00:00:11,600	It is 10 a.m. on April 20th, 2026, and we’ll call the regular Technical Advisory Committee meeting of the Bismarck Mandan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization. Uh, to order. We will start with a roll call. Tracy.. Daniel Nairn. here. Tim Jacobs. here. Deidre Hughes here. Gabe Schell here. Loretta Marshik. Here. Jarek Wigness here. John Saiki. Here.

00:00:53,400	Logan Beise here. Mitch Flanagan. Natalie Pierce. Will Hutchings here. And chair Reipl here. Thank you. We do have a quorum. We’ll proceed with anybody who may be online and would like to have their presence known for the minutes. Is there anybody online that has not been called for all? Okay.

00:01:32,270	Continuing on, we’ll go to the first order of business, which is public comment. This is restricted to the items on the current agenda agenda or the prior attack agenda, excluding any public hearing items.

00:01:49,870	Are there any members of the public who would wish to make comment at this time, either in person or online, calling a second time for public comment? And third, call for public comment. Hearing and seeing none. Public comment period is closed. We’ll move on to the consent agenda.

00:02:12,800	This month there is only one item on the consent agenda, and that would be the possible approval of the minutes from our March 16th, 2026 TAC meeting. Is there a motion to approve? I’d move to. Have a motion by Daniel Nairn to approve the consent agenda. Is there a second? I’ll second. This is Loretta. Thank you. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Roll call please. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Tim Jacobs. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes.

00:02:59,070	Gabe. Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John. Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Reipl. Yes. Consent agenda is approved. Moving on to the regular agenda. The first item there is the fiscal year 2027. Recreational Trails program. Applications. And Stephen Larson is going to present that application for us today. Stephen.

00:03:39,800	Thank you. Chair. Um, so, yes, the North Dakota Parks and Recreation District recently solicited for the fiscal year 27 recreational trails program. They opened their solicitation on April 1st and accepted applications through April 13th. So applications for projects within the MPO area do require an MPO letter of support through Policy Board.

00:04:06,000	And so this may be provided after the application window. Um, through our coordination with the Park district. So we are not asked to prioritize RTP applications, but simply to review them for consistency with our plans and processes. Assuming TAC and Policy Board approval.

00:04:28,100	We will provide letters of support to the applicants for submittal to the Park District. So the MPO received notice of one application in time for consideration on this month’s agenda from the Bismarck Parks and Recreation District. This is a resubmit of a project they applied for last year, and I notice that I have an error on the cover page showing an application from last. Another application from last year.

00:04:49,800	Disregard that. We’re just talking about Bismarck today. So this is a proposed project from Bismarck. Again, this is a submittal from last year for a rehabilitation of a shared use trail. Connections within the southern portion of Cottonwood Park.

00:05:18,100	The project includes 5901 linear feet of ten foot wide shared use trail that is currently aged and cracking, and 176 linear feet of trail that needs to be removed and replaced. The proposed project is located within one of Bismarck’s most popular parks, seeing thousands of visitors annually. So it is a rehabilitation project, a total cost estimate was provided at 312,005 hundred, with a federal share requested of the maximum 250,000.

00:05:43,170	So it is an 8020 grant, but a maximum of 250,000. So Bismarck Parks is prepared to over match for this project. Um, and let me see if I can go through if they have any visuals that they provided. Yes. So they have a couple of a couple of location maps that they provided, um, with their application.

00:06:11,630	The purple line here is all the trail that they would like to rehab. The blue line, I believe, is the, uh, replacement section that they need. Uh, I think Dave Mayer is online as well, from Bismarck Parks. If he has anything he’d like to add. No, I think you covered. Thank you. Okay. Well, thanks. Stephen. Um.

00:06:38,630	And, Dave, are there any questions on the application? Yeah. This is. Well, Dave, how long have you guys been applying for this project? I recall seeing it in a previous role when I was on your on the bike ped subcommittee. Um, not specifically with the RTP program, but other avenues.

00:06:59,000	If memory serves me, this is. I know for certain we submitted it last year. Uh, memory serves me. I think we submitted one other time for a, um, Transportation Alternatives grant. Um, three years ago, possibly. Um, but other than that, I don’t think we submitted it before. Uh, since then. Okay. Thanks. Prior to that, I can say.

00:07:30,430	Any other questions or comments on the RTP application? Okay. If not, are we looking for a formal approval? Yes. We’d be looking for a motion to recommend approval of the project as presented. Carry forward to policy board. Is there such a motion by the board? I’ll move to approve. I have a motion.

00:08:03,000	Is there a second? This is Gabe, second. Thanks, Gabe. Any discussion at all? If not, roll call, please. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Tim Jacobs. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Will. Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Reipl. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

00:08:39,900	We’ll move on to item number five on the agenda, which is the Bismarck functional class change request also being presented by Stephen this morning. Thank you. Chair. So, uh, functionally classified roadways are eligible for federal funding.

00:09:02,270	And functional class also describes a roadways general function within the roadway network and helps to direct federal, state and local resources to roadways. Um, historically, functional class changes have been processed every ten years by the MPO. Uh, after the adoption of a new urbanized area boundary after every decennial census.

00:09:22,530	However, the MPO is starting to move towards what we feel would be a more effective and less burdensome process for our jurisdictions where we will address functional class issues as they come up. You can reach out to me, uh, if you have something that you want to discuss. Um, and we will try to process them on an as needed basis so that we don’t have to do this all at once. Every decade.

00:09:40,970	Uh, that gets to be a little bit onerous for everybody. Um, in this case, the city of Bismarck completed just completed last year. And extension of East Century Avenue and 52nd Street. I do have a map of the area which for those online, if you can see my mouse, uh, this would be the little green spur.

00:10:02,070	And then the extension kind of goes up, uh, through this area here. Um, now that the roadway is completed, the city did submit this request that they be functionally classified. Um, since they do both connect to an existing arterial, they’re on century and also existing arterial on 43rd.

00:10:25,100	However, I did receive or we did receive word from both Burleigh County and City of Bismarck that there are some potential issues with this request that they would like to address and discuss before proceeding further with this request.

00:10:44,270	So my understanding is that this is an item that may be pulled and reconsidered in May or um, depending on what is decided with those discussions. And I’ll turn it over to Gabe or Tim if they have any other comments. Yeah. Go ahead. Sure I can.

00:11:02,970	I can just add we our intention here was as we build that network out, whether it’s in this particular area or future connections of Tyler Parkway that are under construction now, or segments of 57th Avenue or any of those section line type roadways, that we would add them to the functional classification network as, as, as needed.

00:11:22,630	Um, not that we’re anticipating a new federal aid investment or another project coming down the line shortly thereafter, but just trying to capture what is our network as far as the feds are concerned? Um, without going through that ten year process that Stephen indicated. So as, as we put this one together, I was not aware of any potential negative impacts to 50 of calling 52nd Street a functional classified roadway.

00:11:41,000	But the county did express some concern with that. So I guess my motion would be to continue this item to the May meeting, which would give us some time between the county, city and MPO staff to work through any of those potential issues and see if we can find a resolution. So that is my motion.

00:11:56,830	Great. We have a motion on the table for continuance of this item to May. Is there a second? This is Jarek I’ll second. Thank you. Any discussion? Um, just out of curiosity, looking at this, would would it century.

00:12:17,800	Would the reconstruct or the newly constructed portion of east entry also have to be classified in the same at the same time? Yep. So the the limits of what would be proposed to be functionally classified would be from Roosevelt Drive to 52nd Street on Century Avenue. So some of that was reconstruction, some of that was an extension.

00:12:37,070	And then the limits of 52nd Street would be from 43rd Avenue, a functionally classified arterial down to where it connected, then to the extended Century Avenue was the concept that we were proposing. Okay, great. Any other discussion? If not, roll call, please. Daniel. Nairn. Yes. Tim Jacobs. Yes. Did you hear us? Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Um. Loretta Marshik. Okay. Jarek. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Will. Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Reipl.

00:13:24,630	Yes. The a motion to continue the item to the May meeting has been approved. Moving on then to item number six is the 2026 Transit Development Plan consultant selection Paulette Jacobson this morning. Thank you. Chair. Okay.

00:13:48,600	Last week, the MPO held interviews for the Transit Development Plan update on Monday, April 13th, we did interview three firms Bolton and Minc, Houston Engineering and SRF. The selection committee consisted of representatives from Bismarck and Transit and the cities of Bismarck, Lincoln and Mandan. And I did serve as a moderator for the interviews.

00:14:08,230	All the consultants, I’d like to say, did an excellent job, and they did put together very good proposals for this project. And it was a hard decision. But the selection committee has promoted Bolton and Minc as the preferred consultant for this project. The MPO is requesting approval of Bolton and Minc as a selected consultant for this project and permission to pursue contract negotiations with them.

00:14:29,530	The MPO will execute the contract after legal and MnDOT review, and I have provided a copy of the QB’s letter for informational purposes. It certifies that the MPO will be complying and have complied with MnDOT qualification based selection requirements for the consultant selection process, and a copy will be signed by the Policy Board chair.

00:14:51,600	After tomorrow’s Policy Board meeting. Any comments or questions? Otherwise, we’ll be seeking a motion to approve the selection of consultant A Bolton and Mink. Any questions for Paulette on the consultant selection or the qualifications? Qualification based selection process? How many applications did you get? Proposals. All together, we’ve received four.

00:15:21,800	Any other questions? If not, we would be looking for a motion to approve the consultant selection of Fulton Bank for the TDP. This is Deidre. I’ll move to approve. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I’ll second. This is Daniel. Daniel. Thank you. Any discussion? Not roll call, please. Daniel. Nairn. Yes. Tim. Jacobs. Yes.

00:15:58,170	Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe. Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Reipl. Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. We’ll move on to item number seven, which is the 2026 Passenger Rail Study RFP.

00:16:33,470	I’ll direct your attention to exhibit R d in the packet that begins on page 31. Tracy has graciously agreed to share screen for this particular presentation. Um, on page 31 begins the RFP for the passenger rail station, citing study to begin in 2026.

00:16:59,630	The objective of this project is to identify and evaluate passenger train station corridors and potential site locations for a new passenger rail service, station or stations and platforms to serve the MPO area. Alternatives provided through this study should answer two primary questions.

00:17:25,170	Number one is the ideal solution to have a single station or platform location to serve all passengers in the MPO planning area, or are multiple stations a better option? Also, how do the preferred potential rail station or platform locations rank based on a matrix developed using the evaluative criteria established through the study? So keeping those two questions in mind, um, we understand that this study will be approximately 12 months in length. Uh, beginning hopefully by July of this year and concluding in July of 2027.

00:17:48,170	It does have a not to exceed budget of $225,000. All five MPO jurisdiction, uh, our partners, are indicated in the 2026 2027 up as partners and so the study area will include the BNSF rail corridor in the MPO planning area that extends from the very westernmost boundary of the MPO in Morton County to

00:18:15,900	the MPO easternmost boundary in Burleigh County. Um, this RFP was developed and provided to the jurisdictional representatives for their review and comment. All comments that were received have been addressed and if approved, we are hoping to have this posted on the North Dakota DOT website by April 24th, which would be the end of this

00:18:38,100	week with a proposal deadline of Friday, May 15th, 2026. The interviews then would occur on the week of June 8th through 11th, and consultant approval would happen at the June 15th and 16th. TAC and Policy Board meetings, respectively.

00:19:02,370	Upon completion and approval of all QBs processes, a formal notice to proceed could potentially occur around June 30th or the early parts of July 2026. The study is anticipated to conclude by approximately July 31st, 2027. Any questions on the timeline or budget for the study? Okay, if not, I will let you know that, uh, comments were received.

00:19:31,170	Um, and so some minor changes have been made to the document from what you see in your packet. But I’ll go over those. Uh, they were primarily of a minor textual, textual or typographical. Um, uh, nature. Um, however, there were five comments that I feel bear noting.

00:19:52,530	Um, the first of those is that the Burleigh County logo was updated on page two of the document. Um, the logo for some reason, initially did not bring through Burleigh County’s name, and that has been updated. And really, county’s name does appear on that. Uh, also on page six of the document, which is page 36 in your packet.

00:20:17,070	The SF 330 form language in the proposal requirement section was updated to provide clarification. It now reads optional. The Federal Standard Form 330 architect engineer Qualifications is in D.O.T. requirement and proves the consultant is prequalified to provide architectural, engineering and or planning services.

00:20:47,170	Consultants will not be penalized if the SF 330 is omitted in their proposal, but the MPO will verify a current version is on file with North Dakota DOT. After the consultant is selected for contract negotiations, architect and engineering firms must have an active SF 330 on file with MnDOT before the contract can be signed. See the link for link to the SF 330.

00:21:14,700	All SF 330 forms provided to the MPO will be kept on file by the MPO and forwarded to North Dakota DOT. So we consulted with DDOT on this particular item.

00:21:39,430	Um, it was felt that we just needed to add some additional language for clarification on that, as we have had some questions from consultants in the past on this particular point. Um, moving on to page eight of the RFP, page 38, in the packet. Uh, we modified the local existing conditions section to include a bit of restructuring of where the description of the rail line and historic depot in Mandan occurs.

00:22:06,530	Originally, this language was in the BNSF bridge paragraph. And it just, um, didn’t flow quite right. And so it was taken from that paragraph and added to the Mandan paragraph, because it does apply specifically to Mandan. So it seems to make a bit more sense. But no language was added or deleted.

00:22:31,100	The next change occurred to the study area map on page ten, um, of the RFP or page 40 of your packet. This study area map was replaced with an updated version. Um, what you’re seeing in your packet, um. Has the ETA indicated for the city of Bismarck? And so we removed that.

00:23:02,000	We also renamed the map to indicate that these are the BNSF railway within the MPO area. And that makes a little bit more sense than MPO railways. Um, beyond that, everything else remain the same.

00:23:28,170	And then on page 13 of the document, which is page 43, in the packet, we modified the contract and project schedule very slightly to indicate a potential presentation to MnDOT. In May of 2027, should they request it. That way it’s on everybody’s radar and we won’t miss that. Um, the the basis for this RFP, it’s it’s our standard RFP format.

00:23:57,600	Um, contains most of the standard language that we include with our RFP. I will call out one item that is a little bit different. Um, we did add a requirement to our our final and draft report documents. And that occurs on page 13 or 43 in the packet. And it addresses, um website content accessibility requirements.

00:24:28,530	So at the very top of the page you will see that all deliverables including PDFs, web pages, interactive features and multimedia content shall conform to wcaG 2.1 level. A success criteria available. And there is a link that is provided for anybody that is unfamiliar with that criteria. It says documents will require an accessibility check report from a tool such as pack 2026.

00:24:56,900	There are others out there Adobe Acrobat built in checker or similar. Um, we’re trying to be proactive in regards to website content accessibility and looking forward in all of our future studies and projects. We will be requiring that all our final deliverables are accessible.

00:25:27,270	Um, and finally, I just want to let everybody know that public engagement will factor in very heavily with this study. Uh, there will be two rounds of public engagement, each consisting of outreach in both Burleigh and Morton County.

00:25:52,370	This study will also coincide with outreach that is being conducted by the big Sky Passenger Rail Authority in relation to their corridor ID project, which impacts our region. And so no doubt there will be some synergies to be gained from those two outreach efforts between, you know, the MPO and also the Osprey. And we intend to fully capitalize on those.

00:26:18,170	Additionally, the potential membership of the steering committee, if you looked at the steering committee, um, list suggestions, it stands to be very robust and the MPO understands that it will be imperative to keep our local leaders and elected officials informed and up to date with study activities and other rail related developments in the MPO region, both from a study led effort and also um, an MPO staff led effort.

00:26:40,470	So keeping that in mind. I’d be happy to stand for any questions on the RFP. One thing I’ll note is that the accessibility standards, it sounds like they granted a year on that, which is probably a sigh of relief to every jurisdiction across the state.

00:26:57,600	But, um, I still think it’s good that we work toward that now. So when you’re putting that out there. So certainly. Thank you, Will. And I guess the thinking is too, is that by the time that our studies wrap up, when their year long studies, um, those requirements will be in in full swing and will be, uh, you

00:27:13,000	know, will be our feet will be held to the fire on those. So any other comments on the RFP? Gabe Kim, are there specific criteria that BNSF would require be met for this station siting or or is it some flexibility there? I just didn’t see if any of that called out specifically that.

00:27:34,670	Are we trying to recreate the wheel or is there something that says, well, BNSF has this list of 25 things, and that’s what it has to do. And that might mean it’s this is the one spot in the MPO that it could even work. And this is a very short study.

00:27:47,170	Can you maybe speak to to that? Well, first of all, uh, understanding that we are looking at probably using the existing BNSF rail line, um, they don’t have anything specific as far as station requirements, that comes typically through the Federal Railroad Administration. Um, and yes, they they do have some, some minimum requirements and things of that nature.

00:28:11,730	Also, we think that it’s very important that as far as our steering committee composition goes, that we have BNSF representation on that as well as Amtrak. So we want either a government affairs representative or some kind of a, a service representative from, from both of those entities so that we can, um, address everything

00:28:36,170	appropriately and adequately in that regard. So, so maybe a follow up then. Have you received a commitment from those two entities to participate, or have we made the request yet? I’m just trying to think. Of, no. We have not to be part of this thing or not.

00:28:49,100	Or if they have the time of the bandwidth to be parts of 50 of these studies that might be happening in any given area. And again, uh, the, the suggestion list, if you will, for the steering committee composition is very robust.

00:29:12,600	Uh, we don’t typically aim to have 25 or 30 members on our steering committee, and we recognize that oftentimes there are individuals while we value their input and need that input and feedback, they can’t commit to, you know, these regularly scheduled steering committees ongoing, you know, the meetings ongoing monthly or bi monthly. And so that’s where your focus groups tend to come in or other ways of information sharing back and forth.

00:29:37,730	And so then we can kind of work with the selected consultant in determining the best ways to conduct that outreach. But we certainly do understand that we need to have their input and engagement at some point. And at a at regular intervals through this study. That will be imperative. Um, yes.

00:30:00,330	As far as the time commitment will, we’ll have to work on that and adjust accordingly to what they can commit to. I think one critical element to this, Kim mentioned already is the coincidence of the Quarter ID service plan at the nationwide level with this plan.

00:30:20,470	So I think if there is some interaction back and forth, you know, I hopefully be in SF as part of that committee at least, or and certainly have, you know, the federal government will be and I think some of these decisions may be made at that level.

00:30:33,900	I mean, they may just say you’re getting one station and that’s just what it is. But I think, you know, if there’s coordination back and forth, we’ll be able to interact in that way. Yeah. Can you explain a little bit more about that? That’s the first I’ve heard of it. Nationwide station siting study or..

00:30:49,900	Well, the service plan for the rail line will be on a nationwide level. And so some of that may dictate, um, I mean, if they’re scheduling only allows one station or multiple, that will probably answer that question for us. Right.

00:31:09,600	With big Sky Passenger Rail Authority being in that phase two service development plan right now, um, this is by far the longest phase of their corridor ID project and, and the most arduous because of the, uh, station determination. You know what they’re looking at for locations and then the scheduling, um, they have indicated that, you know, they originally were looking at stations, perhaps every 100 miles apart.

00:31:36,730	And, uh, rural communities were indicating that that’s too far. Um, and rural community representatives were saying 100 miles between stations is too far. And basically what we were hearing from BSP is that it’s going to come down to the communities themselves and what they you know, how strongly they’re advocating for getting these stations into their regions or their areas and, and what

00:32:01,800	they’re doing to promote that. So we want to make sure that we are well positioned to provide those recommendations. When BSP enters that phase or that part of this phase two service development plan, and they felt that they were probably going to be there, uh, you know, they

00:32:22,600	said the fall of 2027, I think that they’ve gotten into this phase a little bit later than what they had originally anticipated. So it could very likely be later than that.

00:32:40,270	But still, that would position us very well, because this study would have been concluded and we can move forward with recommendations that are based on sound principles. So any other questions or comments on the RFP? Okay. Yep. So maybe circle back to my original comment.

00:33:02,100	If it’s not in the RFP specifically, I would hope that as that criteria is being developed and approved by the steering committee, that a lot of weight is given towards BNSF requirements, Amtrak requirements, so that we don’t have to recreate the a process that’s already been created for every other community. So absolutely, I agree. Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments, we would be looking for a motion to approve the RF or recommend approval of the RFP. This is Gabe. Move to approve.

00:33:27,630	I have a motion. Is there a second? Loretta I’d second it. Thank you. Loretta, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. Daniel. Nairn. Yes. Tim Jacobs. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe. Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Reipl.

00:34:08,270	Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Move on to item number eight. Um. This is the basics act letter of support. We talked about this at our meeting last month. Um, February 9th, there was a bipartisan bill that was introduced to the US House. Um, and it was for a reauthorization legislation. Um, for surface transportation.

00:34:42,000	There were a lot of provisions within the bill, um, going through webinars and and hearing some different things that we’re getting us pretty jazzed up as executive directors of the state.

00:35:10,270	North Dakota State MPOs and, um, we were looking at developing a joint letter of support for the Basics act itself. Uh, in in speaking with the boards last month, um, after talking with TAC here and then bringing the, uh, the concepts and the the provisions of the bill to Policy Board for further discussion.

00:35:34,870	Um, they they were in support of signing on to a letter of support for the Basic Act, and I, I assured them that I would bring that back to them in April. So here we are. Um, it’s another month later. We’ve as executive directors have had a chance to take some some more measure. I guess as far as the basics Act is concerned.

00:35:57,870	Uh, and we would like to develop, um, a little different approach in our support of the Basics Act. While we feel that many of the provisions are are very beneficial, um, as they’re put forth in the bill, it’s oftentimes hard to determine how that’s really going to come down and impact the MPOs at a

00:36:22,870	local or regional level. Um, once the bill goes through several iterations and pieces and parts are pulled from it and it’s put into a final piece of legislation that’s approved, and then, you know, filters down through the states for disbursement. There’s so many things that can change.

00:36:48,700	And, um, you know, present a different landscape than what was originally presented in that that introduced Bill. So the MPO, the other MPO directors in the state, and I have had a discussion or two about, uh, taking a bit of a step back and looking at offering support for this legislation through more of an outcome based approach rather

00:37:14,100	than for specific provisions within the bill or with um, rather than just granting our support for the Basics Act, because we’re quite certain that anything that is passed is not going to resemble what we’re seeing today.

00:37:41,630	Um, right now, there has not been any further action as far as the basic act in the US House. Uh, other than two additional uh, sponsors have joined as co-sponsors of this bill. So now there are five. There are, um, two Democrats and three Republicans. So it is truly a bipartisan bill.

00:38:07,530	Uh, and we still do believe as MPO directors that should some of, uh, some of those provisions that we’re eyeballing as beneficial move through that we could stand to see some real benefit here. Um, but it’s very unlikely that this is going to be seen as a passed measure this year.

00:38:35,900	Uh, we we kind of feel collectively that the chances are better, um, given the political climate and the fact that it’s an election year and the fact that this particular act has not advanced through the House at this point, uh, we feel that we it’s very likely we might be existing and operating under a CR or continuing resolution. Um, come the start of the federal fiscal year.

00:39:01,000	That all remains to be seen. And everything is, you know, just speculation at this point. But what I would propose is that, uh, the other three directors and I’ll be granted a bit more time to determine exactly how we want to compose this letter, um, and make sure that we draft it in a way that doesn’t really

00:39:23,270	commit us too much to something that’s beyond our control. But again, use that approach of kind of an outcome based, um, situation and, and supporting those outcomes that we would like to see from any future. Um, reauthorization.

00:39:52,600	And in that spirit, uh, I would be asking for a motion to continue this item to the May meeting as well, if there would be any discussion. We could certainly entertain that. Or I could entertain a motion at this point.

00:40:17,100	Do you anticipate, um, I guess, needing to have this come back to the MPO TAC, or is it something that you could just bring back if you think you need it? I’m just walking through the process of continuing it to some future date. And then, and maybe that’s the time we make a decision. So I’m not opposed to that, but I’m just trying to play out how critical this is. And relative to the other things that you’re working on.

00:40:27,800	Sure. Um, you know, if we’re going to bring it to, to the policy board for a signature, I would need formal action. And so I would be looking for a recommendation from the TAC as well. Um, and I don’t know if a continuance to the May meeting specifically, um, is what we’re looking for here.

00:40:54,630	I believe that we would have something in a month. You know, it takes a little bit for those wheels to get turning. So one month to have those discussions amongst ourselves as, uh, state executive directors. And then start composing and finalizing a letter of support was pretty ambitious.

00:41:18,070	So now that we have, um, had those discussions and, you know, we are ready to work on the actual composition, I think that we’re a lot closer to having something that can be approved, um, for, for signing by our policy board. But yeah, I would definitely want that to come back to the TAC at whatever time that might be.

00:41:50,630	So then right now, you’re just looking for a continuance into the May. That’s what we’d be looking for. Yes. Jarek. Yeah. I’ll move to continue this item at the May meeting. Okay. Great. Thank you. Jarek. We have a motion. Is there a second? Is Gabe I’ll second. Thank you. Gabe, we have a motion and a second.

00:42:13,000	Any discussion on that roll call please? Daniel. Nairn. Yes. Tim Jacobs. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe. Shell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan. Beise. Yes. Will Hutchings. Yes. And chair. Reipl. Yes. Motion is approved to continue this item to the May meeting. Thank you all.

00:42:47,370	Item number nine on the agenda is the 2026 Fringe Area Road Master Plan Update. And Stephen Larson will be giving us that update today. Thank you. Chair. Reipl. Um, yes. Just give a brief update today on the fringe area Road Master plan update. As we prepare to head into the home stretch of this project.

00:43:09,630	So we are planning our final round of public meetings. Uh, in early May, although we still have not nailed down the precise dates and times as of yet. But keep your eyes posted on that.

00:43:33,370	Um, based on the well received engagement format for the first round of meetings in the winter of this year, uh, the focus of these meetings with the public will be interactive exercises that share the planning process with participants and allow them to understand trade offs and complexities in the transportation decision making process. Um, so that is ongoing.

00:43:59,370	We are also going to we nearly concluded with our work with attack on modeling, and we will be moving into, um, trade offs and, uh, treatments for the hotspots that were identified in the RFP, as well as continuing to finalize, um, kind of the two sets of, uh, roadways that the plan will include, one being the, uh, regionally or area wide significant corridors that will require more, um, just more

00:44:20,100	care and more, uh, decision making process as the community continues to grow versus just the fringe area road network, uh, as a whole. Um, as we get further along, there will be, you know, obviously, draft plans and maps and documents available for steering committee, uh, jurisdictional staff and the public to review and comment on.

00:44:45,500	So that’s about all I have for today, are any questions. Any questions for Stephen on the road master plan update? No, thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate it. Number ten on the agenda is the fiscal year 2026.

00:45:07,600	Safe streets and roads for all are SS for a, notice of funding opportunity update. Uh, that is exhibit RF in your packet on page 71. Uh, that’s just what you see as your exhibit was just kind of a quickie information sheet that was, um, uh, issued by the United States Department of Transportation regarding the SS for a notice of funding opportunity.

00:45:32,270	This announcement was made on March 26th. Uh, this particular grant opportunity does have, um, an only a 60 day, uh, application window. So all applications are due on May 26th at 5 p.m. eastern time, which I guess translated would be 4 p.m. central time for us.

00:46:02,630	Um, this is something that we have been looking forward to as we recently concluded work on our safety policy study. And one or 2 or 3 of those final deliverables through that, um, study were specifically geared towards the SS foreign grant opportunities. So, um, when we look at the SS for a grant, eligible applicants include MPOs, counties, cities, villages, towns and tribes.

00:46:32,070	The state DOTs are not eligible applicants. And so, um, this is an excellent playing field for our communities to put in these grant applications for these, um, qualified projects. Again, applications have to be submitted by May 26th at 4 p.m. Central time.

00:47:00,330	You do have to submit on the, um, uh, valid eval. Uh, platform. That is specific for these SS for a grants. A lot of folks are used to using like grants.gov. Um, this does not use grants.gov. So you have to specifically, uh, go to the platform that is for the SS for a submittals.

00:47:27,000	Uh, right now, USDOT is accepting technical questions for anybody who is making application and needs some, some technical assistance on that. Um, however, the the technical questions must be submitted by April 24th. So that’s later this week. And, and uh, wrapping up very quickly. Um, also pre-application eligibility review requests must be submitted by April 24th, 2026.

00:47:54,800	The funding that’s available for fiscal year 2026 is, uh, 993,488,000, and change. There is a federal match of um, 80% local match of 20 on this, uh, the award details are again very favorable for anybody who is, um, submitting, uh, grant application for an implementation grant.

00:48:33,870	And again, that’s kind of what our, our safety policy study was gearing us up for. Was that just in case this may be the last year for the SS for a grant program, you would all be able to use the final documents.

00:48:56,100	Um, the final report and the leadership, uh, goal setting and commitment statement to act as your qualified documents to submit and implementation grant application. If you look at that, they are, um, they are awarding up to $25 million with a minimum award of $2.5 million per application. They’re expecting only 40 to 70 applications for this particular, um, implementation phase.

00:49:28,170	So again, I’m trying to encourage all of our jurisdictions for those safety projects that, um, could qualify for an implementation grant through the SS for a, uh, there’s still some time to submit it. Also, um, another item to to understand with this SS for a round is that there is no BCA or benefit cost analysis that’s required with the application. So that that’s also a plus for for jurisdictions.

00:49:56,500	Um, implementation grants. Uh, the applications are 12 pages in length and for planning and demonstration grants, which you do not need an action plan for. Um, those are 2 to 3 pages in length, and they’re expecting a lot of submissions for those 400 to 700 applications coming in, potentially.

00:50:25,330	Um, but again, we do have the action plan that’s in place. Uh, that would be the final report for our safety policy study. The leadership goal setting and commitment, which is our Vision Zero policy, basically. And then everything that’s been outlined in the study for that. So I’ve sent several emails encouraging jurisdictions to participate in webinars.

00:50:52,000	Most of the webinars that are on the exhibit in the packet have concluded, um, but you can also use a link that’s on the bottom of page two in that exhibit and sign up for future emails.

00:51:11,870	And so if any updates come out are issued by the USDOT in regards to the SS for a, you’ll be on the list for those. And I’d encourage you to definitely take advantage of that. Any questions on the SS for a oh, all right. Well, I’m really excited and hoping that somebody is going to submit. And, um, tell us your stories when you do so. All right. Moving on to number 11.

00:51:34,900	On the agenda is the Passenger Rail Roundtable discussion update. Um, actually, this is about the first that you’re hearing of this. I think at the TAC Policy Board has directed the MPO to reach out to principals and communities along the existing BNSF rail corridor in North Dakota to start discussions about the restoration of passenger rail in our state and

00:51:59,800	what implications that might bring to those communities adjacent to the rail line. And so, I’ve I’ve reached out to, um, uh, mayors and commissioners and city administrators in communities all the way from Valley City in the East Valley City, Jamestown, of course, all of our, our Bismarck, Mandan, MPO, jurisdictional partners.

00:52:28,730	Um, and then, of course, Dickinson, uh, Medora and Beach. Um, we’re trying to get a roundtable discussion set up so that we can find out what the restoration of passenger rail in North Dakota might entail for all of these communities, what we’re looking to gain from it, what we expect to see, um,

00:52:51,230	maybe some challenges. Um, this will actually be kind of a short introductory to our meeting, uh, where we kind of get to know, uh, who all is involved with each community and maybe identify some ways of moving forward with future discussions.

00:53:13,470	So hopefully we’ll have, um, we’ll have a poll out to or we have a poll out currently and we’ll have enough responses to send the invites out tomorrow, or we’re looking at having this meeting by May 11th.

00:53:37,100	On May 12th, the Bismarck Mandan EDC has got a local issues committee that meets, and I would like to bring the topic of passenger rail in the Bismarck Mandan MPO area to their attention and see if we can’t get their sponsor sponsorship for our efforts in that regard. So that will be on May 12th. It would be good to have, uh, the North Dakota passenger rail community, uh, discussion take place in advance of that so I could bring that information to them.

00:53:58,600	But we’ll see how that shakes out. And I’ll continue to bring future updates to the sport. Any questions? Okay. Uh, number 12, Americans with Disabilities Act. Um, web content accessibility guidelines.

00:54:29,800	So we just talked about this very briefly in regards to the passenger rail RFP and our final products and, and reports and documents being completely accessible, uh, so that when we do put that content on our website, we can ensure that we are, uh, being compliant with these particular guidelines. Now, what are these guidelines? These are these are guidelines that were actually, uh, uh, they were released on April 24th of uh, 2024.

00:54:57,100	Um, by the Department of Justice. And it was, uh, they were regulations as part of the title, uh, title two, um, Ada, um, Americans with Disabilities Act, and it’s guidance that. Um. Requires that all website content be accessible to those with disabilities.

00:55:29,600	So, uh, there’s been a lot of chatter about this lately. It’s been a hot topic because we are now nearing a deadline of, um, of April 26th, 2026 or I’m sorry, April 24th, 2026.

00:55:56,870	So just later this week whereby we were to have, uh, compliant websites, uh, established and implemented, and while many of our communities have been working towards that, um, those of us with populations of 50,000 or more knowing that this deadline has been approaching, perhaps didn’t know, um, exactly what all that entailed regarding new documents, existing documents on our websites.

00:56:25,800	Um, you know, our archival options, just a whole gamut of things that our eyes kind of have recently been open to. Um, I will let you know that on behalf of the MPO, we’ve been working really hard to make sure that all of our documentation moving forward. So anything that’s being produced right now and then in the future will be accessible for, for website, um, posting.

00:56:51,900	Uh, we are also working the city of Bismarck has been working in the background on our behalf, uh, with their website, and they have contracted for a service that will basically, um, convert our existing documents that are not accessible into an HTML accessible document. So, uh, it it would enable a website viewer to activate an accessibility feature that would make even our inaccessible documents accessible.

00:57:33,170	So we’re very grateful that the city has taken this proactive approach and been working on this kind of behind the curtain, uh, to make sure that we are ready for for this. We just just hot off the press, got news last last week, last Friday that, um, there is an interim final rule that has been released regarding the wcaG regulations.

00:58:02,330	Uh, perhaps extending the deadline by one year. So that would put our deadline for the MPO and for our larger cities of over 50,000 to April 24th, 2027. Um, I’m not sure if that is final. Final? Yeah, maybe Will has a perspective on that.

00:58:27,900	Yeah, it’s obviously we’re scrambling at the state with us as well. Um, the, the it the information technology department at the state is looking into that just to make sure that that’s for sure. We’re still marching forward with trying to bring ours up to speed and make sure we’re fully compliant.

00:58:43,900	A lot of the forms and everything we have up on our website have been replaced with new ones. So you might have a link to one that you previously used. It’s going to be broken. You have to find the new one by navigating on the website. But um, I believe that it is probably true that it’s going to be extended the year.

00:58:57,870	Just knowing how the impacts and everyone’s kind of like being blindsided by the amount of work that this involves. So. Sure. Thanks, Will. I appreciate that. And just to kind of piggyback on your comment as well, I it’s a possibility that folks might jump on to the MPO website and find a broken link here, or something that doesn’t seem like it’s working, and

00:59:19,100	that may be partially due to some of the updates that we’re performing. So, you know, if if you ever do encounter something like that, please reach out to us and let us know. We would appreciate hearing about that. Any other comments? Danielle? Just want to confirm.

00:59:35,630	While we were meeting I did check in and if I do register, it is the interim did get extended for. What they did. Post it. Okay great. It’s official then. Yeah, well, a collective sigh of relief buys us a little extra time.

00:59:54,370	But again, I think that, uh, what we’ve done very recently in regards to kind of stepping up our game and making sure that we’re compliant, we’ll just kind of continue in that mode because, uh, you know, that will ensure that we’re set up pretty well for that, um, 2027 deadline. Then. Any other comments on that? Ma’am, this is Deidra. Um, you mentioned that the city is contracting with the service.

01:00:10,370	Uh, do you have the name of the service that they’re contracting with? Yeah, it’s actually, um, through Civic Plus, and it’s called Dock Access. Okay, perfect. Yeah, we’re kind of struggling here as well because obviously we have so much archived information on our website. And it’s been a lot for us to do in-house. So I appreciate that.

01:00:31,430	Yes. And there are, uh, there are some, uh, exceptions or some provisions made in the final rule for archived documents. And so that might bear a little more research on your part, whereby, you know, you don’t have to update everything. There is an option.

01:00:57,370	Some things can be archived in an inaccessible mode, but I think a person would have to be very careful and make sure your research is thorough. Um, so that those documents are meeting the requirements for that. Thank you. Deidre, if you want.

01:01:16,330	I know the state has some resources to have different, um, um, assistance that you can use on your website to search for and bring it up to date. So either I or Becky might be able to help you with that as well. Awesome. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay. Anything else on that okay.

01:01:33,230	Well if not it is time to start hearing about all our roadway projects in. Um, it’s going to be summer today, apparently. So, um, why don’t we start with, uh. Well, Gabe, do you want to start with Bismarck? Sure.

01:01:56,270	Uh, I guess for the purpose of federal aid investment, um, from racking my brain here, I think we only have two projects that would have appeared on the stip that we are the lead. Both of them are H CIP or highway safety improvement type projects.

01:02:13,730	One is a signal replacement and left turn modifications at the intersection of Century Avenue and 19th Street, and the other is a rectangular rapid flash beacon at the intersection of Jericho Road and Centennial Road. Both of those are under contract, and we’ll wait for weather to get nicer before we really start digging into the ground and doing any work. But those are the two I’ll be providing updates on through the construction season. Sounds good. Thanks, Gabe. Uh, what’s going on in Mandan? Jarek.

01:02:29,170	Um, the two that come to mind for me are, um, urban grants program, project first street reconstruction. It’s phase one of our three phase downtown improvement project. We have a pre-construction meeting, I think, scheduled for this week. Um, and we should be starting, uh, starting construction shortly after that.

01:02:51,100	The other one, uh, that would be technically active by the end of the year will be our, um, eighth Avenue northwest and 27th Street, um, reconstruction project. This is just north and west of the new high school over in Mandan. We’ll be starting with our public engagement on that, um, in May. So, um, we’ll start. People should start start hearing about that fairly soon.

01:03:14,530	Okay. I’m looking forward to hearing about that public engagement. Thanks, Jarek. Uh, Loretta, anything happening out in Lincoln? Uh, we have lots of things going on, but nothing you can see. Okay, is how I’m going to describe it. Um, we’re really working on building their CIP program.

01:03:37,630	And as part of that, we have a number of studies that we’re working on. So we’re looking forward to getting a schedule set up and likely having, um, a number of projects, uh, kick off next year. Okay. Thank you. Loretta. Uh, moving into the counties. John, anything going on out in Morton County yet? Nothing to report at this time.

01:04:05,270	Okay, it’s still early. How about Tim? Anything in Burleigh County that you can apprise us on? Yeah. Um. Burleigh County, we got a, flex funding grant to do, uh, Centennial Drive for Centennial Road from Jericho to 83. So we’re doing a micro service on that. And then, um, some pavement rehabilitation on 71st.

01:04:34,170	Um, just, uh, from illusion drive to to, uh, Centennial. So, um, and we’re also adding some lighting to that intersection, too. So that’ll be a decent project for us. Okay. Thank you very much, Tim. Logan, what’s going on for district? Yeah, our. Three big projects are kind of all going full bore now.

01:04:54,500	So 161 exit, they’re, um, they’re going to be putting up some traffic control so they can begin to paving the temporary ramp and then switch that temporary lamp ramp later. Um, and then start construction the new permanent, uh, southeast ramp that they’re doing there. So that’s where they’re at. Um, more highway phase one.

01:05:13,330	They were pouring concrete today. I think that 800 foot stretch set up to pave, um, they finished sanitary and are going to begin working on water main. So that project is moving right along already. And then phase two we began began last week.

01:05:28,730	The traffic control set up at the Main Street intersection of Memorial Highway. Uh, they’re doing removals this week. They’ll remove the signal and start using that temporary span wire signal. They have set up, and then hopefully pouring the concrete for that intersection next week.

01:05:48,900	And then, uh, setting up traffic control underneath the the railroad bridge structure near that intersection to do the the single slope barrier wall and then some, uh, path work right under there. So the path will be closed there next week. Okay. Just for the week. Then it’ll be closed for a while. Uh, probably still July. But still July. Okay. And the end of June. All right. Thank you.

01:06:08,100	All right, well, it’s going to start ramping up here. So appreciate the updates. Um, any other business? Okay. I guess I had one item of other business. Um, North Dakota DOT did provide us on April 14th, the CPG distribution for 2027.

01:06:37,800	These are the estimated amounts for our consolidated planning grant that’s going to get us through, uh, the the year of 2027. We did receive, um, an additional little over $36,000, and that was due to 2024, uh, North Dakota FTA 5304 funds that we really weren’t anticipating. So it was kind of like opening up, uh, Christmas gift on, uh, you know, April 14th.

01:07:02,070	Um, I’m never going to turn turn away a little bit of unanticipated funding. So we will work that additional 36,000 into our budget for 2027. Uh, will be the MPO staff will be kind of finalizing what we’ve talked about for our studies. And of course, we’re we’re beginning our development of our 2728 upward.

01:07:28,170	So now is the time when we need to finalize those studies and, and get the appropriate monies allocated towards each of them and get things rolling. So you all as jurisdictional representatives, will be seeing, uh, kind of a draft final studies list. Um, I’ll be looking for kind of a stamp of approval on that from you before we bring things forward through the boards.

01:07:52,800	Um, any other items? For the good of the order and or under business. Okay. If not, meeting