00:00:05,570	Well. Good morning. Let’s see. Can you hear me? Okay. I’m coming in. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the March 16th, 2026 meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Bismarck Mandan MPO. Uh, it’s good to have everybody here today.

00:00:27,400	I hear that we have quite a few participants online, so we’ll call the meeting to order and begin with roll call. Tracy. Daniel Naran. Here. Dan Schreck. Here. Dedra Hughes here. Gabe schell. Uh, sitting in for Gabe here. Chris holder. Okay. Loretta marshak. here. Riley McAdoo. Here. John Sackey. Here. Logan. Busy here. Mitch Flanagan here. Natalie Pierce. Will Hutchins. Sorry. Here. And chair ripple.

00:01:21,900	Here. Thank you. We do have a quorum. We’ll begin the meeting in. I also wanted to extend the invitation to any online participants who would like to identify themselves so that their presence at the meeting could be recorded in the minutes.

00:01:41,130	Is there anybody online that would like to introduce themselves? Um, if not just a reminder for anybody who is attending in person today, we do have a sign in sheet on the table at the door. When you first entered.

00:02:05,200	Um, and if you want your presence known, please sign in and, uh, we will advance on to the first order of business. And that is the public comment. The public comment is restricted to the items on the current agenda or the prior attack agenda, excluding public hearing items. Is there anybody present or online who would care to provide public comment? And a second call for public comment. Third call for public comment.

00:02:29,200	Hearing and seeing none. The public comment period is closed. We’ll move on to the consent agenda. We have two items on the consent agenda today. We have the minutes from the February 17th, 2026 TAC meeting, and we also have the fringe Area Roads Master Plan update, attack addendum.

00:02:50,470	For a time extension. Um, this was for only a time extension. It was included in your packet as exhibit CA. Um, there are no budgetary, um, allowances being made or extensions being made. Are there any questions on either of the items on the consent agenda, or do we have a motion to approve.

00:03:18,270	Move to approve? Is there a second? Second it. This is Loretta. Thank you. Loretta. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? If not, call the roll, please. Tracy. Daniel. Naran. Yes. Dan. Schreck. Yes. Did your. He was. Yes. Chris Holzer. Yes. Loretta. Marsha. Yes. Riley McAdoo. Rosler. Yes. John Sasaki. Yes. Logan. Bisi. Yes. Mitch. Flanagan. Yes.

00:03:49,200	Natalie. Pearce. Oh, she’s not here. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair rebel. Yes. Motion passes. The consent agenda is approved. Moving on to the regular agenda, the first item on that agenda is, um, the 2026, 2029 Transportation Improvement Program amendment. And Stephen Larson will present that to us. Thank you. Chair. This month, the MPO process.

00:04:18,670	Can you hear me? I don’t think you’re coming through the. Online. Uh, there we go. Apparently, I had to hit a button. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now. This month, the MPO has processed, uh, or processed an amendment to our current tip. The 26 through 29.

00:04:41,700	Uh, this amendment was advertised for the required 15 day public comment period. We did not receive any comments. It’s a pretty straightforward amendment, adding a new statewide project for automatic traffic recorder maintenance that the Dot is leading. It includes one location in Bismarck, and the details are in the exhibit on the screen and in your packet.

00:05:05,170	Um, are there any questions from the board on the amendment as presented? Any questions on the amendment that Stevens presented prior to the public hearing? Okay. If not, we will open this item up for the public hearing that was advertised.

00:05:28,130	Are there any public comments on this amendment calling one, calling twice. Calling a third time for public comment. Hearing and seeing none. Public comment period is closed. And what are the wishes of the board? Move to approve. Deidre Hughes, we have a motion. Thank you. Do we have a second? I’d second. Daniel Negron, second. Any discussion? If not. Tracy, please call the roll. Daniel Negron. Yes. Dan schreck.

00:06:02,670	Yes. Did your. Hughes. Yes. Chris Holzer. Yes. Loretta marshak. Yes. Riley McAdoo. Rosler. Yes. John sackey. Yes. Logan. Bisi. Yes. Mitch. Flanagan. Yes. Will. Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Ripple. Yes. Motion passes and the Tip amendment is recommended for approval. Uh, moving on to number six, we have another Tip amendment. Stephen.

00:06:35,770	Yes. Thank you. Chair. Um, uh, this month, we also processed a second amendment to the current tip, but we received notice of this from Dot past the point where we could advertise for public comment before the meetings. So we put it in as soon as we received it.

00:06:52,530	It is being advertised for the required 15 day public comment period. The public hearing will be held at 10:30 a.m. on March 27th at the City County building here on the second floor in the Blackstone Room.

00:07:11,070	Uh, the amendment adds another statewide project to the tip, this one for pavement markings on various highways within MnDOT, Bismarck District. So what we would be seeking today is a motion to approve the amendment or recommend approval contingent on no substantive public comments being received at the public hearing. Any questions. Questions or comments for Stephen on the amendment? If not, we would be seeking that conditional approval, which is of the board.

00:07:40,900	Says Chris. I’ll move to approve. Thank you Chris. We have a motion. Is there a second? I’ll second. Daniel Negron second. Thank you. Any discussion at all? If not, roll call, please. Daniel Negron. Yes. Dan Schreck. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Chris holzer. Yes. Loretta marshak. Yes. Riley McAdoo. Rosler. Yes. John Psaki. Yes. Logan. Busy? Yes. Mitch. Flanagan.

00:08:24,700	Yes. Will. Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Ripple. Yes. Thank you. Motion for conditional. Uh, recommendation of approval. Passes. And we will move on to item number seven. And that is the 2026, 2027 UPW amendment. Um, which was included as exhibit R d in your packet. Steven has graciously agreed to share screen for me today.

00:08:54,270	Um, this amendment does begin on page 25 of your packet. Um, the amendment is the first to the 2026, 2027 up, and it provides updates to the work programs and the budgets of both years of the current Bismarck Mandan MPO, PWP.

00:09:17,070	These modifications are necessary in order to revise study dates, schedules and budgets to accommodate recent delays and the addition of projects required to prepare for the update to the travel demand model in early 2027. These additional projects are necessary for the development of the next Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is a required core document of the MPO.

00:09:38,400	Approval by the MPO Policy Board and the Federal Highway Administration is required to enact this amendment. Uh, there is a bullet point, a bullet pointed list of items that were modified in the track change document included in the packet that included changes to the cover of the document.

00:10:01,970	The TAC member table on page two is updated to reflect Daniel as a member. The policy Board member table on page two was updated to reflect Steve Bacon as a Commissioner on the Policy Board. We’ve modified the planned work activities on page four to correspond with the proposed changes to our program and budget.

00:10:23,270	Uh, the 2026 funding source table on page five, as well as the 2027 funding source table on page six, have both been revised to accommodate and align with that proposed budget.

00:10:43,530	The timeline for MTP update on page seven was slightly modified, just a change of quarters for a couple of items, and our primary changes really occurred on pages 18 and 19 of the document to the 2026 task 102 project table. Also on the following page to the 2027 task 102 project table. And then of course, to their um revised budget tables for each corresponding year.

00:11:08,130	So, Steven, if you would like to just jump to page 49 in the packet and we’ll take a look at our 2026 task 102 project table, there. Okay. Um, as as I said, there were some delays that we experienced. Uh, uh, on behalf of the Bismarck Mandan MPO in the year of 2025.

00:11:38,730	Uh, we weren’t able to get all of our projects off of the ground. And some of those projects did have to do with, um, preparations for the next update to the travel demand model. Um, namely the biggest one being the traffic data collection and analysis. Um, that had been programmed. Uh, part of that was a timing issue.

00:11:59,400	Um, and part of it was that we didn’t have all of our, our traffic data collection, uh, provided to us at that time. So we attempted to wrap up our traffic data collection at the end of 2025, and then that would require the need to move the traffic data collection analysis into year 2026, which

00:12:21,400	would better align with the early 2027, um, travel demand model update. So so in order to do that, um, we obviously had to come up with the budget to accommodate that. Um, fortunately or not, however that works out. We did have a delay to our transit development plan.

00:12:44,730	Uh, we had anticipated that that project would have been, uh, kicked off in January of 2026. However, um, regarding a delay to the release of the RFP approval. Um, and, you know, everything that that ends up cascading into we won’t have a project start until very likely at the earliest. mid-May.

00:13:12,700	Um, more potentially June 1st for the transit development plan. That gave us a little bit of budget to work with. In addition, uh, the parking constrained Areas study has also been a bit fluid. Um, originally planned to address needs within the cities of Bismarck and Mandan.

00:13:37,070	Um Mandan is currently lacking a field planner position there, and so it may not be the best timing for them to pursue this particular study. Uh, that study has actually been modified to have the city of Bismarck as its sole participant. And so we’ve actually reduced the timeline on the study, um, from a 12 month study to ten months.

00:13:56,430	And we’ve also reduced the overall budget with only the city of Bismarck participating on that. So that also provided us a little additional, um, cushion to make way for that traffic data analysis.

00:14:20,870	Um, so you will see on page 49 of the packet, uh, the items that are marked in red show budget changes, timing changes for the schedule beginning with that transit development plan update. But then we’ve also added the traffic data collection and analysis project for a total of $102,000. That will be done prior to the end of the year. But I did put a 1231 completion date on that. In addition, as part of this, we will have an odd data purchase.

00:14:44,570	Uh, this will be for an origin destination data for the base year of 2025, and we’ll be using that for our travel demand model calibration as well. So that will need to be complete by the end of the year, so that we can use that right away in early 2027. That has a total cost of $35,738.

00:15:07,770	That will all occur in 2026. And then finally, as part of this MTP effort, it will also include our socio economic data purchase for employment and household. Uh, um, collection or not collection. But, uh, date of purchase for those numbers. Um, we anticipate that to happen.

00:15:32,870	Uh, within that that, uh, third and fourth quarter of the year. And so again, that will be completed by December 2026. This was originally programmed for 2027, and we’re just going to accelerate that timeline, move it all into 26, along with that $5,000 budget.

00:15:57,470	Um, any questions on those items? I see the description for the parking constraint study still has a mandate included within it. I know there’s been some back and forth. We just want to point that out. We will take Mandan right out of that description. Thank you for pointing that out. That was very likely a copy paste on my part. Thanks, Daniel. Um, okay.

00:16:12,400	And yes, on page 50. Um, as Daniel mentioned, the parking constrained area study is it has carried over to that. Page 50. Uh, we’ve reduced the budget from 180,000 to 150,000. 73,000 of that will be expended in 2026. The rest will be carried over to 2027. Um. Terrible on that one. Yes.

00:16:39,000	Um, was there any discussion with Mandan to determine if they have interest in participating in this study at a later time? And the reason I asked is because here we’re only seeing a $30,000 decrease, but that, um, I imagine for Mandan to do it as a standalone, there’d be the the base cost of just

00:16:55,370	getting a study going and doing done, plus the $30,000 worth of work here that you’re seeing. So, you know, it wouldn’t be just 100. It wouldn’t be just $30,000 for them to do it later. More likely to be closer to like, I don’t know, 100,000, but I’m not sure.

00:17:11,200	Have you talked about that at all with them? Yes, we we had some pretty lengthy conversations in fact. So our discussions started back in January regarding this particular study.

00:17:29,300	Um, and again, Mandan wasn’t really sure if the timing was right for them or not, although it had previously been identified that they would participate at a 30% cost share in that on in that local match. Um, and again, the timing just wasn’t playing out right. They thought maybe they could do it. Ultimately, it was decided that with the with the reticence, you know, and kind of the hesitancy.

00:17:52,970	Um, yeah, that even though there would be a better cost savings for them to participate now, uh, they just weren’t prepared to do that. So, um, that is still something that they will probably look at. I believe that we have that kind of tentatively programmed in for 2029.

00:18:15,330	Um, and, you know, as we move closer to that target, um, that that could shift as well, but it’s still on the radar for them. Okay. Great. Thanks. And I appreciate your observation on the cost. That was that was something to that. Um, you know, we were aware of, but I don’t know that it it would be as beneficial for them to participate.

00:18:35,470	Now, um, uh, as if and unless we, you know, hold off, then they can. The the thought was that they can kind of see how things work out for Bismarck and, and then they can also, um, you know, take some of the, the high points and, and the things that worked out for Bismarck and, and build on that. So. Yeah. Yeah.

00:18:52,130	Okay. Any other questions or comments on 2026? Okay. If not, we’ll move on to 2027. And again we have just a couple of updates here. Uh, the transit development plan update carried over into 27. And you can see that we increased the budget there from 81,027 to 116,400.

00:19:14,400	Um, so the sole match that was affected by that is, of course, Bismarck Transit. Um, moving on to page 51. We took the socio economic data purchase out of the 2027 program. Uh, and we have modified the parking constrained Areas study.

00:19:37,470	Um, program in 2027, which also includes Mandan, and I will take that out. Daniel. Um, to conclude, in 2027 with, uh, total expenditure there of 77,000, which is the remainder for that project. Uh, so those, um, those study amendments and costs are pretty straightforward. Uh, 2027 I just want to remind everybody that’s kind of our out year in the up. It’s basically illustrative.

00:20:03,600	We’re working with very high level, uh, budget estimates as far as what our federal funding sources might provide us. Everything is a moving target in that regard.

00:20:32,470	And as we start developing our our 2027, 2028 up will, um, kind of, um, uh, flesh out some of these, um, numbers and descriptors so that we have things nailed down very accurately for our in year of our 2027, 2028 up. But for now, are there any questions or comments on the changes as outlined in the table as. Well? Okay. Well thank you.

00:20:54,430	Um, the next page that I’ll just indicate a few changes on is, um, oh let’s see, page thought it was page 52. Sorry. Uh, and that is the section that includes, um, what final projects would be or final products. Of course, we had to alter our years for the parking constrained area study. Uh, as that’s going to be going into 2027.

00:21:15,670	And then we also had to add in that the socioeconomic data purchase will occur in 26 rather than 27. And the traffic data collection analysis will be in 26. Um, and so we had to indicate that as our final products, uh, the final item that I’d like to just bring your attention to are the actual budget tables for 2026 and 2027.

00:21:37,100	And those are on page. Um, starting on page 57 of the packet. And that is a 2026 up budget, which would be my primary concern that everybody’s eyes are on that. Um, because that is our current year.

00:22:03,800	So basically it indicates all of the amounts that have been amended, um, through the, the addition of the SE data purchase, the odd data, purchase the addition of the, um, the traffic data analysis, the reduction to the transit development plan in 2026. Um, and also the reduction, excuse me, to the local match there. Therefore, um, and then the, um, modifications to the parking constrained area study, you’ll see up on the very top.

00:22:32,530	Amendment one does indicate that, um, there are no amendments to either the total budget or the federal share, um, or the local share. But what does change is the breakdown of that local share. So, um, Bismarck had the largest increase with a little over 8500. And I think we’ve talked about that. And, um, we seem to be okay with working that into our 26 budget.

00:22:59,930	Much of this was already accounted for. Um, Mandan had an actual reduction because of being taken out of that parking constrained area study. Burley, Morton and Lincoln all had very slight increases.

00:23:26,470	Um, and that’s because of their share with the traffic data analysis and socio economic data purchase and then transit had a substantial reduction due to the decrease in the TDP for 2026. Are there any questions on the actual budget figures for 2026 and the up? Okay. And if there are none, we’ll just move on to the following page. Page 58 in the packet. And that is the budget table for the 2027 up up.

00:23:55,430	Again very fluid figures, very high level as far as um funding levels. We are not we’re not sure about what’s going to come in. And so, um, you know, we’re we’re adding some money to this budget. Um, we might get it.

00:24:12,400	We might have to reexamine that as we’re developing our 2027 budget for the next up. But right now, um, I just wanted to, uh, make sure that everybody kind of knew how these studies were moving around from year to year and what that might entail.

00:24:39,530	Any questions or comments on the 27 budget? If not, staff would be looking for a motion to recommend approval of amendment one to the 2026 2027 up. Would there be such a motion? To approve? We have a motion to approve by Deidra. Is there a second? This is Chris. I’ll second. Chris Holder second. Is there any discussion? If not, roll call, please. Daniel. Naran. Yes. Dan. Schreck. Yes. Did your. Hughes. Yes. Chris Holzer. Yes. Loretta. Marshak. Yes.

00:25:20,070	Riley McAdoo. Yes. John Sackey. Yes. Logan. Busy? Yes. Mitch. Flanagan. Yes. Will. Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Ripple. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to item number eight. On the agenda is the 2026 Fringe Area Road Master Plan Update with Joel Mann. Good morning everyone. I’ll go ahead and share my screen here.

00:25:49,400	Um, I want to give this this update will be a little bit longer than some of the last ones have been in previous months, but I’ll try to move through quickly to save time for questions.

00:26:06,370	Um, first update that I want to give to everybody is that, um, we’ve talked about this in some of the past updates. The plan is continuing to move toward emphasizing what we are calling a regionally significant corridor network, as as part of it that doesn’t take away anything else or replace anything. It simply establishes some new terminology or a new framework for thinking about certain corridors that were always part of the plan.

00:26:25,800	And these, I think, had some significance in local conversation for a while. Anyway, they were either in past studies or they are understood to be important corridors. Anyway from a practical standpoint.

00:26:42,870	So we’re looking at a way that the plan can start to elevate those and kind of move them out of the regional growth. And, and, um, development management framework that the plan had historically been. So that will continue to evolve. We’ll have more updates on that.

00:27:02,130	But I think the key thing to think about right now is that that’s kind of pointing to this plan, maybe setting some recommendations for capital projects, you know, things that it didn’t really do before in the same way. And we will explain. And as we keep working through the plan and give further updates, you know, what that looks like and how that works.

00:27:16,530	The other big update that we want to give is on, uh, stakeholder engagement activities that we had just last week. Um, unfortunately, when we sent out your agenda packet for your review, we hadn’t had these yet, or we would have been glad to share some of what came from the discussions, because they were very good discussions, very active.

00:27:36,400	We got a lot of good feedback, and I think critically, we had, uh, representation from groups that we don’t typically get together at the same time like this. So it was special for a planning study like this to have that was due in no small part to the partnership and support of the chamber EDC, who actually sent out invitations to their their member base and encouraged people to attend and hosted us

00:27:54,030	at their facility. So, um, we had a meeting on the 11th and then another on the 12th. They were they were set up initially to be kind of AA2 part series, where the first was more about kind of background for the plan for anyone who hadn’t historically participated in MPO efforts.

00:28:11,630	And then the second was supposed to have staff and get into more of the implementation, and staff could kind of give their perspective on how they’ve used it. It kind of worked out to be just, you know, two options for the same format of meeting, which is fine. It suited a larger audiences schedule that way.

00:28:26,000	It got more feedback. Um, but really allowed us to dive into particular issues. That data don’t always, um, articulate well for you. You know, the data doesn’t always tell you the story about how the development and real estate industry sees the trends happening and where developments happening.

00:28:46,200	So this was really valuable feedback that we are glad to take into, uh, the rest of the planning process. What I want to talk about in terms of other technical updates is that regionally significant network, and kind of explain how that has been coming together.

00:29:01,730	This is something that we’ve shared with you before and that you’ve seen in other MPO efforts. This is taken directly from the MPOs travel event forecasting model and looks at the, uh, the 2050 forecast for jobs and households throughout the region so that you’re seeing, you know, darker colors as the place is where more, uh, more households and jobs are expected to be.

00:29:24,130	But significantly, and since our last update, the new ETA for the city of Bismarck has taken effect. So we brought that into our discussions that we had last week to emphasize the forecast for regional growth, a different way that Bismarck, in particular, has been thinking about future growth and expansion, um, relative to

00:29:42,870	Burley County and what that might mean for some of these forecasts, that this was part of the discussion that we had with our stakeholders last week.

00:30:01,100	Um, but, you know, we’re emphasizing this idea and share this in the discussions last week that the fringe area roads plan can still do its core job as working as a framework to guide development and making sure these connections happen, but that we start to focus on this regional network and we’ll talk about some of that, um, here in the next few slides to be given what I’ll call a special level of review and decision making priority, that

00:30:18,730	doesn’t have to mean all of these roads making up these corridors would be designed the same way. It doesn’t have to mean they’re all capital projects. It doesn’t have to mean that they become part of the MTP or that, uh, North Dakota Dot is involved in them.

00:30:36,200	These are simply the corridors that are serving a special function and make sense to have a special level of review, which will continue to work toward defining. And they’ve been selected at kind of a draft level right now. This is still, you know, something that can change because of what they do to connect areas of growth or serve particular links.

00:30:55,030	Um, that that other roads in the network wouldn’t or couldn’t do. So two of those include bridges that we’ll talk about here in a moment, but they also include some of the past concepts that have come from historic studies and plans that we’ve brought into this process, like the North south

00:31:12,470	Beltway connections from a study nearly 20 years ago, um, that those still have a role and function in the network. We don’t necessarily need to call them what they were called before, because they’re really part of this bigger regional network to make sure growth is getting connected to the interstate.

00:31:31,730	You know, other major transportation connections. But as we’ve been working through this, and especially in our stakeholder discussions last week, we’re seeing the need to come back to a few key questions and maybe make some decisions in this planning process and document those.

00:31:49,870	So we would welcome the feedback of this committee, the policy board, and our stakeholders and community as we move forward on the the example of the 66th Street corridor, which we had flagged as one of these regional corridors because it connects Lincoln to growth areas in northeast Bismarck. Um, the questions come up that that would kind of rely on an interchange at Interstate 94 to provide that access throughout the region.

00:32:10,900	And is that interchange still the preferred location given? Um, some things we’ve learned from the city of Bismarck, looking at that area, um, for a landfill and for, um, other potential needs there, is that still the best location for that? So a question that we need to explore further.

00:32:32,600	Another one of these corridor links is where that particular corridor starts to wrap around the north part of the city of Bismarck. And 71st Avenue, which, you know, extends over to the west.

00:32:54,200	Um, is that still the same kind of corridor tying into 57th Avenue? If there isn’t going to be a northern bridge? So we didn’t get, you know, a definitive sense or we haven’t concluded certainly that there would or wouldn’t be, but there’s still uncertainty about that. It’s a big project that has a high price tag, would take a long time of planning and coordination for that to happen.

00:33:11,000	And if it doesn’t, if the region decides that, does the plan need to identify that the 71st Avenue corridor does something different to connect to the rest of the network West of highway 83? Of course, it’s it’s a state highway. It’s 1804. So maybe the role of this and regional connection is something different. If that bridge never happens, something that we need to determine.

00:33:27,600	And, you know, we tried to visualize this for the stakeholders. So here’s an example of it that if you’re kind of looking here toward the East and you see these, you know, connections start to happen that you’re dealing with some major issues like topography, you know, not getting a straight line on the map.

00:33:42,530	Continue in a practical sense. So the plan would need to define kind of what happens in each of these scenarios if a bridge moves forward, if this is the connection to make that happen, what do we need to do about these kinds of constraints and issues? Another example is over on the Mandan side of the river, the McKenzie

00:33:57,530	drive corridor. This exists today. It’s just, um, it’s it’s a collector street, but in a fairly small area that’s mostly residential. And if that got expanded as the previous fringe area roads network called for across the Hart River and to potentially connect over to highway six, that gives growth.

00:34:16,370	That’s happened to the southwest of Mandan. A new way to get to Bismarck and navigate around the region, especially with the freeway access there.

00:34:30,700	But that starts to beg the question of, you know, what is the character of that road, and how will that change in that area? So these are things that we need to consider as part of the plan. I think as we do that, we want to identify what they would look like as projects or how they would potentially move forward in something like an updated MTP.

00:34:48,730	And to think about the hotspot locations that this plan identified with, with some specifics about. Here’s what you do. You know, given some of these, uh, site and context constraints, here’s the best way to move forward with that. That was always an expectation of the plan to identify those recommendations. But we’re getting to that point that they’re taking shape. So some next steps here.

00:35:07,930	Um, we are working with Ddot right now on a kind of a I’ll call it a focus group meeting with Ddot staff to dive into some of these issues more closely, looking at scheduling that later this month or early in April. And then we are starting to plan our next community engagement activities.

00:35:26,070	That will probably be mid-April as well. We may have an update on those that are next, um, next TAC meeting. They may not get scheduled until after. We’ll see.

00:35:43,130	But we’re working on identifying dates for that right now and continuing to share this message that, um, all of these regional connections that are important, we have to start thinking about them today. That’s the role of a plan like this. That’s the role of regional planning overall. And we want to, you know, engage our our community members in that process.

00:35:58,270	We we felt like the engagement we had in December and January that was more interactive and put people in the position of thinking like, you know, engineers and planners and decision makers was helpful and got people, you know, really engaged and active. So we want to look to a similar approach to that.

00:36:14,230	This time, we’re not just sharing a draft plan on boards at an open house, but we’re getting people thinking about this and more engaged and what goes into it. So happy to take any questions that you have. And thanks again for your support. Thanks to the great update.

00:36:34,930	Joel, are there any questions for Joel at this point? I’m not seeing any in the room, not hearing anything online. No, I think we’re good. Thank you again, Joel. All right. Thank you. Um. All right. Well then moving on to item number nine. We have the fiscal year 27 Recreational Trails Program solicitation.

00:36:58,970	Stephen, do you want to tell us about that? Yes. Just really briefly, I just wanted to remind everyone that the North Dakota Parks and Recreation District solicitation for fiscal year 27 Recreational Trails Program, or RTP, will be opening April 1st and closing April 13th. So the MPO sent everyone notice of this.

00:37:23,070	Uh, we send our partners notice in February so that any jurisdiction, uh, submitting a project within the MPO area can coordinate with us. They do need you do need to coordinate with the MPO to get your project approved at our April or May board meetings, so that you we can provide you with the letter of support that is required by the Park district.

00:37:38,470	Although I will note that Park District does not require the letter of support to be preemptively provided, it can be provided after the application window. Since it is a short window and doesn’t really line up very well with our board meeting schedule. So any questions? Doesn’t seem like we have any questions. Thanks, Steven.

00:37:58,800	Appreciate it. All right. Um, number ten on the agenda 2026 Transit Development Plan RFP update Paulette Jacobson. Good morning. The request for proposals for the transit development plan was sent out on February 19th. The deadline is today, March 16th at 5 p.m.

00:38:27,600	, and our goal is to have the selection committee conduct interviews with the proposing consultants around the week of April 13th, April 13th, 14th, and that time frame. And the MPO expects to bring the top ranked consultants to TAC and Policy Board for possible approval at the April board meetings. Any questions? Don’t appear to be any questions. Thank you Paul I appreciate it. All right.

00:38:54,870	Item number 11, the spring director’s meeting report. Uh. The North Dakota MPO and North Dakota D.O.T. held their spring MPO director’s meeting on March 3rd. And I just wanted to bring a few of the items that were discussed at that meeting forward for your consideration.

00:39:18,900	Um, nothing that requires action today, just kind of general update. Um, just to let you know, this is a fairly large, uh, meeting that occurs every spring and fall. It has a good contingent of local government division planning and assets management division.

00:39:42,470	Uh, Bismarck Division office, um transit and even civil rights folks from the North Dakota Dot present there, along with all four of the MPO directors within the state and their staff as well. Uh, we get together and we just discuss some, you know, items that we feel to be of interest or of need to each other.

00:40:04,370	It’s a great way to share information and make sure that we’re all kind of on the same page as we’re moving forward in our planning processes amongst the MPOs in the state. Um, and so, uh, I’ll just share a few of the items. Uh, one is and I know that we’ve talked about this before, North Dakota Dot is in the midst of the update to their long range transportation plan right now.

00:40:24,530	Uh, in fact, we probably sent out a correspondence to our TAC members last week because, um, the Dot is very excited that they have an interactive tool. Uh, that is live online right now. And I think that the link was included in that update.

00:40:48,000	Um, this tool is a funding tool, and it’s designed so that people can see what their monthly transportation costs are. Um, and how those relate typically to, say, your monthly household costs or, um, it’s an interactive funding tool. So you can go in and you can select the transportation items that you feel to be priorities. You can select funding that you want to put towards those.

00:41:14,730	And then it will kind of shake out how your transportation dollars support essential services and how that relates back to what you might spend on something. Um, in in your personal household budget on a monthly basis. So it helps you to kind of create a comparison.

00:41:38,300	Um, but and I would encourage everybody to participate in the, in the interactive tool. It’s very it’s very engaging and it’s kind of fun. Um, they had this with their last updates. I haven’t been able to engage in this one yet, but, um, certainly intend to. So the link to the tool is dot gov for transportation connection.

00:42:00,170	So not too hard to remember if you get on to Dot’s website. It’s pretty much front and center there for you. So um, another item that we talked about um, which was a big one, uh, is we always go over our, our CPG balances for all of the MPOs or see what we’ve spent out of our

00:42:20,700	consolidated planning grant for the year prior. And what we’re looking at for the upcoming year with this spring meeting. Uh, looking back is always a big emphasis because we look at our total spending for the prior year.

00:42:47,000	Um, for 2025, uh, amongst the four MPOs, there was approximately $352,000 of unspent CPG funds. Um, the way that that shook out was about 38,000 for Central Dakota MPO. About 94,000 for Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, about 65,000 for uh FM cog. And then about 155,000 for the Bismarck MPO.

00:43:18,070	Um, we all had various reasons for being unable to spend down our CPG funding completely. I will tell you that the Bismarck Mandan MPO experienced some staffing capacity issues. Uh, we had basically a 75% turnover in our staffing. And so, um, through the first six months of the year, we were trying to fill positions and to adjust to that learning curve and train.

00:43:45,270	And, uh, so it was a challenge just to kind of maintain status quo, much less try to implement a full program for our work program and budget.

00:44:08,800	Uh, however, uh, at the end of the year when we do have unspent funding like that, the Dot does provide us several options to, um, address that unspent funding. And of those options, the four MPOs have always been in agreement that one is far more beneficial than the others. And that option is to get together as MPO directors. Take a look at what what each of the MPOs needs are.

00:44:36,530	Um, as far as projects and funding and try to come to a agreement amongst ourselves that we can provide as a recommendation to North Dakota. Dot once Dot has provided us this unspent funding amount that they call turnback funds, we as MPOs have two weeks to confer and consult and to make a recommendation and provide that to Dot. We have done that.

00:45:01,600	We sent a signed letter to them on Friday the 13th. So just last week, um, the Bismarck Mandan MPO is requesting a little over $86,000 in that turnback funding to help us realize our 2027 budget and work program needs.

00:45:27,730	Um, the the rest of the funds were distributed, um, according to need between uh FM, cog and then Grand Forks, East Grand Forks. And in fact, I want to give a shout out to Central Dakota MPO. They did not request any turnback funding, and rather they actually contributed 10,000 of their turn back funding. Um, to the the greater cause of the other MPOs in the state.

00:45:51,730	So now it is up to North Dakota. Dot to take a look at what we have recommended. Um, as a disbursement of those turnback funds. And if they approve, then we will get a letter of approval and we’ll be able to feed those amounts into our 2027 budgets. On any questions on the process or the amounts.

00:46:15,300	Are any other item in that regard? None. Okay. Well, great. Um, I’ll be reporting back and letting you all know how that works out. Um, fingers crossed we get our approval. Uh.

00:46:41,930	One of the other items that we, we talked about at fairly great length was the fact that the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, or Idea, um, surface transportation bill is set to expire on September 30th of this year.

00:47:08,670	Um, that means that, uh, unless we have a new surface transportation reauthorization that’s gone through through the congressional, um, House and, and Senate, um, and been approved, uh, we would hope then that maybe we’re functioning on a continuing resolution. Otherwise, we have absolutely no funding. So, um, there has been some activity regarding a new surface transportation authorization bill. Um, it is called the Basics Act.

00:47:35,870	And, uh, we we’ve had some of the information for the Basics Act rolled out to us through ample, which is the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organization. It’s a national organization that represents MPOs across the nation. Um, also, Ashton has been quite active in the the drafting and, um, rollout of this particular piece of proposed legislation.

00:48:06,870	Um, there have been a couple of webinars that the other MPO directors in the state and I have attended lots and lots of information to this act. Um, some of the information sounds wonderful. Um, they’re talking about increased planning funds that would go directly to the MPO for planning efforts. Right now, we’re getting about a 0.8% of that. That budget for planning. Um, not not the not the project’s funding.

00:48:37,270	So the MPO is get just a standard percentage for planning efforts. So while we have millions of dollars of projects being rolled out, we have a very fine amount of funding that we can apply towards the planning of those, um, project priorities and making sure that we are getting funding for the right projects.

00:49:00,370	So an additional, um, infusion of funding for planning efforts would be very beneficial to the MPOs and also to the states and regions as a whole, because we could really ensure then that we’re planning adequately for our regional transportation needs. Uh, we have heard proposals that, um, they would like to increase it to 2.

00:49:23,730	5% for a planning allocation, which would be tripling what we have now. And I almost dare not think about that, because it sounds too good to be true, but it would be wonderful if we could could attain that. There are some other items in this bill. Um, it does, it does.

00:49:46,130	Um, allocate additional funding for bridges? Um, I mean, there are there are just a lot of different, um, segments to this bill. One item is that is being proposed is eliminating the requirement for local match for, uh, surface transportation projects, for road projects that may benefit some MPOs more than others and may benefit

00:50:11,730	some MPOs like ours less than others. Um, and so there are different aspects of this bill that we’re we’re trying to examine a little more closely to really determine what that means to each of our MPOs in the state. Now, when we met with D.O.T.

00:50:36,330	at the director’s meeting, uh, Chad Aune had indicated that they have spent some time up at Capitol Hill. They have spoken with Senator Kramer, uh, with his aides, and they’re very well versed in the basic act. Um, uh, uh, Congresswoman Fedora, um, has been contacted in this regard.

00:51:02,800	Senator Hoeven was the only, uh, the only member of the delegation who wasn’t quite up to speed on the Basics Act. So we do have some time in this regard to get out letters of support, um, stating, you know, our arguments and our case for the things that we would like to be carried forward through this, this proposed legislation and maybe even highlight some

00:51:24,530	of the things that we feel might not be as beneficial to us, um, so that they know about those items. Uh, North Dakota, did. North Dakota Dot did indicate that because they have already, um, expended their their efforts on, on this, um, that they would not join with the MPOs necessarily in in a

00:51:49,000	letter of support for the basic act. But they did encourage us to pursue this on our own. And it would be my my ask at this point as we learn more about the details of what is being proposed, that the four MPOs are able to, um, draft a letter that addresses all of their needs, concerns and priorities

00:52:16,730	and that we would all sign on to one letter because it is the feeling of the MPO directors that we have a stronger voice. If we voice, um, those opinions together as a whole rather than four separate MPOs.

00:52:37,530	So as I learn more, I would very likely if it, um, you know, if it flies by policy board today, I would very likely be bringing a letter of support to the boards in April at our meeting. For your consideration, but just wanted to be transparent and make everybody aware of kind of how that’s all playing out.

00:53:00,530	Are there any questions or comments on the basic basics act or. Um, I did provide you a handout that does have some really, uh, fundamental information on the basics act. It also does have a QR code on the back of that.

00:53:19,300	And so you can kind of dig into it a little, a little deeper at your leisure. And for anybody who is attending today, I also have the handouts at the table at the entrance of the meeting room. So more to come on that. Yes. Chris. Uh, just curious if they talked at all about the he said the planning costs for amounts would increase.

00:53:40,030	What about the project costs? Are those planned to increase also? So the project costs? Um, there was some some talk about that as well. Um, the basics Act does propose specific types of funding for bridges and, and road projects. Also, they want to maintain some of the sub allocations that are required.

00:54:01,930	I know Ddot has expressed that when they are kind of using moneys, you know, all of these moneys from the separate funding pods, that it can become very challenging when they have the sub allocations for cities of, say, less than 5000, 5 to 50,000 and 50 to 200,000, 200,000, up that they

00:54:27,800	all have to get so much. Those are mandated by the sub allocations. And it it hinders Ddot a little bit in their flexibility to move that funding into other areas.

00:54:48,870	Other, you know, funding programs where maybe some of the state communities need it or maybe where the state could use it themselves. But the Basics Act does maintain that sub allocation. So yeah, they’re they’re looking at increasing funding, even though it doesn’t really look that way. If you look at it from the end point of the IGA bill.

00:55:11,800	Um, but there there’s extensive information on the formulas that they use. And without getting into the weeds on that, it is an increased amount of funding. So, yes, to answer your question, any other questions? Okay. And a good question. Yes. Historically weighed in on the federal transportation regulation with with letters of support.

00:55:33,100	Or would this be a new thing? Uh, this is a pretty new thing actually. But I guess the feeling is overall that we have a lot to gain, um, by expressing our opinions and our feelings and trying to add to the momentum of support.

00:55:57,170	And again, um, I’ve heard through various sources that, um, the likelihood of the full basics act, um, ever reaching a vote is very, very slim and they end up kind of pulling pieces and parts out of what’s been proposed and moving those things forward.

00:56:18,530	So if that is really the case, we want to try to ensure that the things that are going to benefit us here in North Dakota are those things that get moved forward into the transportation bill. Okay. This is well, if I may. Yeah, that’s kind of the point I was hearing from Chad is that there’s both a House version of this bill and a Senate version of this bill that, you know, come at it from two different angles.

00:56:34,530	And then ultimately where it lands in the long run is not necessarily any one bill in particular gets passed, but they kind of, you know, jockey around and, and work through their amendments and changes.

00:56:52,730	And so I think, you know, not providing support for one particular bill might prove to be kind of shooting yourself or then after that it becomes futile because they’ll just be like, throw it out when they throw the bill out.

00:57:08,830	But if you were to identify the needs of the the request of your Mpls or the collective MPOs, that might read a little bit better and some of it’s more universal and how it can get applied across multiple versions of this that may come across come forward. Just just some thoughts here. Yeah. Thank you for the observation. Well, and and you’re right. Um, you know, they did discuss that at the meeting as well, that this is probably going to go through several iterations.

00:57:26,800	Again, they kind of pull bits and pieces out of this proposed legislation and it becomes something else. But we want to really make sure that, um, again, we’re emphasizing what our needs and priorities are and what we would like to see advance from this basic act. So any other comments? Okay.

00:57:49,370	The final item that I wanted to share from the director’s meeting is that, um, the urban interstate priorities process is going to resume. This is going to pick up from where it left off. I it’s been several years since these discussions took place, and I know that emails did go out last week.

00:58:12,900	Um, hopefully the engineers of our urban communities here in Bismarck, Mandan have had a chance to see those, um, conversations while meetings will be, scheduled and the conversations will be held to start looking again at what some of our interstate, um, priorities are here. So that’s a good thing.

00:58:35,730	Um, and that’s all I really had as far as the director’s meeting. Unless anybody who was there wanted to add anything else, Will or Logan. Um. No. Okay. All right, then we will move on to item number 12, which is other business. Anybody have any other business? For the good of the order? If not.

00:58:58,730	I will just say that, um, as a recap, we had the North Dakota Transportation Conference last week. Uh, very good attendance overall. Um, and I just wanted to give a special thought out to both you and Steven for, uh, presenting at the conference. Uh, Steven was responsible for two sessions, and one of them was led by North Dakota Planning Association.

00:59:14,930	And it was kind of talking about planning efforts and what goes into transportation planning, as well as your guys’s work that you presented on for the bike ped. Ultimately, they were both great sessions, and you did an excellent job, and we really appreciate that. Thank you. Well, thank you for that. Will appreciate it.

00:59:32,500	Um, and I’m sorry that I failed to address the North Dakota Transportation Conference. I think it was a pretty successful conference. I think I read there were over a thousand attendees and and the dates, I believe, have even been set for next year.

00:59:52,000	Well, do you know what those are? The top of my head. I can go with that. But yeah, they did set the dates correct. I should have written it down. So I’m sorry that I didn’t do that. But yes, thank you for thank you for, um, those kind words. Appreciate it. Uh, anything else for other business? Oh.