval. Yes, that’s correct. OK. Is there any such motion from the board? says Gabe, so moved Thank you, Gabe. We have a motion. Is there a second? says Deidre 2nd Thank you, Deidre. Any discussion? Not roll call vote, please Dan Schreak Yes. Deidre Hughes? Game show. Loretta Marshach, Riley McAdoo Raisler. Yes. Logan Bey Mitch Flanagan. Yes, Will Hutchings. Yes, and Chair Ripple Yes, motion passes. moving on to item number 7 on the agenda. It is for state fiscal year 2027 Bismann Transit, 5339 and 5310 grant applications. Paulette Jacobson will be presenting those items to us today. Thank you, Chair Ripple The, uh, North Dakota Department of Transportation has again this year solicited for their state fiscal year 2027. Sections 5339 and 5310 grant programs. Section 5339 is a bus and bus facilities program in Section 50 through 10 is the enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities program. Bisman Transit is requesting approval to submit the grant applications for both of these programs. and Bismarck, Mandan Transit’s 5339 grant application, uh, exhibit F. on the screen there is they’re applying for two fixed route buses. and one facility cleaning machine for restrooms. and if awarded, the federal share would be $1,216,560. Transit would provide a local share of $215,040. for a total of $1,431,600. The next application, I scroll down here. page 41 OK, I’m gonna find it there. I got something on here. There we go. The 5310 application. They’re applying for the after hours service, Sunday service, Ho service, early morning service, and the salary for their existing mobility Man position. The application also includes requests to pervert to purchase 4 new cutaway buses to replace existing paratransit vehicles that will be exceeding their FTA defined useful life by the time of the grant award. There are 9 projects total for this application If NDDOT approves all projects, the total federal share would be $884,364. Transit would provide a local share of $357,276. tolling $1,241,640. This application is scalable. so NDDOT could award any or all of the projects in this application. Both transit application programs will be presented at tomorrow’s December 16th, Bismarck City Commission meeting. Staff is seeking a recommendation for the approval of the 5339 and 5310 applications contingent upon the Bismarck City Commission approval. Any questions or comments Any questions for Paulette on the applications. No, I just want to add a couple of things about the applications. Um, so the useful life of the fixedro vehicles, um, technically one is not outside of useful life right now. That’s what Paulette noted. Um, it does take about 18 to 24 months for us to receive those vehicles. So once we’re awarded, um, grant applications if we are. or we’ll likely be spring, um, and then it takes a couple of months working with the vendor to actually submit an order. And then we have likely about 2 years on top of that. So, um, I haven’t applied for buses before that we hadn’t already had them outside a useful life, but this is again to keep us on our fleet replacement schedule. So kind of just thinking ahead here. And then one other point, um, about a 5310 applications. We will be working on our potential for service expansion hours in 2026. Um, hopefully, fingers crossed, everything goes OK and it would be about April that we would see that. Um. Obviously none of that is set in stone. So this application, um, for the extra operating assistance does not take any of that into consideration, so it is very likely that we will have to return some funds to the state. Um, if those service hours do actually change. Good things to keep in mind. Thanks for bringing all that up. I appreciate it. 3 out of the 4 buses have exceeded in miles but not years if I recall correctly, and one of them is very close to years and miles. Is that detailed in the application, Sama. It is 2019. OK, just to make it clear for those who have to review these. in the application letter G, exhibit G I believe it’s detailed in the letter of intent to from this man, so it’s kind of summarized. Any other comments on the 5339 or 5310 applications. OK Uh, if not, I believe that staff is looking for a motion to recommend approval of the 5339 and 5310 grant applications to be submitted to North Dakota DOT contingent upon Bismarck City Commission approval of these applications tomorrow evening at their meeting. there be such a motion This is Deirdre of approval All right, we have a motion from Deidre Hughes. Is there a second? This is Gabe. Gabe, thank you. We have a 1st and a 2nd. Any discussion? Not roll call vote, please. Dan Treak Yes, Deidre Hughes? Yes, Gabe Schell, yes, Loretta Marshach, Riley McAdoo Raisler Yes, Logan By Mitch Flanagan. Yeah, Will Hutchings. Yes, and Chair Ripple, yes. motion is approved. Moving on to item number 8 on the agenda is consideration of the fiscal year 30 Urban Regional applications, uh, that is summarized in the sheet in Exhibit H on page 61 of your packet. Stephen will be sharing his screen for this. Thank you. Um you’ll see on the summary sheet that 4 applications were submitted to the Bismarck Mandan MPO for the Urban Regional Program. Three of the applications were submitted by the city of Bismarck and one application was submitted by the city of Houndown. The MPO and its member jurisdictions met with representatives from North Dakota Department of Transportation to discuss these FY 30 urban regional program and regional project priorities for the MPO area. MPO staff had previously scored the projects against the goals and objectives that they arrived 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the scores, which are included in the packet, were also shared with the prioritization committee for consideration. Based on the discussion that was had, priority is indicated, um, by submitting jurisdictions and the direction received from North Dakota DOT. The consensus was reached to assign the following priority to the 4 projects submittals that you see on Exhibit H in your packet. Um, before we actually go into the summary, I will provide just a very brief discussion of each of these projects as they were included in the packet, beginning with exhibit I, that is a project submitted by Bismarck for 7th and 9th Street, Burlington Northern, Santa Fe Railroad underpass that would include evaluation of stormwater improvements or driver warning systems to mitigate the current deficiencies which result in flooding during large rain events. Uh, the total projected cost for this was estimated at 1.3 million, and they are requesting a federal portion of 1 million40,000 dollars. Uh, the, the next project that was submitted was also uh Bismarck project for citywide sign replacement. This was exhibit J in your packet. Um, the sign replacement would occur on roadways such as US Highway 83, North Dakota 810, and 94 business loop, um, and the scope would be to replace all noncompliant highway signs on the regional highway system within the city. The estimated cost of this project was a total of 250,000. The city is requesting $200,000 in federal funds for that. The third project that was submitted uh was also by the city of Bismarck, and that’s shown as exhibit Kate in your packet. This is a maintenance project to occur on State Street between Divide Avenue and Calgary Avenue. Uh, this would be an asphalt overlay rehabilitation of the multi-use trail that is on the west side of the roadway. Uh, its length is approximately 5700 linear feet, um. The total cost is estimated at this time to be $464,000 and the city would be requesting $371,200 in federal funding to complete the project. The final project that was submitted is included as Exhibit L in the packet. It was submitted by the city of Mandan, and it too is a maintenance project. Uh, this would be for a chip seal on an asphalt reconstruction that was done in 2021 on Old Red Trail, which is North Dakota Highway 1806, and they referenced the mile markers from 71.69 to 75.5%, which is approximately 1.18 miles in length. They are estimating the total cost of this project to be $104,987 and the city of Mandan would be looking at obtaining $83,990 in federal funding for its completion. Now the summary page and exhibit H does uh list these project applications according to the rank that was provided by the prioritization committee. They ranked Mandan’s