00:00:09,770	Come, everybody. It is 10:00 on Monday, May 18th to solve the day. Advisory Committee. All of these cases. Daniel Nairn. I am here. Dan Schriock. I am here. Deidre Hughes. Here. Gabe Schell. Here. Loretta Marshik. Here. Jarek Wigness. Here. John Saiki. Here. Logan Beise. Here. Mitch Flanagan. Here. Natalie Pierce. Will. Hutchings. And Chair Riepl.

00:01:08,000	Here. Thank you. Uh, we’ll begin the meeting with public comment. Uh, the public comment is restricted to items that is either on the current agenda or the prior TAC agenda, which excludes public hearing items.

00:01:35,170	Are there any members, uh, present today or online with us who wish to provide public comment? Calling twice for public comment and a third time hearing and seeing no public comment. We will close the public comment period and move on to the consent agenda. We have four items on the consent agenda for your consideration this morning. We have the minutes from the April 20th, 2026 meeting.

00:02:01,900	The Mandan Signalized Intersection Traffic Data Collection Quarter one Progress Report Notice of 2026 2029 Transportation Improvement Program Modification Tip modification, and also the 2027 2028 Unified Planning Work program Studies list. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Okay. I have a motion by Gabe and Loretta Second. Second. All right. Uh, roll call, please. Tracy. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Dan Schriock. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes.

00:02:49,870	Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Mitch Flanagan. Yes. And Chair Riepl. Yes. Consent agenda is approved. We’ll move on to the items on the regular agenda, beginning with item number seven. The Bismarck functional class change request. This is was continued from our meeting in April.

00:03:21,630	And Steven Larson will bring us up to date on that. Yes. So pretty short and sweet today. And uh, as you may remember from last month, the city of Bismarck just completed an extension of East Century Avenue and 52nd Street. Uh, they finished construction last year.

00:03:41,700	They approached us, the MPO, to request that the roadways be functionally classified. However, after a meeting, uh, earlier this this month between the MPO city of Bismarck and Burleigh County staff, the city has decided to withdraw its functional class request for these roads or these roadways.

00:04:03,230	52nd Street is currently a township road designated as a local road, and both city and county staff believe the complexities of securing federal funding in this area would outweigh the potential benefits at this time. Uh, I’m willing to. If gable didn’t have anything that they’d like to add to that. Uh, I’ll give them the floor.

00:04:25,630	I guess maybe just to add, it’s definitely gets odd in terms of the rules that are applicable for the cities, the county, the townships, as we get outside of that corporate boundary. So recognizing those complexities, it was just probably not worth the effort.

00:04:41,930	As we further evaluated this to continue, it was more so just to have the map show the completed network than it was trying to secure federal funding any time in the near future. So if that changes anytime in the near future, we would come back to this board for a request similar what we’ve had before, but probably more vetted at that point in time. All right.

00:04:57,630	Well, thank you, Stephen, for bringing us out, bringing us that update and Gabe, for your comments as well. Um, I also appreciate the conversations that took place between the jurisdictions to kind of hammer this out. Um, we’ll move on to item number eight. We would need a motion then. To. Oh, I’m sorry. Um, yes. Regarding the withdrawal by the city of Bismarck.

00:05:17,800	Is there a motion to approve that withdrawal? I guess I would move to approve or move to withdraw this. Request. I’d second. And we have a first and a second roll call, please. Um. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Dan Schriock. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Mitch Flanagan. Yes.

00:05:55,100	And Chair Riepl. Yes. The motion to withdraw is approved. All right. Now, moving on to item number eight. Is the 2026 Curb Management Study RFP. And Stephen will present the details on that for us. Yes. Thank you. Chair I’m referring to exhibit Re in your packets.

00:06:21,930	Um this is indeed a request for proposals for the curb management study for the city of Bismarck. This was formerly referred to as the Parking Needs Study. But, uh, consultation with city staff led to an updated title and a slight, uh, kind of tweaking to the scope corresponding to that.

00:06:41,830	So the study is in the current approved unified planning work program. It has a not to exceed budget of 150,000, and the city of Bismarck will be providing the 20% match on this.

00:07:01,100	This study goal is to provide recommendations to the City of Bismarck for the efficient and responsible use of its urban curb space, um, for the purposes of this study, curb space is defined as the area adjacent to the curb that is utilized for purposes such as bus stops, bike lanes, delivery zones, dining pickup zones, parking, and more. As well.

00:07:20,630	Uh, the study area will focus on downtown Bismarck for certain, but the consultant will also be requested to assist us and the city in looking at additional high activity areas within city limits that may also need to be studied as part of this effort. Uh, the project will inventory available curb space within the study area, evaluate potential uses for that space.

00:07:45,200	Look at demand management of curb space, and provide various key recommendations. Uh, parking policies. The recent update to the Bismarck Land Development Code and the adequacy of existing parking, signage and regulations will also be studied as part of this effort.

00:08:08,630	The Public Involvement section of the RFP calls for two public engagement opportunities with the general public in Bismarck, and encourages creativity and gathering input as the study progresses. Ultimately, this study will provide a creative, prioritized, multimodal range of alternatives for curb space management within the study area. To assist the City of Bismarck with planning. As the community continues to grow and develop. Um, that is kind of a an overview.

00:08:31,000	Are there any questions on the RFP as I have it in the packet? Thank you. Stephen. Any questions for Stephen on the RFP? I gave. Maybe just a clarification. The study area is a mix is primarily functionally classified roadways, but it is more of an area than it is a, you know, specific roadways within that area.

00:08:52,970	Is there any, I guess, restriction that it has to be functionally classified for MPO dollars to be utilized for this study? Not that I’m aware of, as long as it’s within the MPO area. I believe that we’re allowed to study.

00:09:15,370	So if we were doing something specific on the roadways and eliminating limiting that action to the roadways themselves, then we would have to restrict ourselves to a functionally classified and kind of refrain from doing anything on local roadways. But yeah, this is just encompassing the entire area. So works for me. Thank you for the clarification.

00:09:36,170	Any other questions for Stephen? If not, we would be looking for a motion to approve the or recommend approval of the RFP. This is Gabe. I would move to approve. We have a first Gabe. Thank you. Is there a second? This is Deidre a second. Deidre, thank you for the second. Any discussion? If not, roll call, please. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Dan Schriock. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes.

00:10:07,670	John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise? Yes. Mitch Flanagan. Yes. And Chair Riepl. Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. We’ll move on to item number nine in the agenda. That is the 2026 2027 Unified Planning Work Program Amendment. This is the Second amendment to the Up that begins on page 37. In the packet. Uh.

00:10:40,270	I better get my bearings here. So, um, this amendment was required because we did receive an increase to the overall total federal and local match amounts. Um, due to actual federal funding authorized by the Federal Transit Administration exceeding what we had estimated for 2026. Um, the estimated amount or.

00:11:09,700	I’m sorry, the actual amount exceeded the estimated amount by $1,030.91. And so we had to feed that into our 2026 up, up. Um, you will see the changes that have been made. They’re pretty minimal. Uh, we changed the cover of the document to reflect the amendment date. Um, also on page 47.

00:11:35,230	And I don’t know, Tracy, are you able to share your screen and maybe we can bring that up so folks at home can also see and follow along in the packet. Page 47 is on page five of the UPW document. And that shows a change to the 2026 Bismarck Mandan MPO revenue table.

00:11:56,570	Um, accordingly, we’ve changed the federal and local match amounts and and their respective percentages. Percentages, um, and then the final change was an increase, um, to our totals. Federals and Bismarck local match on our revised 2026 budget table on page 69 of the document. Uh, you can see that there was a modest increase to Bismarck’s local match of approximately $258.

00:12:28,370	They did not voice any objections when I brought that forward to them. Uh, we’ve increased the overall office operations line item in that 2026 budget to reflect this change in FTA funding, and those are the only changes that occurred to the document.

00:12:55,300	Are there any questions on those? If not, we would be looking for a motion to recommend approval of the UPW amendment. Amendment two as presented. I’d moved here. Thank you. Daniel, I have a motion to recommend approval. Is there a second? Mr. Chair? Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, roll call, please. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Dan Schriock. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marsha. Yes.

00:13:36,400	Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Yes. Mitch Flanagan. Yes. And Chair Riepl. Yes. Motion to recommend approval of amendment two to the Up has passed. Moving on to item number ten on the agenda. It is the basics act letter of support. This item was also continued from the April meeting brought into May.

00:14:03,970	So we have talked about, uh, the fact that our surface Transportation reauthorization will be occurring soon as our current transportation bill will be set to expire on September 30th of this year.

00:14:31,430	Um, there has been legislation introduced, uh, at the federal level, and one of one of the more notable items is for the Basics Act. Um, we’ve kind of talked about that over the last couple of months, and it was noted that it would be pertinent for the four MPOs to voice their support as one voice in regards to the Basic act.

00:14:58,770	However, we agree, as MPO executive directors that while the Basics Act does bring forward some really beneficial provisions to our MPOs, we don’t want to necessarily put a rubber stamp on the Basic Act, because by the time that it comes around and reaches any final approval through the amendment process and, um has gone through several iterations, it may look very different than what we’re seeing today.

00:15:23,900	And so what we intended to do was just to provide a letter of support for some of the very more outcome based, um, provisions within the act, without getting into specific programs or funding amounts. Uh, what you have as exhibit RG in the packet on 73 is the letter that was initially drafted.

00:15:49,900	And uh, distributed amongst the four MPOs. Um, we have done a bit of refinement to some of the language, cleaned up some of the typos. Um, that were in the original letter in the packet. And Tracy is going to share a very slightly revised document.

00:16:16,630	And what I want to show to you today is just, um, the language that was refined in explaining what the MPOs are and what role they play. Um, and that would be a change to the first page of the letter of support. If Tracy is unable to share this screen, I’ll just let you know that, um.

00:16:52,400	We refined the language to say that metropolitan planning organizations or MPOs play a key role in coordinating regional transportation needs across the country. They provide the technical assistance to understand long range transportation needs and facilitate prioritizing regional funding to address those needs based on local participation and input.

00:17:22,830	This new language just basically replaces a more, um, uh, federally mandated type, um, description of the MPOs. Um, it provides that bigger picture of our overarching, um, function and role. So that was probably the most major change.

00:17:47,900	And I just wanted to kind of point that out before we bring this forward to our policy board for approval, because we are the first MPO seeing this letter, if the TAC recommends and the policy board subsequently does approve this template, then it will also go to the policy boards of the other three MPOs in the state.

00:18:10,300	And should they approve the same letter, then it will route through like a DocuSign process to the policy board chairs of each respective MPO for their signature. And of course, um, this would also be going to Congresswoman Fedora. Check, um, Senator Kramer and Senator Hoeven. So there would be three letters going out. Are there any questions on I think we’re getting it’s just the revised letter. All right. We lost your screen share again. That’s okay. I you can see it.

00:18:44,900	Yeah okay. I don’t know if it’s just not. Oh it’s back. Are there any questions on the letter of support? The intent of the letter of support? Um, the really minor changes that were made to the language. Comments.

00:19:07,500	If we’re at the stage of just looking for typos and making sure it’s exactly right, there is one in the top of page 75. I can talk to Tracy about it long term. Has a hyphen where it shouldn’t. Okay. Second paragraph. If you’re looking at the copy that’s in the packet. Yeah, there were all kinds of weird typos.

00:19:27,700	So, um, well, I think between the four directors and I or the other three directors, and I think we’ve got those cleaned up. But I appreciate that notation. Uh, any questions on any of the actual language in the letter? All right.

00:19:49,570	Well, if not, then we would probably be looking for a recommendation of, um, approval for the letter of support as presented with the understanding that it would not require a signature until such time as it’s approved by all four MPOs in the state. I’ll move to a move. To recommend approval of the letter. I have a motion to recommend approval. Thank you.

00:20:23,730	Derek, is there a second? A second? Thank you. Gabe, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion, seeing and hearing none. Call the roll, please. Daniel Nairn. Yes. Dan Schriock. Yes. Deidre Hughes. Yes. Gabe Schell. Yes. Loretta Marshik. Yes. Jarek Wigness. Yes. John Saiki. Yes. Logan Beise. Epstein. Mitch Flanagan. Yes. And Chair Riepl. Yes. The motion is approved.

00:21:08,630	Thank you. We’ll move on to item number 11 on the agenda. It is the 2026 Fringe Area Roads Master Plan update with Joel Man Bolton and Mank. Joel, are you with us this morning? I am. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Yes we can. Great. I have a presentation to share. I’ll go ahead and do that. Um. Okay.

00:21:44,330	Okay, here we go. I’m going to switch this over now. Um, I wanted to give an update and focus on, um, some of the process parts of the plan that have been emerging as we’ve been coordinating this with, with staff.

00:22:03,130	And, um, I know several of you are on the steering committee for the plan effort as well. So we’re going to have a discussion on that tomorrow morning that we have scheduled to to get into details of this a bit more and talk about some of the procedural things. But what we wanted to focus on today, we had an update with North Dakota Dot staff in April.

00:22:21,230	Um, that kind of, you know, gave an overview of the technical process of the plan and spoke to some dot questions about, um, longer term interests in the region, especially with north south movement. And just, you know what, our findings we’re starting to show in terms of some potential directions.

00:22:37,770	So some good feedback came from that discussion. One thing that I’ll point out here, just from a procedural, you know, technical term standpoint, you have heard us using the term regionally significant corridors in the past to talk about a network that’s going to be kind of a priority focus for

00:22:52,830	the fringe area roads plan moving forward. We’re changing that term. We’re calling it major regional corridors. Now just to avoid overlap with some other federal technical terms. Uh, so, you know, anything that you’ll see referred to that way is, is that same concept.

00:23:09,370	This is nothing new, but we are also working toward a draft plan that we’re going to be sharing with with staff later this month. And future updates to this committee will focus on that and larger findings overall of the study. Um, with what the draft recommendations will be, I want to reiterate that the plan has not historically been one with recommendations.

00:23:32,900	It’s not, you know, an MTP or a tip. It doesn’t have projects listed out. But we’ve moved into more of a kind of a an oversight role for the MPO with the major regional corridors network and the thinking of this plan.

00:23:48,770	So there will be some, um, some ideas or some ways that these, um, talk to the MTP and talk to other core products and, and functions of the MPO. So we’ll get into that a bit more in a minute. Just to remind everyone, this is the um, the overall, uh, major regional corridors network. That’s, that’s emerged.

00:24:07,100	I would say this is still draft. And based on our discussions with all of you, and especially in your function as the steering committee, we might make some refinements to this. But I’ll talk a bit more here about what it is and the significance of defining that network in the first place.

00:24:21,900	Because the last fringe area roads plan that’s still active did not do that. It really just sets up an overall network, um, for for road additions as the region grows.

00:24:39,500	So we are setting up basically two systems in this or two networks for what I’m calling the non-major regional corridors network, which is the fringe area Roads plan. As you all know it, you know, from past iterations, very little would change in terms of how the roadway network gets built out with development. We’re trying to promote good infrastructure to serve land development. You know, it’s a it’s a good, solid, best practice kind of growth management approach.

00:24:58,100	And right now the MPO is fairly hands off with how that gets implemented. Um, the cities and counties are the ones with land development review purview. And they’re they’re going through the process of looking at development applications and making sure that road network additions are mostly conforming to the plan or meeting the intent of the plan.

00:25:18,700	And you’re recording amendments when something has to be changed. So nothing would really change with this. One thing that we want to emphasize is that, um, keeping, uh, data sets and GIS and, you know, plan documents up to date is helpful for everybody.

00:25:36,630	And it gives the MPO more, uh, current resources that it can share. So we’re building in some recommendations on how to do that and just how to make sure, you know, those pieces get coordinated. If the road network has to change for any reason.

00:25:52,100	But then ultimately, you know, this is turning into capital projects when the roads get built. Um, so very much like it happens today. But on this major regional corridors network, I want to draw your attention to these last two steps. The first three are more or less identical. It’s going through the development review process.

00:26:11,570	If you have development that does access these major corridors, but it’s those last two steps where things start to change a little bit. Um, where we are recommending an approach where the MPO and the locals work together to understand the impact of development on those corridors and track that against what a long term forecast would show. That corridor needing to serve. Um, specifically.

00:26:33,870	So this is a screenshot from the regional modeling work that our team worked on with attack. And, you know, this goes into every metropolitan transportation plan. You have a long range forecast of growth. And what that means for transportation impacts on the network. But we wouldn’t build everything that’s that’s forecast to need more capacity out today. In the short term.

00:26:54,670	That’s the purpose of the MTP. And that’s the purpose of the tip every four years to to program funds to those projects and get them built. So, you know, something like the northern bridge corridor, this would be along 57th Avenue as it approaches the bridge on the Bismarck side.

00:27:11,970	You know, there’s a there’s a traffic forecast for that that suggests, um, this road that doesn’t fully exist today all the way to the bridge, even on its approaches a mile away, might need some enhancements or capacity additions to serve that traffic. That’s forecast. But that forecast is, you know, it’s 25 years out.

00:27:35,870	So that’s something that development, um, will will add to and contribute to incrementally. And we don’t know the timing of when development happens and every one of these locations. So what we’re proposing here is, is simply a more structured approach to keep track of this and understand this corridor’s becoming more of a priority. We’re seeing a lot more development happening here.

00:27:54,400	The next time the MPO updates its MTP, we need to look at this corridor maybe a little differently than we have in the past, because it is starting to show change.

00:28:10,370	So these are still ideas that need to be worked out in detail, and we look forward to working with staff and with all of you on these, but just ways to kind of set your prioritization process in the MTP or ways to tie back to the fringe area roads plan, we want to define those pretty clearly. So there is that link between the two documents and the MPO serving, um, in kind of a functional partner role in this development review stage.

00:28:28,970	But then the last step is another thing that we want to draw attention to, that the the policy board of the MPO would have an active role as part of this. Right now, the policy board isn’t weighing in on developments individually.

00:28:44,630	And when there are changes to the fringe area roads plan, it doesn’t usually get up to that level. We’re not trying to suggest that that should happen very often, but we are trying to suggest that when you’re on a major corridor that, you know, for, for, you know, infrastructure purposes and growth management purposes has this regional importance to tie areas of growth together.

00:29:04,830	We want to make sure that development isn’t precluding any opportunities to achieve that long term vision. So the policy board has a voice in that to be able to say, you know, we’re thinking not just about City of Bismarck or Burleigh County or Morton County or Mandan, but we’re thinking about the region together.

00:29:23,700	And if development in one of the jurisdictions might be changing, how that corridor could function and serve the region in the long term, we’d like to be able to weigh in on that. And what we’ve proposed is that this committee, the TAC, will provide more detailed review and make a recommendation to the policy board.

00:29:40,230	So it should be fairly straightforward. You know, consent agenda level. But it’s something that the TAC would help the policy board to understand that if there are major changes from development, that I’ll just say we don’t see happening very often or see as as a common thing in this, you have a mechanism by which the

00:29:55,670	policy board can weigh in and help find a solution that continues to work for the region. Um, so just to give an overview of how these would work together, we’ve got our two networks.

00:30:11,570	We have the major corridors network being proposed here, and then we have what I’m calling the typical fringe area roads network, which is everything else we’ve been working with the steering committee and with staff directly to make some changes to this network around places where, you know, the the major streets plan from the city of Bismarck would supersede some of these or where some of the jurisdictions are agreeing, we’re just not seeing the

00:30:33,570	development ever happening in these locations. We can probably remove these from the network completely. So there will be a revised version of this network in the overall plan. But what each does is set things like typical section and right of way dedication.

00:30:48,370	Um, you know, this is something that we would recommend as part of the fringe area plan for those corridors as an alternate build out. Um, where access is located. We would make recommendations for access spacing directly on these corridors. And then any of the kind of major connections to other infrastructure or to natural barriers like water crossings.

00:31:10,430	Um, this helps to set some context around where that happens to make sure that development isn’t placing intersections or driveway access or things like that to close to those locations, and that at some point, if you’re going to be taking on a capital project to do something like a grade separation over a

00:31:26,930	railroad, you’ve kind of built in the buffers, if you will, or the the long term thinking for how development should respond to that. And you’re not going to be left unable to move forward with a project like that in the future. Um, approaches to to bridges, you know, that sort of thing.

00:31:42,300	The typical network that just kind of builds out with development, this is going to continue to function much like it does today, and it’s deferring to development standards that the local governments keep up your zoning, your your land development subdivision regs.

00:32:00,630	Um, but this is really just kind of leaving this to the local governments to determine best practice and to meet the overall intent of this. So what that looks like in terms of steps, the the plan itself, the fringe area roads plan that we’re updating will set some of these definitions first so that, you know, we’re not having to debate those. Those are going to get defined here.

00:32:19,170	But then moving forward for any roads on that major corridor network, things happen much like they do today. When a development application comes in, staff goes through this, you know, technical review process. But that step where the MPO steps in to help coordinate, I’m calling it regional planning.

00:32:40,530	Um, to understand how impacts of each increment of development are adding to that corridors function in the long term. Or, you know, setting the urgency of needing to do something for improvements to that corridor. That’s an additional step just to make sure everybody’s coordinated around this. The TAC steps in to review, um, any major changes to the corridor definition.

00:33:04,030	And by major I mean something truly major. If we had a development application come in and they wanted to realign, you know, one of these corridors through their development and have access directly on it. Um, that’s a that’s something that that merits that kind of review. If it’s simple, we just want to front on it.

00:33:21,200	We’re just providing access to defined places. And there are no changes to the alignment of those corridors. You probably don’t need to do much. And then that recommendation, if there are major changes, that recommendation from the TAC goes to the policy board for this approval, just to make sure the region has looked at this together and understands that the corridor is still

00:33:39,530	functioning. And, you know, we’re good to move forward with it. Or if it doesn’t look like that’s going to work, you know, to keep this kind of regional connection, this is a place where you can work with the local development partner and, you know, find something that does work through the review

00:33:55,230	process in terms of timing. I mean, we don’t see that this really adds much to that process. There’s always a concern when you add more steps that it’s slowing development down. And, you know, the development community wants the certainty, they want the expediency of it.

00:34:09,430	We don’t see that this is really adding a lot of time, you know, in the in the more extreme cases this might take, you know, six months to get through and we’re going to work with staff to understand what’s typical for, you know, the development process today, just to be able to truly compare this.

00:34:24,770	But, you know, not that much more time from what currently happens for any of the roads that are not on that regional network, really very little change to process. It’s the technical review development review process that currently happens with the local governments.

00:34:41,170	And then the plan is simply asking, you know, work with the MPO and let’s develop a system that the plan will help define, you know, it’ll it’ll set those parameters just for how to keep all the data and records up to date.

00:34:56,300	Part of the work that our team did with this plan update was to gather a lot of those amendments and understand what all is happening. And we’ve we’ve proposed a few ideas for how to streamline that so that the data updates are more, you know, regular and current. Um, it’s not a huge lift. It’s just a little bit to keep the process running smoothly.

00:35:13,970	Um, so that in terms of timing, you know, doesn’t really need to add a lot of time. And this last step in the documentation really doesn’t have to hold up development. It can happen after, you know, after approvals. Just making sure that that any updates or data management are happening in a timely manner.

00:35:30,830	So coming back to the idea of the major corridor network and some other, um, topics that have been discussed throughout the plan update. You might remember when we started out, you know, there was a lot of question about the North South Beltway study from, you know, 15, 20 years ago, what this plan was going to do to look at that.

00:35:47,370	We’ve really kept that for the most part. And I would say that it’s it’s, you know, most of this corridor, um, for the overall beltway alignment is now absorbed into that major regional corridor network.

00:36:04,100	So it’s still there, um, maybe just branded differently or, um, you know, not described using that term. But together this system would help provide that kind of regional link. And one of the key connections there, of course, is a northern bridge, the southern bridge, um, not being looked at as as much today. And that might not ever happen.

00:36:20,130	And that’s not something that’s included in our major regional corridor network. But the northern corridor is. And then the next step that we have to do to, um, sort of finish this up with the overall plan is to make sure that we are being appropriately responsive to context and land use character.

00:36:38,700	Um, so the major regional corridors don’t all look the same. These are not all one, you know, typical section, but based on what they’re serving, might have some, some differences. And we’re working to define those right now.

00:36:53,800	So the other steps are what we’ve described here that we want to know what the ultimate infrastructure need is based on our long range forecast. And we want to make sure that development is is being tracked along with that.

00:37:09,100	But then we also want to help streamline the process so that some of these development decisions, you know, have, um, you know, have the guidance from this plan that they would need. So we’re working to finish up a draft that we’re sharing with staff later this month, like we said, and future updates, we’re going to focus on the transportation plot spots, the six areas identified in this study that need a closer look and you know, more of a view toward operations

00:37:27,230	and, you know, solving kind of tricky challenges in those in those small areas. But then we’ll be sharing the overall set of plan recommendations and deliverables, um, in the next month and probably into July as well. So any questions that you have, we’ve got a lot that’s, you know, working in progress.

00:37:46,430	And we appreciate your support on this. Um, and happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Joel. I Gabe.. Thank you. Joel. Uh, maybe my my question was more just a comment and I’m sure we’ll we’ll further evaluate this, but when you mentioned deviations from the plan, uh, on the major regional corridors, um, I guess I’d be

00:38:11,500	real curious about how how we define that. I get that a subdivision process probably would happen. Excuse me. Concurrently. Um, but if someone wants a second field approach on a roadway that might be eight miles away from Bismarcks corps or Mandan Corps, and it’s entirely in the jurisdiction of of the county highway department to give that

00:38:30,330	field drive. I would hope that like, that’s not a process that currently takes multiple months to get through. So just maybe understanding subdivision plat versus approach permit and where you would envision needing to come back to policy board for potential changes. Yeah, that’s a great question. Great comment.

00:38:52,030	And that is something that as we have our steering committee discussions with staff, I’m not sure we’re able to get everybody together at our scheduled meeting tomorrow. So Steven and I are working on setting up a way that we can connect with everyone. I think we need to know a little bit more about how it’s currently working.

00:39:08,630	Just to evaluate, is this process hugely different and, you know, creating a lot more complication, or are we fairly close? So I think it’s worth our while to bring up some of those specific scenarios. You know, what would happen if this is what comes in and this is the request, so that we can understand how best to fine tune this. Okay. Thank you.

00:39:27,870	Thank you. Joel. Gabe. I have a question. It’s similar to Gabe’s, but so the subdivision process, which is by ordinance, what we use to really get these right of way dedications, um, I mean, it’s written into ordinance. So each political subdivision would have that in their own separate zoning ordinances.

00:39:46,100	So would the recommendation of the plan be to amend those ordinances to adjust the process of the subdivision review or, uh, would it be seen that there would be enough discretion within the ordinance, as they are written today, to allow this additional process? The only place where we can see anything being substantially

00:40:04,170	different is if one of those major corridors is proposed in a subdivision to be, you know, greatly changed. And to Gabe’s point, I think we need to to define exactly what that means, you know, and be very specific. But almost anything else, we’re kind of letting the local governments continue, you know, with their current process.

00:40:23,500	Um, it’s really just, you know, we’re setting aside that regional network so that the MPO can pay more attention to it. We don’t see that that would change just based on the current development patterns, those those kinds of, you know, section line, you know, every mile corridors aren’t getting changed.

00:40:44,000	And a lot of the recent reviews, it’s the internal streets where you’re seeing some differences and the plan isn’t taking, you know, as strong a position on those. That regional network was set up intentionally kind of sparse to really focus on critical paths and, you know, major connections. So it wouldn’t affect that many of the roads.

00:41:02,370	It would only happen, you know, that you’d have some additional discussion and review outside of the subdivision ordinance and process. If it’s something really significant, like a developer wants to take 57th Avenue, that is, you know, planned long term as that bridge approach and reroute it

00:41:19,430	to the north, you know, through an area and, you know, have it end in another road, something like that, that, you know, substantially changes the function is where this would come in, I think with everything else, the current subdivision ordinances as they are, you know, kind of doing

00:41:33,500	the job and would be left of that. And we’re not recommending that those need to be updated. It’s when you get to this question that, all right, you might be meeting the letter of that, but the overall transportation intent of this, you know, from a regional standpoint, brings up some

00:41:47,900	questions. That’s where there’s more of a discussion. And you know that that doesn’t even need to change the subdivision ordinance. It’s more just let’s work with the applicant to make sure this is fitting. You know, the overall, um, kind of function of of what we need, you know, to connect the region..

00:42:04,300	Thank you. And I’ll just follow up to say, I think conceptually, this makes a lot of sense to me to align the significance of the roadway with the oversight body on reviewing and deciding on it. So I that makes a lot of sense.

00:42:18,170	And I think probably most of our subdivisions ordinances have language already written in them that would give this discretion, uh, for that. But it might be worthwhile for us to review those ordinances and make sure we can do those things. I’m not sorry to admit this, but I’m not seeing any video of the room.

00:42:39,470	But I can see that, um, if Daniel, is that you speaking? Yes it is. Sorry, I shouldn’t ask yourself. No. It’s okay. I’m sorry. I didn’t know if this was a technical thing, and I just don’t noticed it, but, um, I think we have some time set up to review this more closely later this week, and, yeah, I’ll look forward to that

00:42:54,500	discussion, because that will help us a lot. To be very clear and specific about the recommendation. Right. Thank you Joel. Thank you, Daniel, for your comments and questions. Any other questions for for Joel? He’s provided a lot of information for us this morning.

00:43:11,570	Joel, I do have one question in that as you refine this process with feedback from the steering committee, will you be bringing anything formally back to the TAC and Policy Board to approve as far as this process, or is this just going to roll into the overall Frangieh Road master plan final document and we approve it that way?

00:43:33,930	I think it would be just part of the overall plan. I don’t know if we need to have unless chair Riepl, if you would like to see interim steps like this just to get a, I don’t know if it needs to be a formal adoption or anything like that,

00:43:45,800	but just to get a blessing of those, we’re happy to do it that way. But our thought right now is that if we can get this fine tuned, we’ll bring this into the bigger plan and present that all at once. Well, thank you, Joel.

00:44:02,830	I guess I feel that a pretty primary contingent of the TAC sits on the steering committee for this particular project. And so with their with their feedback and then their ultimate buy in, I think that’s what we’d be looking for. Um, and then we could probably move forward with rolling it into the, the overall study. Any other questions for Joel? Oh. All right.

00:44:27,630	Well, chair, I did just want to add a quick comment because there’s a lot going on this week with the plan. We we do have a couple of public engagement meetings coming up on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Um, Wednesday evening at Bismarck Public Works from uh, 530 to 730.

00:44:45,500	And then Thursday evening, Mandan library from 5 to 7. And this will be our final round of public engagement meetings for the study. And another interactive exercise, followed by discussion on the major corridors network and some of the steps that we’ve taken to get to this point. So great. Thank you very much for providing that.

00:45:03,170	Uh, Wednesday at Public Works in Bismarck. Thursday, Morton Mandan Library. Okay. Thank you very much. Anything else to add? I’m not hearing or seeing anything. Thank you. Joel. All right. Thanks everyone. Okay. Um, moving on to item number 12 with, uh, fiscal year 2028, transportation Alternatives Program update. Steven.

00:45:38,330	Thank you. Chair Just a quick note for your information. Uh, North Dakota Department of Transportation recently announced grant awards for the fiscal year 28 Transportation Alternatives program. We did, uh, do that, uh, solicitation, uh, early, late last year.

00:46:03,630	Uh, so out of the four applications the MPO submitted, we were able to get one project awarded funding for this year. And the Dot selected the Bismarck State Street Trail Rehab project from Divide Avenue to Calgary Avenue. I know that the city has been pursuing this for several years, but they did accept, uh, accept the project officially at their city commission level recently and will be moving forward.

00:46:24,030	And that will be a project you’ll see in the FY 28 tip. So any questions? Questions for Steven. Congratulations, Bismarck, on finally getting awarded, funded uh, awarded funding for that project. Uh, moving on to item number 13. Passenger rail service update. Um, exhibit, are I in your packet beginning on page 83, provided a memo regarding passenger rail, um, activities in our area.

00:46:56,830	The first item is that we, the MPO, did hold a passenger rail roundtable discussion. We convened this and, uh, on April 28th, and we invited, um, uh, local leaders and elected officials from across the region, um, from beach Medora Dickinson, Mandan, Bismarck, Lincoln, uh, Valley City and steel, um, quite a number of them were able to attend that

00:47:29,600	meeting, even though it was pulled together on fairly short notice. Uh, and the purpose of the discussion was basically to, uh, present the status of the big Sky Passenger Rail Authority Corridor ID project and where that is right now. Um, share information on local passenger rail readiness within each of our respective communities.

00:47:55,700	Um, thirdly, to identify community needs, challenges and opportunities, we learned a lot from our neighboring community of Jamestown. They’ve been pretty active in in this particular arena. And then we also wanted to explore collaboration opportunities and strategize on advocacy efforts. So it was a very good meeting. We, um, uh, had some good discussion.

00:48:22,770	The the notes to the meeting were attached in your packet. Um, and after this, I would be willing to stand for any questions on that. Uh, but in the meantime, I’ll move on to the next item to update you on.

00:48:41,430	And that is a presentation that I made to the Bismarck Mandan Chamber EDC. That was last Tuesday. Uh, I spoke before the local issues Committee and presented the status of passenger rail service right here in our MPO area. And what our efforts have been to date to prepare for its return.

00:49:08,200	Uh, we, uh, I presented that strictly from a transportation perspective, as that is the MPOs purview. However, it was to seek, um, Bismarck Mandan chamber EDC support for our local efforts. Uh, in preparing for passenger rail to our area. Their primary concern, of course, is economic development. And so they invited us back to discuss it further.

00:49:37,000	But with, uh, being armed with a little bit more, um, uh, cost analysis figures for their consideration and also, uh, we were invited to convene a meeting amongst the MPO, the EDC and the mayors of Mandan, Bismarck and Lincoln to discuss what economic challenges and opportunities might await the communities with regard to passenger rail restoration.

00:50:06,900	So we do have some things kind of in the works yet, and there will be more to come on that. And then finally, the third item is the MPOs passenger rail station siting study. The deadline for proposals for that particular study were last Friday, um, May 15th.

00:50:32,430	We did receive one responsive proposal because that is below the the typically required amount that Ddot wants us to see to conduct interviews. I have placed. Um, I’ve placed I’ve placed a request with North Dakota Dot explaining that we did receive one, um, letting them know where we advertised, how we did reach out for proposals on this particular RFP.

00:50:55,430	It does have a pretty, uh, uniquely technical nature to it. It’s a study that we really, uh, obviously haven’t seen in our area previously. So I’m awaiting Dot’s response on that to see how we move forward, whether we can actually move forward with interviews of one firm, um, or if we do need to re advertise

00:51:17,830	the RFP. So more to come on that as well. Any questions on any of these passenger rail items? Okay. If not we can move on to item 14, which is our update on roadway projects for the area.

00:51:40,800	Dan, are you still on? Would you be able to provide us Burleigh County’s projects? I am here, okay, so currently in the MPO area, our big projects are a couple of micro surface projects, one of them being a flex fund project. Um, we don’t have schedules for anything at the current moment, so that’s pretty much our update right now. Okay. Thanks, Dan.

00:52:02,170	Loretta, are you still on? Maybe you can give us some updates on what’s going on out in the Lincoln area. Yeah, I’m still here. We have, um, some pretty basic road maintenance projects in the works, but we’re also working on putting together, um, some models for our utilities and updating the CIP so that we can get a better plan in place for

00:52:33,200	those projects going forward from this year. Okay. Sounds good. Let’s just keep moving east with Gabe. For federal aid construction in the 2026 season, we will have our Jericho Road Centennial. Uh, pedestrian enhancements and rectangular rapid flash beacon that’s under construction.

00:53:00,970	Now, if you drive through the corridor, I think they have lane closures up today, if not soon. Um, so that work is starting to take very long to, to to do that work. Our 19th street and Century safety project will get going later in June once all the traffic signal components are available. All right. Thank you. Gabe. Sorry, I said we were moving east.

00:53:20,700	We’re actually moving west. Let’s continue on to Mandan with Jared, please. Are two active projects are our first reconstruction project. Um, that is has got, um, the far west portion of that project is open, and, uh, is being worked.

00:53:42,030	The underground is being worked on right now and that should be closed up before, um, subsequent sections get opened up. Um, and then the other one we have active right now is our eighth Avenue, um, and 27th Street reconstruction project that would begin next year. But we had a public engagement meeting last week, and we’ll have another one at the end of June. So public engagement started on that one.

00:54:00,730	Great. Thanks, Derek. Uh John Saiki. Morton County. Yeah, we have our one project. Uh, this summer will be our, uh, micro surface on County Road 139 A, which is the frontage road, uh, along the interstate.

00:54:23,700	But that’s not scheduled until I think last we heard from the contractor be sometime toward mid to late August when that finally gets started. Okay. They’re going to make you wait a little while then. Yep. All right. Thank you, John Logan Yeah. Our big three projects are going this year. One exit, 161.

00:54:43,000	Um, we’re getting ready to do a big concrete for tomorrow on the southeast ramp, and then they’ll start working in the medians and replacing kind of temporary asphalt and asphalt with, uh, concrete and salt and other, uh, memorial highways. Another big project is to protect their phase one. It’s moving really fast, including some very large mainline horrors here recently. Um, they’re pouring action drive this morning. Uh, 46 to open at. Nine for that topic.

00:55:06,400	And then phase two is also going on mostly at the Mandan Avenue to the intersection there in the kind of a they’re phasing that out and they kind of work with the median right now.

00:55:22,430	So if you didn’t close while they’re orange concrete, they’re um, so also for the the barrier wall underneath the railroad bridge. Now on that, on that, um, this week Tuesday and then uh, next week after the holiday, they plan to start installing the big storm sewer line that runs on Third Street up behind type machinery. Okay. Moving along and out. All right. Well, thank you very much.

00:55:43,900	We do have a lot going on right now. So appreciate all the updates. Um, any questions on any of those? Okay. Item number 15 other business. Anybody have any other business. Um, hearing and seeing none. We will call the meeting