00:00:11,030	Good morning everybody. Welcome to the February meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Bismarck Mandan MPO. It’s 10:00. We’ll call the meeting to order, and we’ll begin by calling the roll. Tracy. Daniel. Naran. Present. Dan Schreck.. Also present. Deidre Hughes. Here. Gabe. Shell here. Loretta. Marshak. Here. Derek. With. John. Saki. Mitch. Flanagan. Natalie. Pierce. Yes. Online.

00:01:13,000	Will Hutchings. present and chair. Ripoll here. Thank you. We do have a quorum. And welcome everybody. Uh, we’ll begin the meeting with the first item of business, which is the public comment. This is restricted to items that are on the current agenda or the prior TAC agenda. And does exclude public hearing items at this time.

00:01:37,530	Is there anybody present in the room or online that would like to provide public comment? Calling twice for public comment and calling a third time. Hearing and seeing no public comment. Public comment period is closed and we will move on to the consent agenda. On the consent agenda, we have two items.

00:02:04,270	We have a review and possible approval of the minutes from January 2020, 2026 meeting and we have a notification of a 2026 2029 Transportation Improvement Program, or tip modification, which was included in the packet. Uh, do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? This is Gabe. So moved. This is Dan, second.

00:02:32,000	Gabe, and a second from Dan. Any discussion? Uh, roll call, please. Daniel. Naran. Yes. Dan. Schreck. Yes. Did your. Hughes. Yes. Gabe. Schell. Yes. Loretta marshak. Yes. Natalie Pierce. Yes. Will Hutchings. Yes. And Kim rebel. Yes. Consent agenda is approved.

00:03:02,930	Uh, I’m going to back up a little bit, and I tend to do this frequently, but I would be remiss in not extending a congratulations to Dan Schreck. Uh, Dan has represented Berkeley County on our technical advisory committee for a number of years now, at the request of the the then, uh, really county Engineer

00:03:25,930	Marcus Hall, Marcus left the position early this year, and I am very, very pleased to announce that Dan Schreck is the new Berkeley County engineer. So we would welcome Dan as such.

00:03:47,870	And, um, nothing really changes for us here, right? I mean, we have a familiar face at the table and, uh, but, um, your role obviously will be changing. And I don’t know if you want to say a word or two about that. No business as usual. Business as usual. Well, that’s that’s reassuring to us. So thank you again.

00:04:12,930	Um, moving on to the regular agenda, we’ll look at item number five, which is the 2026, 2029 Transportation Improvement Program amendment. Steven Larson was going to present that particular item, but I’m sorry to say, Stephen was not able to be with us today.

00:04:36,600	And so, um, Tracy has been gracious enough to agree to share her screen for this particular item that begins on page nine of the packet. It is exhibit RB. And, um, this again is an amendment that the MPO processed for the 2026 2029 tip. This amendment is currently being advertised for the required 15 day public comment period, and a public hearing will be held at 10 a.m.

00:05:01,000	tomorrow morning in the David Blackstone Room on the second floor of the City County building. This amendment addresses a project for micro surfacing on ND ten from Memorial Highway Interchange to the Expressway bridge. North Dakota D.O.T. has provided a higher cost estimate for this project.

00:05:23,870	As noted on the amendment form, MPO staff is seeking a motion to approve the amendment contingent on no substantive public comments being received at tomorrow’s public hearing. Uh, would there be a recommendation of conditional approval for this type amendment, or are there any questions or comments regarding the amendment itself? Okay. Kim, what flags this as an amendment compared to an administrative modification? Uh, the cost change threshold.

00:05:49,530	So, um, I don’t have our tip open right now, but we do have, um, tip revisions. Um, outlined in that document. And the conditions under which it rises to a full amendment or can be adjusted within the document as an administrative modification.

00:06:19,400	Um, this one did because of the cost increase threshold rise to a full amendment, and therefore it required that 15 day advertisement and full approval. To maybe a follow up to that. It might be worthwhile looking at that, as I mean, it’s just it’s it’s only a $50,000 increase, but on a $200,000 project, I get that.

00:06:37,830	That’s a large percentage, but I don’t know if this is any more substantially significant. This particular change than the ones that were on the the consent agenda or not even they were administratively approved that were of the ilk of $200,000 in net increases.

00:06:54,670	So I’m supportive of what we’re doing, but might I don’t know if this really rises to the level of needing a whole lot of public involvement on this particular change. Sure. Duly noted. And, you know, as we do the as we go through the tip development for the 2730 tip, we would have the opportunity to take a look at those tip revision, um, requirements and perhaps modify those at that time.

00:07:17,570	And some of this is going to be dictated by CFR. And I think the threshold that they outline as a 10%. So it’s fairly fairly low actually. But um, there may be opportunity to look at this language again, because I recently learned from another MPO and another state that they do the combined program total,

00:07:34,200	if it’s 10% of the whole entire tip. So, um, we might be applying it a little bit differently than we need to. Sure. Daniel. I’ll just claim my relatively new status to ask a question on this one.

00:07:49,370	Um, so if this is going up by a certain amount, a small amount is to be balanced, is anything need to go down, or is this how does that work with the tip? No, no, it’s fine. Um, it’s not like a balance sheet. So we just need to make sure that our, our cost estimates are accurate within the tip.

00:08:05,300	And so when there is an increase or decrease, we need to change the tip accordingly. Okay. Anything else? If not, would there be a motion to recommend conditional approval for this? Deidre, we have a motion. Is there a second? This is Gabe I would second. Thank you for the second. Any discussion? Roll call. Vote. Tracy. Daniel. Naran. Yes. Dan. Schreck. Yes. Deidre.

00:08:37,770	Hughes. Yes. Gabe. Schell. Yes. Loretta. Marshak. Yes. Natalie. Pierce. Yes. Will Hutchings and chair. Rebel. Yes. Sorry. Terrible. Yes. Thank you. Motion passes. Item number six on the agenda is the 2026 Transit Development Plan. Request for proposals. Paulette will be presenting that to us today. We’re not sharing screen here. Just a moment. Got it. Okay.

00:09:14,000	Thank you. Appreciate that. Item six. Here. Um, exhibit our see is the 2026 request for proposals or RFP for the transit development plan or TDP. And as you recall, it was presented in October of 2025. And at that time, TAC recommended approval.

00:09:39,130	And the policy board voted to delay the study approximately three months pending service changes that were being implemented by Mann Transit. The service changes are now anticipated to occur on or about April 1st, 2026. The RFP the RFP has been revised to include date changes to the project schedule, and the scope of work has been further refined.

00:09:59,970	But beyond that, the RFP has not been modified from what was presented in October. The TDP is approximately an 18 month study with a budget of $180,000. It is programmed to begin in 2026 and conclude before the end of year 2027. It’s already included in the 2026, 2027 Up.

00:10:23,130	The Act of Budget and Work Program of the of the Active Budget and Work Program of the MPO. Excuse me. Bozeman Transit provides a full local match amount of $36,000, and the BMT board has already approved the full amount to be budgeted in both 2026 and 2027. For the study.

00:10:44,270	Revisions to the scope of work on pages 12 and 13 include an area two a under evaluate the effectiveness of current fixed route system. We have specifying the evaluation of headway times and frequency and routes and flag system that exists now versus a designated stop system. The next item would be a limited analysis of service and peer communities.

00:11:12,000	Comparisons to specifically exclude the anticipated April 1st, 2026 transit service changes, as they will not have been effective for a sufficient period of time to provide an accurate analysis, and on three be evaluate alternative types of transit services. We’ve added community circulator routes, mobility hubs, and flex routing.

00:11:39,270	The Bismarck Mandan MPO believes the revised Transit Development Plan RFP aligns with the best interests of Bismarck Transit and the MPO jurisdictions likely to be impacted by recommendations resulting from the plan, and the staff recommends its approval. Any questions, comments. Questions. Or comments. For Paulette? Gabe.

00:12:07,570	Maybe just a question in terms of the direction that the MPO will give to this study compared to transit Board, compared to the respective cities, and trying to keep alignment with all those things. I don’t know who would best answer that question, or how will I foresee that shaken out? I guess my curiosity. When we have the steering committee that will be evaluating all that we have.

00:12:27,970	People from Lincoln, uh, Mandan, Morton County and Burleigh County and the MPO. I get everybody in transit as well. Of course I did that. Is that what you were looking for? I guess maybe it’s from the the staff level, but obviously this is a very, you know, political conversation to in our community of what to do with resources and, and looks like

00:12:46,070	we’ll use this study to help vet that. And just making sure that the direction that’s given in these studies, the consultants will go in a direction unless they are guided by the oversight boards and the steering committee to to guide them where, where we want them.

00:13:04,670	But do we have consensus amongst our staff level, elected levels, various boards to provide that consistent direction is maybe just the question I have, and hopefully the answer is yes, we do. We’re ready to go and then it’s fine. I would hope so. With with the steering committee. Kim, would you like to add? Well.

00:13:18,000	I would just like to add that this is a very collaborative effort and it’s probably a little bit different than, you know, our standard studies that we pursue through the MPO, because the MPO has a little different relationship with Bismarck and transit and the city of Bismarck, we work as that liaison between the two. And so it’s a pretty close working relationship.

00:13:39,970	So, yes, of course, we want to make sure that we’ve got the appropriate buy in. As you recall, we did bring this RFP forward last October. There were some concerns with some of the service changes that were impending and had not been implemented yet.

00:13:56,600	And so, um, you know, we were given that direction and that suggestion to hold off on this. We’ve had conversations with the parties involved and our elected officials and and I think everybody is on the same page with the way that the revisions have been made to this RFP.

00:14:14,730	And we do want to make sure that everybody is on board and kind of working towards the same goals. So with that being said, um, this this is a pretty standard, uh, transit development plan in terms of what it’s evaluating and identifying for transit.

00:14:39,200	And, you know, whatever recommendations come from that will help transit to formulate their their blueprint, their roadmap for, you know, the next five years of operations. Um, but in the same breath, this is very different from the last two TPS that we’ve, uh, that we’ve funded, because those were looking very, very specifically at the financial component and the governance structure or, you know, of transit.

00:15:07,470	Um, just because of some of the financial difficulties that were were being faced by transit at the time. This is the first TDP, um, in the last ten, 12 years, that will actually, um, allow the consultant to really dig into those service operations rather than, than the financial component. And, um, provide those recommendations for transit, which have been lacking in the last 2 to 2 TD.

00:15:34,130	So, uh, did you do you have anything to add on Transit’s behalf? Yeah. Um. Thank you. It really aligns with what the board is wanting to seek, because we do have access to additional funding.

00:15:52,000	And I know people want to see service changes, because that was kind of what was anticipated after these sales tax funds were collected. But we want to make sure that we’re making smart service changes and not just throwing money at services. And I think through the transit development plan, we’ll be able to get that information. So the board really wants to see this plan completed with the objectives that are put in place right now.

00:16:09,300	Okay. Yeah. My recommendation would be just making sure we’re checking in with all of those, whether it’s the transit board or the policy Board or the various city commissions at whatever levels and decision points are needed.

00:16:23,270	So no, no one entity is surprised at the very end to be given this final report. And that’s the first time they hear about this study. I guess that’d be my cause for concern. Absolutely. Yeah. I think we’re in full agreement with that. So any other questions or comments on the RFP? It’d be the only comment I’ll make.

00:16:36,600	And this is something I’ve spoken with Kim about this. It may look like 2023 is not that long ago, but this is an 18 month process. So I think, if I’m not mistaken, this will be a 2028 transit development plan when it’s all said and done in times of approval. It probably will be developed or I’m sorry, adopted in two.

00:16:52,070	Uh, actually, I’m trying to think about this the way that we have it laid out in our our work program. Uh, we’re beginning this in 26, but it does need to be adopted by, I believe, junior was the original intent for, for, uh, the adoption of the plan.

00:17:11,900	And we’re pushing that out by a few months. So it would still be 2027. It would be. It would. Okay. Okay. So going back to Gabe’s comments, um, you know, from the consulting world, you know, you start having additional meetings that you’re adding in and consultation with others that starts to really add up to the cost.

00:17:28,930	And so I’m wondering if it’s the desire of the cities to have more like checkpoints along the way that probably want to identify that in this proposal.

00:17:45,600	So that way the consultants are aware of, like all potential meeting requirements that they’d have to meet and be at, uh, so they can kind of scope their, their project accordingly and make sure that they’re able to meet all the, the engagement, uh, charges. But that’s if we feel it’s necessary to revise this RFP. I just open up for a question, I guess. Sure. And I think that we did address, um, presentations and and things of that nature, you know, for the consultants.

00:18:05,830	Um, information and speaking to the concern about involving, you know, all the different entities. Um, I think that those will be done that will be done through the efforts of the, the steering committee meetings, first off, and then also through the public involvement.

00:18:27,670	And so we want to make sure that we’re bringing all of those entities together at those times so that we aren’t creating an additional burden on the consultant. Um, as far as, um, meeting engagement. So. Yeah, yeah, I see you have a representative, staff member, representatives for both your steering committees. Um, so maybe it’s just as easy as inviting the commissioners to a public open house. Certainly. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that.

00:18:52,170	Anything else on the RFP at this time? If not, we would be looking for a motion. Um, to recommend approval of the RFP. Uh. move to approve as presented. We have a motion from Deidre. Is there a second? Second and a second from Daniel? Roll call, please. Daniel. Naran. Yes.

00:19:16,670	Dan schreck. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe schell. Yes. Loretta. Marcia. Yes. Natalie Pierce. Yes. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Ripple. Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Moving on to item number seven on the agenda is the Bismarck Mandan MPO bylaws.

00:19:45,070	Again, Tracy has graciously agreed to share her screen for exhibit D, beginning on page 27 of the packet. Uh, for those of you who were here last month, you know what the impetus for the revision to the bylaws was. But, um, for those who weren’t, I will kind of brief us a little bit on the background.

00:20:07,470	Um, last month, we experienced some technical difficulties with our audio, and we weren’t able to obtain an audible vote by a voting quorum based on the way that our current bylaws are written.

00:20:32,070	And so we had some discussion, um, about revising the the quorum requirements, which also presented a really good opportunity to go through the bylaws as a whole and make sure that everything is up to speed. And, um, as it should be. So I’ll outline a few of the the proposed changes here for you. All that are provided in the packet as track changes. So they should be fairly easy to see.

00:20:51,800	Um, throughout the document you will notice that we changed metropolitan area to Metropolitan Planning Area, which is um, the actual technical term for our um MPO MPA metropolitan Planning area. Um, and then on um, you’ll see that on pages one and two. Um, page three had no changes. Uh, page four on the certification of plan.

00:21:23,330	Again, we made that change to the metropolitan area, to metropolitan planning area on page five is where the bigger changes occurred. Um, in taking a look at article seven, which regards the technical Advisory Committee composition, uh, we had discussed the fact that we have been seeking a freight industry representative for quite some time, and the thought was that perhaps we needed to change the

00:21:51,600	description on that. But in looking at our current bylaws, it says a trucking or freight industry representative. And I feel that that is pretty broad. I’m not sure how to broaden that. Um, if there are any suggestions, I would happily entertain those.

00:22:14,000	Um, but other changes that were proposed for this particular paragraph, um, would be to change the director of the Bismarck Community Development Department to reflect the Bismarck planning director as that department, um, structure has recently changed.

00:22:39,130	And then, uh, addressing the quorum, the new language would say any member may have an alternate serve in his or her place with full writing, full voting rights, which is, as it currently states. But it says a quorum will consist of at least a majority of voting members rather than it’s currently language, which says a quorum will consist of eight voting members. Um, we’re looking at voting members as being filled positions or seats, and I had some discussions externally.

00:23:07,400	Um, you know, is this standardized language. And it does seem to be universally accepted that members are those filled seats or those filled positions, whereas seats are positions indicate roles. So I think that I’m fairly comfortable with that language. Keeping it simple.

00:23:34,670	Um, but just changing that, that, um, quorum consisting of eight to at least a majority of. So providing a current day example, we have 14 seats on our tack. However, only 12 of those are filled. And so, um, we currently have 12 members.

00:23:59,870	If we were to have a majority for a quorum, that would mean that we would need seven voting members. Um, and accordingly, if we have other seats that are not filled, then that quorum would would adjust for us so that we wouldn’t have to try to attain such a a high voting quorum. So that was the primary, um, indicator for the changes made to this.

00:24:27,500	And, and probably the biggest item, um, we also had the metro, the, the planning added to the metropolitan planning area in article eight. And then also on the final page of the bylaws. Uh, we also changed the director of Community development to Bismarck, planning director, to reflect that current title.

00:25:01,670	Um, were there any comments about the proposed changes or specifically the items that are contained in article seven for the TAC composition and quorum? Kim, have you done any research as to whether or not these changes are going to trigger, um, a redesignation by the governor’s office? I don’t believe they will because you’re not adding or subtracting any members. You’re keeping it all at the same count.

00:25:23,070	Um, and so, yeah, I think you’re fine then double checking on that for you. But yeah, we’ve changed. We’ve actually changed the composition of our TAC over the years. And that does not have any any bearing on the designation of an MPO. So yeah. Um. Gabe.

00:25:43,900	Um, maybe my question is in that section seven where it lists a member of the TAC is either being the MPO executive director or an MPO transportation planner. Um, is there a reason that that’s listed as a either or there, whereas everyone else it’s then you have the next sentence that any member can have an alternate seat.

00:26:01,400	If that person is not available, can you maybe explain what that’s intended? Yes. There’s a historical significance to that as well. Um, many years ago, the executive director role for the MPO followed the director of community development for the City of Bismarck.

00:26:26,530	Um, and that was, uh, that was changed to indicate that the executive director would be the principal transportation planner. Um, and it just said that the principal transportation planner or executive director would then act as the TAC chair.

00:26:52,100	However, there are instances where that individual may not be available for a meeting, and so subsequently, it was further changed to indicate that it could be, um, the MPO executive Director or MPO transportation planner, one of whom shall act as the TAC chair, and that would allow for, uh, other staff members as long as they were a transportation planner, to fill the role at the TAC meetings for chair. That’s basically where that came from. And maybe just a follow up.

00:27:11,430	I feel like that’s already stated with the follow, the subsequent sentencing. Any member may have an alternate serve and his replace with full voting rights. Maybe I would view that listing.

00:27:26,330	The MPO Executive Director if that individual wasn’t able to make it to the meeting, well, they would be able to have an alternate serve on their behalf. And that could be whoever would be the person. So I would agree. I don’t it’s maybe it’s just redundant, but if you want to keep it, I guess I don’t care.

00:27:36,730	I just saw that that was I didn’t I didn’t list the alternate that I might think of or the alternate that Dan might think, or the alternate that someone else might think of, and then go through that exercise for that. But I can see that one being special. If if you want that person to be the chair for the meeting to assign it as such as, fine.

00:27:47,630	Yeah. I think this came up at a, past meeting, and I can’t tell you how far in the past, but, um, you know, typically we’re not making changes to our bylaws unless something comes into question.

00:28:10,600	So, um, we also at that point had, um, had to make a designation to the policy board membership that, um, uh, they can appoint alternate, um, you know, proxy voters in their absence, but that elected officials are, are preferred, not mandatory, but preferred, because that was something that came up to. So I think, you know, we can always change it back. Um, but at some point this came into question.

00:28:35,270	And so that’s why this change was made. So. I can go either. Way. And I’m not suggesting a change if you have reason for I don’t think anyone’s losing sleep over that extra little bit of information. Thank you for the clarification. Sure. Absolutely. Anything else? Okay.

00:28:57,070	Um, well, if there’s no further discussion, staff would be looking for a recommendation of approval and adoption by the policy board of the revisions to the MPO bylaws. I just have one question. So the the titles change from bylaws of the Bismarck Mandan Area Metropolitan Planning Organization to Bismarck Mandan Metropolitan Planning Organization.

00:29:24,870	Is there is this a change to the name of the organization or the plan? That’s a that’s a good observation. And I’m sorry that I didn’t mention that right off the back. Daniel. So in the title, um, it is not the Bismarck Mandan MPO is not the Bismarck Mandan Area MPO.

00:29:48,330	And so that never should have been placed in the title of the bylaws, because these are the bylaws of the Bismarck Mandan MPO. However, we did add area down into the planning area, and you will see in the in the very first paragraph, it says these bylaws shall regulate and govern the affairs of the Bismarck, Mandan Metropolitan Planning Organization, because that’s who we are.

00:30:07,200	And so we took the area out of that. But it does belong in subsequent references where it’s talking about the metropolitan planning area, because that is not the name of the organization, but rather our boundary and our our planning jurisdiction. Good. Thank you.

00:30:28,400	I figured that so this is bringing the bylaws into conformance with what the name already is. Yes. Good. Yes. Conformance with the CFR. That refers to it as the planning area. So I’m happy to see that change as well. Yeah. Good catch Daniel. Thank you. Okay. Maybe just one more. Just curiosity.

00:30:52,000	You know, when we look at bylaws, it’s the guiding document for that organization. When you say metropolitan and area wide planning as the thing that the MPO does, is that too broad of a brush stroke for what the MPO does? I think we call it Metropolitan Planning Organization, but it is specifically to the world of transportation and transportation related things.

00:31:20,770	I don’t know if that’s worthwhile to discuss to if that’s if that’s the definition that’s used elsewhere. I’m fine with it. But I also think sometimes we say we do planning. It’s like, what does that mean? Are you doing? It’s transportation planning.

00:31:32,600	I don’t know if you do other types of planning or what the what all the planning types are even, but it states that we’ll do area wide planning, and I’m not sure if that’s probably what you what the MPO does. Sure. And I think that that gets down into article two, the declaration of policy. And we start talking about developing that long range transportation plan.

00:31:52,730	And, you know, how we address growth of an area. And we work with our governmental and jurisdictional partners. Um, so without putting all of that into the first paragraph about organization, it’s basically, um, included in the article two Declaration of policy. Um.

00:32:18,870	And maybe I just ask if someone picked this up, I would think that means you’re doing some sewer analysis and some storm sewer planning over here, and some airport master plans over there. And it’s like, oh, no, we never do those things. We are. We’re out this little box here. But if you’re just reading these words, it’s a pretty broad statement.

00:32:32,800	And it includes, I would consider lots of things and lots of areas of planning that the MPO doesn’t go into because they can’t go into it’s not fit highway related, but it’s still planning. There’s a lot of planning that’s not federal highway related, I guess is what I would state.

00:32:44,500	So are you suggesting that an easy fix would perhaps just say, uh, insert transportation between area wide and planning. If that is the simple solution, I would be in board with that, as long as it doesn’t cause you to have to go get it looked at by the dot, or have the governor’s office approve

00:33:00,470	language. I’m not trying to make a mountain out of the molehill, but. I don’t think it would incur any such, um, regulation. In the. Title, not in the title. It would be in article one organization.

00:33:19,370	So it would be what line four, where it says beginning in line three, it says the MPO shall perform metropolitan and area wide planning. I think Gabe would be happy if it just said the MPO shall perform metropolitan and area wide transportation planning so that we’re being a little bit more specific is that I think I’m reading. You right. That would be spectacular. Okay. I have no problem with that.

00:33:40,170	And we could make the change to this before we bring it to the policy board this afternoon, if that would be the wishes of the board. I don’t have any concerns with that, but I will point out that the next sentence does clarify for transportation services.

00:33:55,100	So the MPO shall also serve as a coordinating agency for investigations and studies for improvement of transportation services. I guess maybe I saw that first sentence as focusing more on the geography of of the organization. And, um, but it does it does get into a little bit of both. I see where Gabe is saying it. Um, I could go either way. An end to.

00:34:15,770	Okay, well, if there’s no further discussion, I would be more than happy to entertain a motion either at the original request or with any changes that the TAC might desire. I would move to approve with the edits of adding transportation between area wide and planning in the bylaws. All right. We have a motion.

00:34:42,500	Is there a second? I’ll second. All right. And roll call, please. Daniel. Naran. Yes. Dan schreck. Yes. Did your. Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta marshak. Yes. Natalie Pierce. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair ripple. Yes. A motion passes as. Recommended. Um, number eight is the 2026 Fringe Area Road Master Plan update with Joel. Man.

00:35:26,200	Joel, are you still with us online? I’m here trying to turn camera on. Just going to do a quick audio check because I’ve been on mute for a minute. Everybody can hear me, okay. I can hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Great. Well good morning, Committee members. Um, this time we have an update that has some some supporting materials in your agenda packet.

00:35:42,270	That’s a little bit more detailed than what we’ve shared in the past. And I would say in general, moving forward for the next few updates that we give will be providing material kind of like that.

00:35:57,970	That gives you a bit of background and tries to explain some of the the activity that’s going on with the plan’s development, but we will also I have some slides to just kind of walk through that. We’ll also ask for more feedback from you, because I think it’s safe to say that while the original intent of the plan is still moving forward, we’ve been learning as we’ve gone through, that there are some opportunities to

00:36:15,970	rethink this or maybe kind of repurpose what the plan does. So we’re, you know, we’re kind of modifying or, you know, evolving the scope to be more responsive to that in real time. And we’ve been getting excellent feedback from our steering committee, um, the members of which include members on this committee as well.

00:36:35,130	Um, that’s really helped us move things in that direction. So there’s, there’s some newer kinds of approaches that we’ve been taking and working with with Steven. And, you know, the MPO staff.

00:36:50,270	But as we share these in monthly updates, we’d like to make sure that this is all making sense and we’re getting good feedback from you. We’ll do the same thing with the policy board when we update them later today and in subsequent months. So I’m going to switch over and share some slides just to walk us through this. Um, but this is all material that’s in your agenda packet in that narrative format.

00:37:07,270	I’ll also add, while I’m pulling this up, that, um, any feedback on that is certainly welcome. I don’t want to give you too much to have to read through. And if it’s dense and, you know, could be more concise, we can we can certainly do that.

00:37:21,200	We want to make sure you understand that it’s not just a matter of kind of working through the original scope. Things are kind of evolving as well. So I’m going to share here. Sorry, I’m kind of juggling things on a single monitor. All right. So as a recap from our original schedule, we’re currently kind of in this midpoint, uh, where we’ve largely gotten through an assessment of technical needs.

00:37:51,630	But as we discussed in our in our update last month, we’re working with attack the Advanced Traffic Analysis Center from North Dakota State on some more, um, kind of advanced applications of the regional travel demand model to use that as an analysis tool.

00:38:10,130	So we just started efforts with them a couple of weeks ago, and their period of service with the MPO is going to run through next month. So there are some updates to come on that that have kind of extended this technical analysis period out a little bit further, but it is starting to get us some some good direction on how to kind of bring those technical

00:38:25,130	findings together with what we’re hearing from community input and community concerns. Um, to move into our third task and really start bringing these, um, these technical pieces together with community understanding. So we’re going to end up with a network map.

00:38:46,930	But as I had shared with you previously, you know, we kind of we see that there are a lot of things that might change the way the fringe area roads plan is applied and implemented in real time. Development, review and approval that don’t necessarily have to go through a formal amendment process.

00:39:03,100	And we had talked about several of these technical factors and what our findings were. Some of these things like, you know, slope and and water and wetland and floodway crossings.

00:39:21,330	Um, maybe aren’t you know, they happen commonly enough that, you know, the engineering profession can find workarounds for these, and there may not be a need to have to amend the plan every time you do something like change in alignment of a road from what’s in the fringe area. Uh, but you do have some things that probably need some more specific guidance, uh, specifically where you’re crossing railroads, where you’re crossing freeways.

00:39:40,600	Those are, you know, they don’t happen as often, but they’re also in need of more advanced study and more engineering work to make sure that you’re not precluding opportunities for the road network. So, um, bear with me a second, because I think I lost my PowerPoint screen. I’m going to stop sharing momentarily as I’m as I’m getting that back up.

00:39:57,570	Um, but the the long of the short of that is that you may have some technical criteria that local governments are reviewing and, you know, making appropriate amendments to the fringe area roads plan with regard to road alignments. And those don’t need to be run back through the MPO. Those can be implemented.

00:40:16,670	They’re following basic, basic technical guidelines. You have some that might need some more advanced looks. And we’re going to tailor the way the plan is implemented with the MPO support to those. Pardon me as I’m trying to juggle the screen share again and get that back up. I apologize. Okay, here we go again. Um.

00:40:54,800	So what we end up with, um, is that we may continue a process where we’re amending the plan like we do today, but these can be simple. This can be a more streamlined process where local governments are just updating GIS data. They’re noting this so that it’s it’s recorded, but we don’t have to go through anything more formal than that.

00:41:13,800	And the plan might rely on some more, um, kind of best practices, technical guidance around subdivisions. And, you know, road network development, um, street and intersection placement, access management, those sorts of factors to make sure that as development is leading to the expansion of the road network, um, that we’re meeting some basic technical

00:41:35,870	criteria. But where we think this is starting to go and this is a place where we would like to get the committee’s thoughts and feedback, is that the plan might start to focus more on a core, uh, regionally significant corridor network that is really, um, kind of major mobility, um, things that

00:41:53,470	could potentially be regional and even, you know, have some involvement of the state in terms of investment and that these are the kind of key corridors that connect the region as it grows and help to preserve overall mobility and meet transportation needs.

00:42:12,600	We’ve been starting to draft what that network might look like from our work with attack and the technical analysis. So what you’re seeing here in this image is just a very abstract kind of simple idea.

00:42:31,270	But the concept is that the fringe area roads plan might be a hybrid of some more detailed look at this, this network, these critical corridors with a more guidance based approach for everything else. So this expansive network that you see in the image here in the in the red and orange, which is what the plan shows today, can still be there as as sort of advisory and guidance. And the local governments are making good judgment on implementing that.

00:42:45,170	But this critical network is really what the region and the MPO will be taking more of a leadership and decision making role on. So we’d like to get some of your thoughts on that. As I finish here, we’ll open up to questions.

00:43:00,300	But how does a streamlined approach to part of this sound to people is this is this a good direction to follow? And then the roles that the MPO committees, TAC and Policy Board should play in this? If there is going to be kind of a regionally significant network, that’s the the MPO focus.

00:43:18,470	The plan to give you kind of an indication of of what that network is looking like. Um, we have been gathering information from the local governments on, um, on subdivision and development approvals, um, as a kind of proxy indicator of where the growth is happening. And, you know, growth is kind of moving north from Bismarck in recent years.

00:43:37,070	Um, definitely north of 94, but well north along the, um, the US 83 corridor. So when you look at where the region has forecasted that growth to go even further into the future to 2050, this is taken from the regional travel demand model, and it looks at where additional jobs and households are expected to be.

00:43:55,330	It kind of lines up. Those plan amendments are in places where growth was understood to be happening and forecast to happen further. So it kind of starts to tee up for us that we have a network that, um, reaches out to these areas that provide some additional critical connections.

00:44:11,600	And we’re not just saying that when development happens, we need to get, you know, collectors and arterials connected through. But some of these might have more of a regional function.

00:44:28,730	Again, a sample map that doesn’t necessarily look like this, but this, you know, abstract concept here is kind of framing out that there’s been growth along the eastern fringe of Bismarck that maybe needs a kind of critical regional connection. We need some relief for the 83 corridor moving north. You know, as growth happens there.

00:44:49,030	Um, you know, a second, uh, an additional river crossing to the north of I-94, uh, to to let that northern movement on both sides of the river, you know, get additional connectivity. Those are probably going to be key parts of that network overall. One other item that we want to update you on that doesn’t have to do with that technical analysis, is that our approach to our stakeholder involvement has also been evolving, again, with some excellent feedback from our steering committee members.

00:45:08,300	Uh, what we had originally proposed was kind of a conventional focus group based format where we would speak to stakeholders who generally represent a common interest or common purpose. Uh, landowners, developers, maybe it’s kind of industrial and major employer representatives.

00:45:34,870	Um, but based on feedback from the steering committee, we’ve been moving towards something of a kind of a hybrid design workshop exercise that would focus on the regionally significant network and tie in, you know, key concerns from stakeholders in the region over transportation and mobility needs. So that would look at some specific places on the ground and not just talk in the abstract and get their feedback.

00:45:55,600	There would be some sort of back and forth about potential ideas, but this would be focused on, um, institutional partners in the region, which might be public agencies, but also might come from the private sector.

00:46:15,030	So we’ve been moving toward that and are working with the steering committee members to kind of craft that out further and start setting that up, but have had some some strong interest from private sector partners, especially from the Bismarck Mandan Chamber EDC, in getting people together to, uh, to participate that in that and provide support. So more to come on that as that gets developed, we will be sharing updates on this with the steering committee.

00:46:32,770	So some of you will hear about it that way. But anything big in terms of how this evolves and certainly the the dates and times when this happens, we’ll be sharing with the TAC and Policy Board. So that’s an update overall.

00:46:50,230	Again, you know, we’ll be sharing more in depth progress on the plan in the coming months because we are really moving into this quickly and starting to bring together ideas for how the plan is taking shape, and we’d love to get your feedback in these discussions on any of these ideas, because there is a lot new that’s happening. So thank you again.

00:47:06,100	Thank you, Joel, for a really great update. Um, there was a lot of information in the packet, but even more on your your presentation. So were you looking for feedback specifically from the TAC today regarding, um, what you’re envisioning as perhaps a greater leadership commitment? Um, or a larger role that the TAC might play in the fringe

00:47:32,900	area road master plan and, um, and any changes to that? I think because we are sharing this concept and this monthly update for the first time, and with what was in the agenda packet, I don’t want to put people on the spot today necessarily. But think about it.

00:47:52,300	If you do have any thoughts to share today, there’s certainly welcome. Um, we can work with with Steven, with staff to, you know, gather any feedback outside of the meetings. But this concept will be fleshed out further and have more detail in coming months.

00:48:12,900	So, um, I think as it evolves and kind of take shape and we have more of a concrete idea of MPO leadership in how the plan is implemented. Uh, we can get that feedback in subsequent months to. Great. Okay. Appreciate that. Any questions or comments for Joel? Gabe. Yep. Thanks, Joel. And I think we spoke about this also at the the steering committee level.

00:48:32,830	But in terms of it’s kind of ironic to talk about the amendment process before the plan is even done. But this plan is such a kind of a high level.

00:48:45,130	Where do we think a road might be a good idea at that? The amendment process is kind of critical for that plan to be successful. So I appreciate the, the, the opportunity to look at ways that don’t bog down that process. Our current road master plan had an amendment process, but it was unwieldy that it was difficult to slow down the pace of development, to go through the processes required to bring it back to TAC and policy boards.

00:49:02,000	So a lot of times those amendments took place, but just within the organization, uh, just within city of Bismarck or Mandan, wherever it might be.

00:49:15,570	Um, so being aware of that and knowing that that could be a challenge if we have it be a similar package isn’t going to be worthwhile. So I appreciate the insights and the ability to try to look at a way to make changes to that plan that, um, still allow the pace of development to occur. Right. Thank you for your comments, Gabe.

00:49:32,470	Any other comments or questions? Maybe one other comment just to raise so so even while this plan is going on, we are changing the existing plan. Um, so next week the Bismarck Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing for a major street plan amendment, which is Bismarck’s version of the fringe area master plan. Uh, and a developer is asking to shift one of the alignments.

00:49:48,470	And so there’s a lot of coordination that needs to happen between the requester and other adjoining landowners for whom their land will be affected for this. Uh, so maybe just just to reiterate that, you know, the changes are happening.

00:50:03,930	So maybe we’ll need to coordinate on a way to gather that information and get that so it doesn’t. It’s, uh, make the process more complicated. But also just to reiterate that the, the primary barrier that we faced in the complication is just working with the individual landowners who maybe weren’t aware of the original fringe area master

00:50:19,030	plan process and how they see a line on the map, and they just want to know what that means. Is that a requirement to build a road is that who’s paying for that road? A lot of those questions, those are the things we hear, uh, when we have these conversations and we’ll, we’ll

00:50:31,370	next week. So I think some clarity on what the plan is and isn’t. And giving that to the, the individual landowners who own the land for the in the map. Thanks, Danielle. I appreciate that perspective as well. Point.

00:50:48,370	Daniel, I’m thinking, is it your intention to continuously be updating your plan to match whatever the changes might be happening in the fringe area road master plan? Do they overlap or are they the same? You almost seems like you’re duplicating efforts in that way. Yeah. Yeah, and I think that would be a good thing to discuss with the fringe Master Plan Committee.

00:51:01,600	I believe the intent would be that as soon as this plan is completed, then Bismarck will adopt the plan to match. And I think that’s the understanding. But I think if there’s other ways to do it, we could consider that the main difference is the major street plan includes the city of Bismarck inside of city limits,

00:51:16,700	as well as outside of city limits. And so that’s it’s to have that cohesive, um, cross boundary. Yeah. And then to your second point about the contacting landowners, this is something I had noted is that I think when someone would deviate from the section line roads, that’s when we really need to like make sure we’re coordinating with

00:51:32,730	those, those people whose land is being bisected. That seems to be one of the biggest hurdles that the the bypass or whatever you want to call it, was encountering. So yeah, good observation will appreciate that as well, because you’re right. Um, that is an obstacle.

00:51:52,430	But also it’s a huge consideration because we’ve got all kinds of, you know, topographical, um, issues out there that we have to contend with and address. So, um, anything else on this right now? Oh. All right. Well, thank you all for your, your comments, your perspective that you’ve shared. Thank you, Joel, for your update. Um, we’ll move on to item number nine.

00:52:12,170	On the agenda is the big Sky Passenger Rail Authority update. I just wanted to touch on this briefly. As you all remember. Um, we approved, uh, another annual membership in the government partner program for the big Sky Passenger Rail Authority’s, um, uh, membership. And, um, for the MPO and our jurisdictions.

00:52:43,070	In December, we signed a memorandum of agreement, which was, um, just basically the same MOA that we had signed the previous year, kind of detailing roles and responsibilities of all of us as participating members in the GPP.

00:53:06,530	And now, uh, we’re kind of being included through BSP IRAs activities to, um, kind of test the waters and see how far we can go with some of that. So, um, I just want to alert everybody that the big Sky passenger rail does have board meetings every other month, and their first for the year 2026 occurred on January 14th. They did have an election of officers.

00:53:26,330	They basically reinstated the current board membership. And, uh, when the board members were asked to, uh, provide an outlook of, of goals that they personally had, uh, for the upcoming year, three of three of them stated that, uh, extended outreach to North Dakota and in particular, even Bismarck Mandan area was

00:53:52,470	cited um, in 2026 for for three of them as priorities. And so, um, we knew that that was going to happen. We’ve gotten further correspondence from big Sky passenger rail saying that they they actually want to engage in some meetings with us in the area. They want to, uh, coordinate on getting some public forums, uh, developed.

00:54:19,130	And so I think 2020 6th May be a big year for us regarding our GPP membership and passenger rail. Um, in particular. So just as a heads up, again, anybody can attend their board meetings, um, as part of the memorandum of agreement, each jurisdiction has a responsible party that has been assigned to represent that jurisdiction.

00:54:44,730	And whenever there’s information that is conveyed to the Bismarck Mandan MPO from big Sky passenger rail or anything else that’s, um, pertinent to passenger rail service in our area, I convey that to the responsible party for each of the jurisdictions, and then by the MOA, it is their responsibility to share that with elected officials,

00:55:07,770	with staff members, with whomever in their jurisdiction may be interested in receiving that information. So hopefully you are getting the information regarding these board meetings. The next meeting will be on March 12th. Again, they are open to anybody to attend. Uh, you can even go on to sprays website and get the link there.

00:55:30,670	Uh, it is informational to attend the meetings just to kind of know where they’re at with their corridor ID project. I will let you know that they informed us in January that they have concluded that first phase. And so now they are entering phase two, which is the service development plan.

00:55:48,800	And this is this is the big one. And so this is the one that’s really going to be impactful to us as that in-between region between Montana and Minnesota. So we’ll be keeping our finger on the pulse of that.

00:56:10,670	Um, but in the meantime, it has been suggested to me that I kind of spearhead or coordinate a roundtable discussion meeting. Um, not only with the MPO jurisdictions. And of course, my primary concern would be to make sure that we have the principal representatives at that meeting for the cities of Bismarck, Mandan, and Lincoln, and then also Burley and Morton County.

00:56:33,670	But it has also been suggested to include um principals from uh, other impacted communities. Should passenger rail return to our region. And that would include, uh, Jamestown, Dickinson, perhaps Valley City, uh, even beach was pitched as a potential being right on that. Um, that border of North Dakota and Montana.

00:57:00,970	So I kind of before I proceeded with coordinating such, such an item, I would like to get some feedback from TAC. Um, if you have any thoughts on that. Otherwise, I’ll be bringing that to Policy Board this afternoon for, uh, for their comments and any direction that they might want to provide..

00:57:23,330	A quick question on the list of, um, organizations you’d be reaching out to or jurisdictions, would you include maybe Grand Forks and Minot as well, since they might see some impacts to ridership levels and station riders? Yeah, that’s a good question, well, um, you know, we thought certainly those impacts that are along the proposed passenger rail service line, um, which is the BNSF line

00:57:42,130	right now, but, um, I think the, the intent, um, would be to prepare for when big Sky passenger rail comes to us and tries to, uh, present some, some suggestions for public engagement.

00:58:08,130	I think we want to make sure of where we’re at and make sure that we’re all kind of approaching the same goal, at least, um, and trying to attain the same goals. So, um, big Sky passenger Rail wants to engage not only the public, but local leaders. And I think we could probably get a head start on that. Part of it is the thinking.. Yeah, it’s more of a local discussion.

00:58:26,270	It seems like it’s appropriate to keep it local to the proposed change and not. But um, impacts. There might be doing other line.. And I think that, um, you have some good forward thinking going on.

00:58:47,130	Well because eventually I do believe that some of that northern tier line, you know, with the current Empire Builder, I know that there have been concerns expressed as to, um, what what the southern line might do and what what kind of impacts it might have to, uh, maybe their ridership and things of that nature. But I, uh, you know, I think we’re more focused right now in how we can bring it to our region.

00:59:10,600	So anything else? Any suggestions as to what we might want to see from this for our regional transportation? We have an RFP that will, uh, actually, I’ve started developing that. It’s it’s it’s in its infancy right now, but hopefully we’ll have that rolled out and brought forward in perhaps April.

00:59:34,800	Uh, and that is for the passenger rail station siting RFP. Um, so that will be instrumental in, um, guiding us forward in these conversations as well. Once we have recommendations from that. All right.

00:59:58,670	Well, if there are no other comments, um, why don’t we move on to item number ten on the agenda? And that is an update from Bozeman Transit for 2026. DJ you’ve had a lot of things going on. Dedra Hughes. Thank you chair I don’t have a ton to update that hasn’t already been discussed at the last month’s meeting, but um, per city Commission approval on February 10th, effective April 1st, we will be proceeding with our service, our expansion.

01:00:27,530	Um, this does affect both our fixed route and our demand response services. Um, so we’ll be increasing our operating hours for fixed route by four additional hours daily. So Monday through Saturday we will or Monday through Friday we will be opening at 6 a.m.

01:00:42,100	with the fixed route and ending service at 10 p.m.. Um, Saturday we do shift that an hour. So we’ll be opening at 7 a.m. and ending service at 10 p.m.. Um, really excited. Uh, this is obviously a something we’ve been talking about for several years and actually have the ability to proceed with this.

01:01:01,130	Um, very, very hopeful that, um, we’re going to see some ridership increases, you know, right away. But understanding ridership, chair, significant changes like this do usually take about six months to 12, 6 to 12 months before we see any changes. But, um, our proposed changes for the demand response service on Sundays were also approved.

01:01:23,070	Um, so currently we operate from 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Sundays for our paratransit ride riders. Um, we are adding three and a half additional hours of service on Sundays, as well as opening it up to the general public. Um, so we’ll be ending our service at 6 p.m. on Sundays.

01:01:41,730	Uh, the general public will also be invited to utilize the paratransit or the demand response service moving forward on our holidays. So our six holidays, uh, right now, there is no general public, um, transportation options for Sundays or holidays. So this kind of helps fill that gap. We will be operating the services separately.

01:02:05,330	Um, so our paratransit certified riders will be on separate buses than the general public just so we can, um, monitor how effective that service is. Um, if it is significantly successful, um, we may need to make some adjustments as we move through that process. Um, they’ll be following the same policies as our paratransit riders. Scheduling must be done at least one day in advance.

01:02:26,070	Um, they can schedule up to 24 hours or up. Excuse me? Up to 14 days in advance, and then, um, the cost of that will be $3 per ride. So due to the increase in service hours, we’ve also entered a contract negotiations with we review. That’s our contractor right now.

01:02:43,130	Um, a few of the components of these negotiations include they’ll actually be reducing their hourly rate if approved. Um, and accepting our three additional contract years so we wouldn’t have to go up for an RFP. Um, during the middle of this process, that would be kind of a headache.

01:03:00,670	Um, we don’t have finalized contract language on that, but a likely to be presented to the board of directors at our meeting next week. Um, we do need six additional CDL drivers to cover the expanded service hours, but there are four drivers kind of in the pipeline right now for background checks.

01:03:17,470	Um, so hopefully they’ll be able to be able to make it through and get into the training. And then, um, we’ll be ready to go once April 1st comes. Um, so we’re also in the process of updating our website rider guides and working on some promotional materials for the service changes.

01:03:35,470	So come March will be pushing on social media and traditional media for the service changes to help promote that. Um, we do have several upcoming projects in addition to our service expansion, including our national transit database reporting, our audit and some procurement projects, including a number of facility maintenance items. So a lot going on with that.

01:03:54,670	Um, we have received one replacement paratransit vehicle that was totaled to a not at fault accident, which we are currently preparing to put in service, that was received at the beginning of the month. Um, additionally, we have four replacement paratransit buses on order to replace vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life. We do anticipate they’ll be arriving in July.

01:04:13,000	Um, one thing on the side of funding, we have not received our 5307, um, fiscal year 2026 apportionment yet, so hopeful that those will be coming through in the next few months, because that does make kind of our planning for funds a little bit tricky.

01:04:33,130	And we have some CDs coming due here this month that might not be able to be reinvested until we know what that actual, um, dollar amount is from apportionment. I think typically we should see something in a normal year around February, March. So hoping any day now will we’ll know what our 5307 funding is. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Deidre. Any questions for Deidre? Okay.

01:04:55,470	One question. Do you turn on the the theme of the demand response open to the general public? Um, so can you just maybe explain that process in terms of when someone from the general public would, you know, 24 hours in advance, or at least 24 hours in advance, request a ride? Will they know

01:05:11,230	their time of pickup and their time of estimated time of, I guess, arrival? I’m just trying to think of scheduling some of those things.

01:05:22,770	If you’re one of one, or if you’re going to be one of 12 people to get picked up all on your way to wherever it is at, that person’s wanted to go, maybe elaborate there. Sure. Um, so when a rider schedules a trip, they’ll have to call in and we’ll set up their point of origin, their destination, and then they’ll be given, um, a pickup window. So that’s a 30 minute window.

01:05:36,600	So they need to be prepared for that pickup anytime within those 30 minutes. Once the bus arrives, they have five minutes to, you know, get down from their apartment or, you know, let the driver know they’re, you know, ready to be assisted, to be boarded.

01:05:53,230	Um, so if they say request, I need a drop off at church by 10:00. Um, we handle that accordingly and say, okay, your pickup window is going to be 915 to 945. Be prepared for pickup any time within that. We do also have, um, text alerts that people can sign up for. So they’ll say driver is on their way.

01:06:11,330	You know, just to kind of give them a little bit of a heads up. So that 30 minute window isn’t quite as cumbersome. If they sign up for those text alerts. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Great question. Anything else for deja? Oh, thank you very much. Thank you. A lot of exciting things. We’ll wait for that apportionment to come in.

01:06:30,330	That’ll help a lot. Okay. Um, item number 11 other business. Any other business. Oh. All right. Uh, well, we’ll call the meeting adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody, for