Thanks, Robbie. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the July 23rd meeting of the TAC Funding and Programming Committee. First off is the uh call to order. um an approval of the agenda. Is there anybody that has any changes to the agenda recommended? And hearing none, um we'll move on to approval of the May 21st, 2026 tech funding and programming meeting minutes. And we'll do that by roll call. >> Go ahead, Robbie. a second. We'll need a motion and a second to approve the >> Ah, excuse me. Yeah. Do we have a motion? >> Oh, go ahead. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Thanks, Jerry. >> Yep. >> Ela will second. >> Thanks, Elaine. Sorry about that. Robbie, go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. >> Uh, OJ. I >> county Selder >> present. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh Dakota County traffic. >> Hi. >> Hen County Fuel. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leaseman. >> Hi. >> Scott County. Rudolph. >> Hi. >> Washington County. The participant list now is quite long. Washington County. Uh, Lisa Lightner is here for Mattie Dollheimr as the alternate >> and your vote on the minutes. >> Yes. I >> thank you. >> Uh, Egan Matthysse. >> Hi. >> Yep. >> Prairie Ellis. >> Hi. >> For the chair. >> Hi. Lake Phil Minneapolis White >> I Thompson >> I >> St. Paul Engineering Weber >> I >> Metro Transit Jen Yak Transit Shaw this is Matt Fighten in for Heidi Schaw and I Spoon Wash. >> Bike Pet. >> I met Metro District Tag. >> I state a brown. I >> MVPCA Dickerson >> MTS P uh Peterson >> abstain as the alternate >> chair that's 17 I's and one abstension. >> Thanks Robbie. Um next is public comment on committee business. Is there anybody from the public that would want to comment on uh the committee of business plan for the day? Hearing none, I'll turn over the tab report. Elaine. >> Oh, just a second here. I was not prepared. Um yeah, first tabid did not meet in July and so I would probably say I have no report because I um presented the June Oh, we didn't have a meeting Let me [clears throat] get the June report here. So in June um TAB met on the 17th chair welcomed new TAB alternate Ryan Wilson from Mindot and Minneapolis alternate Aisha Chuktai. Um the TAB executive committee had met prior to the TAB meeting and discussed items on the TAB agenda and the establishment of an active transportation task force. Um from indep report Connie Huben reported that there were 148 fatalities statewide to date and the same as 2025. There were 27 motorcycle fatalities compared to 13 in 2025 and there were as of May 31st 42 fatalities in the metro area. Um, let's see. For MPCA, Amanda Smith reported that they were having another busy air quality alert season. So far, mostly ozone action days which were caused by earlier unusual heat in area. They are keeping an eye on the Canadian wildfires as well. And at that time that hadn't been an issue, but since then we have um there was no MAC report. um met council Chamblas reported that the regional solicitation application process was in process with 150 applications in development. So more than that came in and the transportation improvement program is out for public review and comment and metransit's quarterly service changes had gone into effect and the council celebrated Metro Airlines's 10year anniversary. Suburban Transit Association Gary Hansen reported that again ridership is up on all the providers and Maple Grove Transit Express ridership had increased 25% over a year and their microtransit was up 10%. Um, Southwest Autonomous Vehicle Zone has been operating successfully for the past year with riders reporting a 96% satisfaction. Um, TAB approved a streamline tip amendment for four project adjustments that were requested by Mindot. They released a trans a draft 2050 transportation policy plan amendment number three for public comment. This is rel this was regarding updating the bronze line bus rapid transit project and adding the JNK line bus rapid transit projects. And there was no changes added for the consideration of the scoring adjustment possibility for the excess of delay measure. And there was two information items, EV public charging needs analysis and the regional TDM and Minneapolis TMO project. That was my report. >> Thanks, Elaine. Sorry for the scramble. Uh appreciate you getting that to us though. Uh next item is committee business and uh the first item is action transmitt 2026 uh-35 it's 2026 active transportation solicitation qualifying review and Joe Whiting and Joe Barau um will end presentation for us. Thank you, chair. And I will kick us off since I'll be taking the first couple slides here, then we'll be switching over uh to finish off the federal side. But as you mentioned, we'll be looking at uh 2026 35 and 36 for the qualifying review for both the active transportation solicitation and the regional solicitation. Sorry about that. Oh, look at that. Okay. Wow. Um so yeah, so a little background on the process to get here. So following applications closing on June 25th, uh staff has been working uh quite a bit to review all of the applications. We got about 170 applications between the two solicitations uh to review for basic qualifying requirement review to understand uh which projects may need to be considered for disqualification, which is what we are doing here. Um applicants have been notified and provided with opportunities to submit missing materials. Um you'll see kind of in some of these we've gotten materials since um posting these uh staff reports and so you'll see those kind of scratched out but we've had additional materials sent before those were were sent out as well to to meet most those qualifying uh requirements. Um we'll we'll then go through recommended motions to include future deadlines for some of these to applications to submit needed documentation in order to be qualified prior to coming back to TAC funding program in November um for uh project selection time. So with that said first we will go through the active transportation solation qualifying review items. Oh, Robbie, are you sharing this? Wow, you're really freaked me out here. I was um so a bit background on the active transportation solicitation. So, as you're all aware, this is our first active transportation solicitation that we've done. Um and we did see a quite robust demand here. As you can see, we we uh the tab had about $50 million available for the three categories planning uh local bike and local pedestrian facilities. received about $143 million in requested funds uh from 83 applications in 41 unique agencies. So quite a robust demand here um showing quite a bit of interest for these programs here. Um going to the next slide here and then now thinking about um so of those 83 there's a handful that had questions and of those handful that questions we had three which potentially um needed to be considered for disqualification. And so you can see here one of those the Adina uh CASSA 158 pen improvements. We did get that ADA plan from Adina and so that is now been removed as a recommended motion. Um that project is now qualified. Uh but the first project um is an orono. It's for Henipin County Road 6 trail resurfacing project uh number 05030. Um the project uh proposed to do crack sealing and resurfacing of a region of a county trail along that kind of road six there. Um there's really three main qualifying issues with this project. Number one is a project type. Um so typically a mill and overlay or crack sealing project as pres as as applied here is not necessary know considered an improvement um for that facility. It's it's a basic uh maintenance of that facility that improves a facility for um time and so that is not necessary an eligible project type um through this process. Um additionally the funding request was below the minimum request. So, for a local uh bicycle facilities, that minimum request amount was $150,000. The request came in at $68,000. So, about half or a little less than half of what that minimum request amount um is for this category. And finally, um because this trail does run along and within Henipin County Rightway, um there was no letter of support um from the rightway owner for this project application. Um, with that said, uh, there is a lot of people in this meeting and I not and I couldn't see if we do have some from oro or not to speak a bit about their project. Um, but if we do, I would open it up to them to talk a bit about it before opening discussion for uh, the this project. Anyone hear anybody from Oro that's willing to step forward and speak about the project? Emily, need your hand up. >> Thanks, Chair. um not from orno but in recognition that uh orno is within henipin county we did communicate with the city and we're in agreement that the the project type and and funding request doesn't meet the qualifying requirements here so just wanted to share that >> listen >> if that is what the applicant in Henipin County I do want to ask for clarification because I in Washington County knew that the intent of this money is not for maintenance. I just tried to look through or in prep for this all the application and qualifying stuff. I did not see that explicitly stated anywhere. Um not in the qualifying criteria it says a permanent improvement which to me that does not mean maintenance. A permanent improvement could be a mill and overlay. To me that is permanent. Um, and then there is also a 22page document on the it's called the grant administration guide that is available and I did not see anywhere in that that maintenance was listed as an in there's a long list of ineligible expenses. I did not see maintenance as ineligible. So I just want to be careful that we are not ruling out a yes. Once again, the intent is not for mill and overlay. I am not sure. The grant documents made that clear. Um, and if the applicant wants to pull and Henipin is kind of co-signing that, I'm fine with that. Um, but I just don't think we should be doing that unless, and once again, my council staff or elsewhere, you tell me if I missed this, but I did not see maintenance being ruled out explicitly in any of the actual documents that were available to applicants. >> And Joe, I'm not sure if you're ready to or if you have an ability to speak to that or not directly, but >> I would defer to potentially Steve or Bethany. And if you know if that's something that we need to follow up on then okay go ahead Bethany. >> I think I would also defer to Elaine who can talk to some of the historical expectations of this program. Um when we reviewed this we did not see any improvements. So I understand Melissa that the crack ceiling in Milanova Mlay is an improvement from its current conditions but we're looking for that additional elements with consistency in the TP. U but Elaine can you speak to any of the additional history? >> I'm going off memory here because I was trying to scramble and look for this. We have in the past said entities are responsible for the ongoing maintenance of a project and a project has to be a re like if it's an existing project it would be a reconstruction so that I'm of course I'm scrambling to look for the text I mean that was what we had had before >> and once again I know the intent is not mill and overlay as a committee though if applicants were not provided that information in a clear manner, I don't know how we can rule them out. Um is is my hesitation and I know this is one project. It's for a small amount. They were comfortable, but that is like I know there was multiple things that were I that were not clear to applicants and then putting weight on people like Washington County who is kneedeep and understands all of this doesn't seem like the the move we should make. But once again, I'm it is a general question I am raising. Um I mean, if this ended up going forward at $68,000, like it's a lot [laughter] of money. Um anyhow, I I don't know if other people feel differently or not, but if we don't tell people explicitly maintenance doesn't maintenance projects are not eligible, then I don't know how we can roll out a project because that's what they submitted. >> Thank you. Uh, Steve. >> Yeah, thanks. I app I appreciate those thoughts. Uh, Alyssa, maybe the I was kind of looking myself here too when you made those comments. And qualifying requirement number five gets a little bit at that. The owner um operator of the facility must operate and maintain the project year round for the useful life for the improvement. So, that would be the language I would maybe lean on the most to say that It's kind of general maintenance of of a a trail or roadway facility is is uh not eligible. Okay. Um, yeah, and there's I think the other I guess Joe, if you go back to that slide, I think there's maybe three reasons or at least three potential reasons for disqualifying the project. >> Uh, correct, chair. There the project was one of them and and to your point, Lisa, I think we need to be more explicit for future solicitations. I think that's a good point. Um, especially for some of these smaller communities that haven't necessarily applied for grants in the past. Um but the other ones were the funding request which is below this the minimum request and then the missing the letter of support from Henipin County um as this project would have been there right away. But I will um before we go to the recommended motions though I do want to talk to the Centerville one as well. This is a little more straightforward I think. Wait, I think I did see uh Centerville staff here, but uh for Centerville's project uh which is a 2027 trails uh reconstruction project through the community. Um they did provide a ADA uh self-evaluation, but they did not provide a complete evaluation. So they're um part of their evaluation was missing the uh inventory and of the transportation system in the in the community. And so um they uh recommended to disqualify based upon the ADA plan which was not a complete self-evaluation which was submitted. Um, I have talked to the applicant and he he did indicate that he um will commit to completing that by November, but I would open it up. Um, Charlie, if you're there, if you want to speak for a few minutes on that um potential topic, >> is there a representative from the applicant here? >> Yes, thank you, Joe, for uh kind of um highlighting some of that for us. And uh yeah, please forgive me. I guess I didn't realize that we needed the inventory on the uh ped ramps, but that should be something that we can come up with fairly quickly here. And uh I've already asked engineering staff to help us compile that, pull it together and and get it ASAP back to uh the folks there at at council. So yeah, thank you for uh giving us that grace period and uh I apologize for not having it the first time. Is there any more comment on this uh disqualifying issue? I would just ask uh Joe and Joe maybe I'm not sure you know on these that you may want to allow qualifying prior to I think November was mentioned in the memo but I don't know if there was a hard date that was um recommended in there and I would just maybe that's something that you would like to consider. I I would, you know, I guess I'd be comfortable with leaving the staff to set that date, but I would set a firm date with any applicant. >> Uh yeah, chair. Well, we we'll go to the motions next year, and you will see November 10th. November 10th is that date and the you need to commit by the the 11th, which would be the next fun, and then uh have it submitted by the 10th. So, yeah, we we should have we should be covered there. >> Thank you. I must have missed that in my reading. Go ahead. [snorts] All right. Well, if there's no more discussion on this one, then we'll move on to the Oh, Jerry OJ. Um, Mr. Chair, quick question for you in regards to these types of funds, active transportation funds. Those are state funds and maybe help me and maybe some of the people on the committee understand um what the requirements are for the ADA transition. Is that is that a requirement of this these types of funds or is that a federal requirement for federal funds or is it both? >> Great question. >> Um, chair and committee members. So, that was something that was identified in the qualifying criteria as a qualifying requirement by the tab and so um it would apply for projects that applied. >> So, it's set by Met Council basically. Correct. by the by the tab but by the tab. >> Yeah. That so that since it is a federal requirement, TAB discussed whether to include that also as part of the active transportation projects and that was included so that the qualifying criteria were similar. >> Okay. Thank thank you chair. Maybe a follow-up question. you know, for a lot of the smaller cities. Um I don't know if an ADA transition plan is required for non-state aid cities. Um maybe maybe you can help me understand um is that a requirement of all cities in the state of Minnesota or how does this all all work? >> Ela, go ahead. >> An ADA transition plan is required of all entities with 50 or more employees. If you have fewer than that, you have to um complete a self- evvaluation. So, it's not a full plan, but you do have to have an evaluation of what you have and then looking at how you would move forward in improving that. Any lane, would that is that required? You know, I'm not asking for like a legal opinion here, but is that required? You know, regardless of whether the tab requires it for this kind of application, are those agencies supposed to have those plans in place anyway? have to have those in place anyway. >> Okay. >> And for the federal FHWA had told us several cycles ago that we needed to have them in place that we needed to check before a project could go into the tip >> and then tab just um decided to keep the same requirement for the active transportation projects. >> Okay. Thank you. And thank and and I'll note on this on this topic too, you know, I think we we we're learning some stuff, right, for some of these smaller communities, you know, these this information is not as likely to be completed yet. And so I think we're, you know, following this uh solicitation around, we're going to be looking to help with some trainings and things like that for some of these smaller communities to uh compete in the future. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thanks. Thanks, chair. Thanks, Joel and Elaine. >> All right. There's no more discussion. We'll move on to the adina item then. >> Go ahead, Joe. >> Chair. So the I guess I'm not uh so the Dino item they did submit their ADA transition plan and so this one is um now qualified. I don't know if we need to go through it because of that. Um I don't any help. >> Go ahead Elaine. This one, Adina actually had responded prior to our deadline. I mean, but the email didn't come through. So, that they ended up in the action transmitt. If we had received their email before we posted, um, they wouldn't have even been on this action transmitt, but they responded the Tuesday I sent the email. >> So, the staff recommendation is to ignore that item or that piece of the item. Okay, Steve. >> Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, for this one and a few others coming up, I would like the minutes though to reflect um that Adina did meet that qualifying requirement. Uh, just so people look back on the action transmitt that was sent out. They can they can track who's qualified and who wasn't. I'm not sure many people will do that, but uh just for the record, um, I want to make sure this Dina project is is shown in the minutes as as being qualified. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I give a brief overview of the Dino project. So, the Dino Project, they um when they submitted their application, they were actually in the process of updating their ADA transition plan and so it wasn't available on their website. Um but as Elaine noted with with additional correspondence, they did submit their plan that was in the process of being updated to us directly and that is why it is qualified now. >> Fantastic. Any other discussion on that? All right, let's move on to the next to the point uh we'd be looking for >> oh yeah >> motions on the recommended motions on screen. There are two separate recommended motions on screen that would need to be moved separately. >> Perfect. I'll entertain that motion then if anybody u on the committee would like to make it. Katie White, Minneapolis, recommends the first recommended motion. Ela Cus. >> All right. First and a second. Is there any more discussion, Steve? Yeah, I do think with this one that uh we do need to provide some greater clarity in the future in the application on what's allowed and what's not allowed for kind of some of these in between um type cases. Um I do think this one is disqualified and Oro was in agreement on on that one, but I do I do think it's not clear even some of the language I that I referenced. Um I think you could read it either way. So I um I think my my hope is that we um fix this for next time and provide better clarity. Thanks, Steve. Anyone else? All right, Robbie, I'll let you call the Thank you. Virginia. Hi. Or Tony Selder. Hi. Dakota County Javic. >> Hi. >> Henipin County deal. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leeman. >> Hi. >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi. >> Washington County Lightner. >> Nay. >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi >> Eden. Prairie Ellis. Hi >> Fly Cocher. >> Hi >> Lakeville. Owie. >> Hi >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi >> Plymouth Thompson. >> Hi >> St. Paul Engineering Weber. >> Hi >> Metro Transit Geneak. >> Suburban transit fighter. Hi >> Spooner Walsh Mind Pike Pen Jooshi. >> Hi >> and Metro District Tech. >> Hi. >> And on state a Brown. >> Hi. >> MPCA Dickerson Council MTS Peterson. >> Hi. >> T coordinator Kukos. >> Hi. >> The motion had 19 eyes and one nay. Thank you, Robbie. Uh, next is Centerville and the disposition of Centerville. Um, >> oh, excuse me. Go ahead. >> Mistake, chair. I just I I just clicked the slides. I meant didn't mean to advance it quite yet. So, yes. Proceed. Okay. Um, next item is Centerville. Will anybody make a motion um to a conditional qualification as represented here? This is OJ from Enoka County. I'd make the recommendation of the motion as printed. >> Thanks, Jerry. Is there a second? >> Then a second. >> Thanks, Michael. Any other discussion on this one? Seeing none, I'll ask Rob to call the roll again. County OJ. >> Hi. >> Carver County Selder. >> Hi. >> County Chap. >> I county Bu. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leeman. >> Hi. >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi >> Washington County. Lightner. >> Hi >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi >> Eden. Perry Ellis. Hi >> co. >> Hi >> Lakeville. >> Hi >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi >> Thompson. >> Hi >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi >> Metro Transit Geneak Suburban Transit Fight. I >> DNR >> Spooner Walsh by Mike Pedosi. >> Hi. >> And Metro District Tech. >> Hi. >> And state a Brown. >> Hi. >> MTS Peterson. >> Coordinator Kukos. >> Hi. >> The motion at 20 eyes. >> Thank you, Robbie. And then um just um for the record um would say that Edina the project um uh now qualifies um based on correspondence received by staff prior to uh this meeting. Next item um is transmitt uh 2026-36 and this is for uh regional solicitation qualifying review and Joe Barau. Um I think we'll leave this presentation. >> Uh thank you chair U Bethany Branch I actually going to do this one today. chair and committee. Um, with the regional solicitation for federal transportation funds, we have about $215 million available this cycle and we received 92 applications worth about 574 million. Um, and we've had 37 unique agencies apply to um, the various federal funding categories. Next slide, Robbie. Uh we do have quite a few qualifying issues for the regional solicitation applications and we'll go through those each one by one discussing the projects their issues and then a recommended motion based on each issue. Uh just a quick summary and we can see a few of these projects have addressed their issues and have since been qualified. Um and we will start by discussing the federal eligibility issue. Um we have two primary federal transportation funding requirements and those are that projects must be open to the public and on a functionally classified roadway which is dependent on whether you are in the urban area or not. And with this um we identified that Ham Lake submitted two projects on East Neta Drive and Jackson Street um are not qualified because they are not on a minor arterial. Ham responded and indicated that Neta Drive is federally eligible because it is on a minor collector. So that is now shown on issue two which we'll discuss in a little bit. But the Jackson Street proposal 05336 remains on a local road and is not federally eligible. With the Minneapolis Welcome to the City TM project 0511, they did request withdrawal once we discussed their eligibility issue. So, the only uh motion that we have today on issue one is that the New Hike Jackson Street application be disqualified due to the project not meeting federal funding requirements. With that, I will turn it back to the chair for this issue. >> Is there any discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion um that's included on the slide here. Somebody like to make that motion. >> Thompson, I'll move that motion. >> Thank you, Michael. >> I'll second. This is only >> Thanks, Paul. Any discussion on this? All right, Robbie, let's call Oh, Steve, you had your hand raised there. Last second. >> Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh, just from the council perspective, you'll see a few of these that came through um that are similar in nature. Minimum maximum awards. Um, but I think this was the first time that we used this new flux software and I think overall it worked worked quite well. One thing for next cycle that I think we could improve upon as we further implement it is to uh like in this case Ham Lake submitted and they there was a drop down list or whatever and they didn't and they weren't eligible you wouldn't be able to submit your application or or move on from that step. I think that would be there's a few ways we could we could do it in the future, but I think that would be maybe the next step here to so an someone doesn't submit fill out an entire application and then get disqualified, which we hate wait we hate to do, but in this case um it's not fed even federally eligible. But uh for for 2028, I think that's another goal of ours. Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other comment, discussion? Okay, Robbie, go ahead. Call the role. >> Can I have a clarification on the motion? >> Go ahead. >> Is the motion only the to disqualify the 5336 >> or both? >> That's my understanding. >> Okay. >> Is the is the 5336 and Bethany, you can explain. I think it's I think the other one's coming up in the next slide possibly. >> Yes. The East Meta Drive project was moved to issue two for discussion. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. Robbie, go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, no county OJ. >> Hi. >> Carver County seller. Hi. >> County Chaff. Hi. >> County. Hi. Ramsey County Leman. >> Hi >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi >> Washington County Lander. >> Hey >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi >> Prairie Ellis. >> Hi >> Co Lucher. >> Hi >> Lakeville Omie. >> Hi Minneapolis White. >> Hi Thompson. Hi >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi >> Suburban Transit Fight. >> Hi. >> And bike pedoshi. >> Hi. >> And metro district tag. >> Hi. >> And state round. Hi. NPCA. and Melts uh Peterson >> TS Peterson. >> Sorry about that. I >> coordinator Kugos. >> Hi. >> Sure. The motion at 20 eyes. >> Thank you, Robbie. And uh just I guess just let the minutes reflect that uh as presented in the transmitt letter, the uh Minneapolis Welcome to City Project 05 111 was withdrawn prior to the meeting. >> Go ahead, Bethany. >> Okay, thank you chair. Um now on to issue two. Uh beyond those federal requirements, AB has restricted roadway application eligibility to those A minor art or to the minor arterials formerly known as A minor and above in uh the roadway modernization interchanges and congestion management strategies application categories. So, as we've just discussed, the Ham Lake East Netta Drive safety improvements uh 05168 applied in roadway modernization, but is on a minor collector. We also have the St. Louis Park, Oxford, Louisiana area infrastructure investment project 05192 that applied on in the roadway modernization application category. for that project. About half of it is on a major collector and the other half is on a minor collector. So it does not meet CAPS eligibility requirements. And so for those reasons, we have the staff recommended motion on the screen to disqualify these two projects. And with that, um I do think we may have the applicants here. So I would like to give them an opportunity if they did make it. see the applicant to u here for either St. Louis Park or Ham Lake Ally. >> Yes. Hello. Um I would first just like to say thank you guys for the opportunity to meet today and to review and discuss St. Louis Parks application further. And again, my name is Ally and I work for and our team assisted the city with preparing and reviewing their application and we wanted to attend today to help provide additional context on the project and the application materials. Um, the city is also in attendance with us and will speak in greater detail about the project needs, goals, and their priorities and why we thought the project aligned well with the roadway modernization category. Um, for some quick background, we do acknowledge that Met Council staff reached out regarding the eligibility concern in relation to the functional classification of the project. Um, and we just wanted to touch on that briefly. So the city and our consultant team did complete a thorough eligibility review and selected the roadway modernization category in good faith based on our understanding of the regional solicitation guidance and specifically the category specific roadway modernization document. Um we did not see the roadway functional class requirement specifically identified within that um sub roadway modernization category document and we did heavily rely upon that document in developing the application. Um we do want to acknowledge that upon further review when uh Met Council staff reached out last week that we did find u mention of this qualification criteria within other regional solicitation documentation. Um but just given the sheer volume of the guidance documents and some differing um thoughts and interpretations of the requirements and then it sounds like Steve did mention this but um unfortunately the lack of an automatic automated eligibility flag within flux. Um our team does have experience with other and similar portals that will flag or gray out an application if an ineligible item is selected. Um and so with that, we just do believe it was a reasonable misunderstanding rather than an attempt to pursue an ineligible project. Um we also wanted to mention that the proposed roundabout improvements at Louisiana Avenue and Oxford Street is located along Louisiana Avenue, which actually is classified as an arterial roadway. Um, and at least this segment of the project we do believe appears to meet the roadway classification requirements. And with that, that's just some additional context in relation to the email response we provided to Met Council last week. And I will turn it over to the city to help discuss the project and why we believe it at least merits some consideration or hopefully the option for some possible revisions. So, with that, I think Deb is on the call and can speak more to that. and I just turned off my mic. So, good afternoon chair and members of the committee. Um I'm my name is Deb Heiser. I'm the engineering director for the city of St. Louis Park. This project is located at Louisiana um in Oxford in the south area of town. Methodist hospitals to the south. Minihaha Creek runs through here. Um we have our light rail station which is going to be operational next year. We're really excited about that. We also have done extensive um community engagement and we have a station area plan that we want to set ourselves up for redevelopment. Um the roads were built in 1973. They need to be modernized. We have safety concerns. We do not have sidewalk to connect to that that station. Um we want to put in a roundabout at this intersection on the arterial intersection. We have every drop of water that comes down from the sky goes um directly into Minihaha Creek untreated. And so you look at this area set up for redevelopment, set up to get density for transit oriented development. We want to set ourselves up for success so that we can support the regional um the regional transportation system. Um the project includes um sidewalks. This project includes um underground treatment of storm water. Um uh first and foremost uh to you know it's an industrial area. It's poised for redevelopment. Um we will remove downstream pollution. We're working with Minihaha Creek on developing what that looks like. And all of this is going to happen underneath the roadways that major and that minor collector on either side of um Louisiana's intersection. Um we will have uh uh big pipes put in water quality treatment set ourselves up for flood storage. about 30% of the properties out there are actually in the flood plane and how do we mitigate for that? Um in for 2014 we had we had record levels on the creek. We had to close Louisiana Avenue. If you can imagine closing down that road that is next to the hospital um not having people be able to get to the hospital from a that perspective. So we see this as a resiliency project. We see this as a redevelopment supporting transit. You look at the success we had at Wooddale. We've installed over a thousand units near that Wooddale station and we have more coming. So, if we can set ourselves up with a backbone for regional storm water treatment, regional flood storage, create a safer um intersection, create that last mile connection for the light rail, that's what this project's about. So, um I won't bore you too much, but you know, when you look at the costs of the um the storm water resiliency, it's about $3 million. The roundabout itself is about $2 to $3 million. Um, I would respectfully ask that instead of disqualifying us based on the functional classification of the major and minor, could we, um, you know, is there another category that we could compete under or could we modify our application to focus on that arterial intersection um, and really, you know, then then work through it that way. So, um, appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate the time. I know you've got a lot of stuff on your agenda this afternoon. So, >> thanks, Deb. Um with that um is there any uh discussion thoughts on either of these projects? Emily, >> thank you. Chair, um I think that was really helpful to hear Devon and Ally talk about um some of the additional background for their project. What stood out to me was that the Louisiana intersection um still seems to be eligible. And so I I think that um you know rather than disqualifying the project um which seems to have a lot of benefits for the city and the region um the idea of maybe updating the the project limits within the category um would that be the most straightforward way to take this project you know from off the off the disqualified project list? >> Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. >> I was going to ask the same question. I just don't know the if that's within our ability. I am comfortable with that. And I think this also goes into the category of we really need to figure out in the next two-year cycle here how to make sure that these sorts of things are incredibly clear to folks. Um the fact that a consultant who was probably submitted a lot of these didn't catch this is concerning. It's one thing for a city like, you know, Orno or a smaller entity, um, but that is pretty concerning that the sort of elig eligibility requirement wasn't abundantly clear, um, to an applicant. Um, [clears throat] but yeah, it has to it has to be a minor. >> Does it have to be an A minor for roadway categories? I mean, that's >> correct, Lyndon. But when the >> that way forever, >> I know, but only people who are kneedeep in this and have been kneedeep in this business forever know that. And if that's not super clear in our application materials, I just think it's another thing we need to make sure in the two years from now that that's super clear to folks. Um, but yeah, is it within our ability to have them modify down to focus on the Louisiana intersection? It it says that on the qualifying criteria page two, roadway projects item 16, it's pretty clear. >> I would just like to speak to that just a little bit and just mention that within the subcategory roadway modernization package that you can download as a separate document. It is not explicitly stated within that document itself. I do realize that the document you're talking about um it is referenced there but in the roadway modernization category um subsection where you can download and look at that and it talks about eligible projects. It is not explicitly stated within that document. >> Steve, you raised your hand. >> Yeah, thanks Mr. Chair. Um maybe one I appreciate the applicant I don't know if Mike's here too but um Lee St. news park talking a little bit more about this one. Um just maybe some context on on the background. We do have kind of three roadway categories that have different functional classification eligibility. Those are the two safety categories, proactive and reactive and the bridges. And um then the road then these three that you see on the screen in the left column roadway modernization, interchanges and congestion management um are focused on a more limited subset of functional of roadway types. And so I can see how that would be confusing to to people um as you go through it. Um we did ask that of the roadway special um issue working group um if we should broaden the eligibility. I think Lynon was on that one here too. And and they did want to continue to focus that limited um those limited dollars on on the minor arterial and PR non-freeway principal arterial system. Um so I'm not sure and I guess your question earlier was could you alter uh the application? I think that's possible. We try not we try not to do that um after the fact just because it gives people maybe an unfair advantage um to to change the termini or to kind of redo the the responses given that they'd have more time. It's possible. I mean if this committee wants to do it that way you could you could also let um you could also qualify it because it is federally eligible. You could just say okay we had some confusion here. we're gonna let, you know, this cycle we're gonna let let this I guess in this case two projects go through and could clarify better for next time. I mean, that would be another option. Um, I don't know what others think, but I think or you could disqualify and that's the the recommend the staff recommendation here. So, I think there's maybe kind of three three approaches and might be worth kind of talking through a little bit from the others on the committee besides just me on on what the preference is there. So, thanks >> Steve. Can I follow up with, you know, you or staff? Um, there was two documents that were talked about there. One one not explicitly referencing, you know, the roadway classification that would have precluded this project from being applied for and one that did. Um, can you for those that did not apply this cycle or maybe didn't, you know, haven't seen those documents for a while since, uh, or at all, um, you know, can you outline what those documents are and when prospective applicants would have received those? >> Yeah. Um, I'll maybe lean on Bethany to add to what I'm going to say here, but I but I believe when you're going through the qualifications and checking those boxes, that's where you'd come across I think we have it as number 16, right, Bethany? Take it take it from here. You know better an idea. >> Thank you, Steve and chair. Um so within the qualifying requirements document it is number 16 that does say um roadway modernization must be on a minor arterial or above. Additionally when you are going through the application that question does say the roadway project is identified on a principal arterial or minor arterial as shown on the functional classification map. Um, bridge connections, proactive safety and reactive safety projects have broader eligibility and you must select yes to move forward. Um, we I do know that we did have to lift some of those flags for um bug issues within flux, but the applicants do have to acknowledge that in their application as they are submitting it. >> Okay. Was there also a document, Bethany, that was not was it a guide or something that did not have that explicitly stated in it? The second document >> chair, we have three primary documents um that are not attached to the actual application, but um within our training and all of our materials, we do reference that you should read the introduction, the qualifying requirements, and the project information forms. Um there are a lot of opportunities to streamline this but um within the trainings that we have provided uh we do refer those to applicants. I've taken some time. Um others uh comments discussion Lisa. >> So this is would be eligible for one of the safety categories. I mean, I don't know how well it would or wouldn't score, and this would then require a completely different application, but I'm assuming it's off the table to probably suggest moving it to an application category that's [clears throat] um that it would be eligible for. and Bethany. >> Yeah, chair and Lissa. Um, within the historical precedence of the solicitation, we have allowed projects to s um change their category. The issue with allowing these two projects to move to different categories is they would have to submit new materials and respond to new questions or receive zeros on those scores. And for that reason, they wouldn't be competitive. Um, and so it may not benefit the applicant either way. >> All right, >> hi. Yes, I just wanted to provide just one more comment about the the document that's specific to the roadway modernization category. Um, it is a document. It's when you download it, it says RS_ROways_roadway modernization_fal and it is that prioritizing criteria and measures document that's specific to the roadway modernization category. And um that I just wanted to clarify that that's the document we were talking about um where it doesn't explicitly mention that under the examples of eligible projects. Now, I do want to mention that um to Bethy's statement, it does mention to um that the list is not exhaustive and to pro um refer to the project eligibility guidance. So, it it does mention that. However, just wanted to um mention that it is not explicitly mentioned within this sub document that that is an eligible um criteria and therefore, you know, didn't stand out to our team explicitly while reviewing that document. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And so I think Steve you mentioned a possible optional motion and is is a pretty clean I mean there's two segments of roadway here that differ in classification. So is that kind of, you know, would would shortening the project that's applied for be is that is that what you're envisioning with that alternate motion? I think well I that's a that is that is a possibility to shorten it and give the applicant would need some time to adjust their responses. Um I think if people my per my personal preference is that you would if you do want this in the Ham Lake application to move forward to let them uh continue as is. It is federally eligible. Um I just think it's gonna it's gonna take some take some time and we're starting to get into the scoring um with the scoring committees. So Bethiano I know from a timing perspective I'd maybe ask you to uh so the chair's request was or what he was trying to think through is it possible to let them alter their answers and reduce their project or is it kind of like round of scoring now we need to make a decision on let this go through or not. Thank you, Chair and Steve. Um, based on our schedule, we would not have time to allow them to alter their application. And the historical precedence is to not allow for new information to be submitted. Um, if you missed something that you thought you attached or included, that is a correction. This would be a substantial alteration of their proposed projects. Um, and for that reason, staff recommended the disqualification. >> Thank you, Chelsea. >> Hi there. Thank you so much, Chelsea Moore Richie with SE. Um, I just want to ask a question because as Deb mentioned, a large portion of this project, the construction is occurring on that major collector and minor arterial, but it is in support of a wastewater and water um treatment for Louisiana Avenue, which is a minor arterial. So, at what point can you consider the work that's being completed on maybe these side streets in support of the minor arterial roadway and therefore part of the minor arter arterial roadway project? Um, I I guess I can let Steve or Bethany answer that, but basically it's got to be contained within that corridor of that classification is my understanding. >> Yeah, Mr. chair and it may be a better question for state aid if Colleen is still on the line that there is there's some leeway um to go off the primary roadway for connection of projects maybe intersection projects like this is part partially too I just don't know what that threshold is Colleen would probably have to weigh in from a state aid perspective >> yeah we we do consider any touchdown work or work that's necessary to complete the main project as eligible for the federal funding. So, we do go off of the main roadway for eligibility. >> Emily, >> thank you, Chair. Um, I have a question here. Um, are we planning to vote on both projects as part of one motion? Are we hoping for the same results for both? Um because I at least for our discussion right now, I'm kind of seeing these as separate items. Um especially looking I'm looking at the data atlas and what we've been talking about that Louisiana would meet the requirements um for roadway modernization if we focus in on that intersection. I don't know if there's a similar circumstance or not for the the first project or if we um should take a look at that as well. >> Thank you. Um, I guess I'll speak for staff. My preference would be to take the individual motions. But with that, if there's no more discussion on the Ham Lake item, if somebody would like to make that motion on the uh, East Neta Drive safety improvements project, I'd welcome that. Anthony, >> I'll make a motion to disqualify the applicant for not meeting the requirements. >> And and that's related to the East Neta Drive safety improvement project. >> This is for the Louisiana area infrastructure one. >> Okay. Kind of jumping ahead. Is there a second? Second, Russ. >> Motion a second. Is there any more discussion? And Robbie, if you're here, I'd ask you to call the role then on the St. Louis Park disqualification for that project. Thank >> you, chair. Anony OJ. Hi. Harvard County Selder. >> Hi. >> Cody County Chavoc. >> Hi. >> County Bu. >> Sorry, just to clarify, this is to disqualify the project. >> Correct. >> Nay. >> Recorded. >> Uh, Ramsey County Leman. >> N. Not County Rudolph. >> I >> Washington County Lightner. >> Nay. >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi. >> Prairie Ellis. >> Hi. >> Ridley Koslucher. >> I'm going to vote nay. >> Lakeville Obi. I >> Minneapolis White. I >> Thompson. >> I >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi, >> Metro Transit. >> Suburban Transit Fight. >> I DNR Spooner Walsh. and bike pedi >> I do metro district tag >> I >> and state a brown >> MPCA >> council MTS Peterson >> Hi coordinator Kusugos >> could you say that again I didn't quite hear Hi. >> Hi. Thank you, chair. The motion had 15 eyes and five nays. >> Thank you, Robbie. Um, do I have a Would anybody like to uh provide a motion on the Ham Lake East Drive safety improvement project? >> This is Selner. I make a motion to disapprove that one for not meeting the roadway classification requirements. Um, yes, >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Is there more discussion on this one? >> Yes. Just one thing I I'll let u Mr. Peterson go. >> Sorry. Yeah, this just for the future um if Ham Lake does does apply again. One other thing that they were missing was their ADA self-evaluation that was noted in the action transmitt. So, um encourage Ham Lake to apply again next cycle, but uh now they've got, you know, they've got some time to get to their self-evaluation done and completed so they can get over that hurdle for next time, too. So, thanks. >> Thank you. >> And Anthony. Yeah, just one thing for the group is that uh if we allow a change to the classification for even an exception, there could have been a lot of other applicants throughout the entire area that could have applied. So that's that's all. >> Thank you. >> Other comments, questions, discussion? If none, we've got a a motion, a second. Robbie, can you call the role please? >> Hood of the county OJ. >> Hi. >> County Selner. >> Hi. >> County Chavic. >> Hi. >> Hen County BU. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leaseman. >> Hi. >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi. >> Washington County Lightner. >> Hi. >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi. Eden Prairie Ellis. >> Hi, >> Fred Coer. >> Hi, >> Lakeville. Omie, >> I >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi, >> Leth Thompson. >> Hi, >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi, >> Suburban Transit. Fight. >> Hi, >> and Mike Pedoshi. >> Hi. >> And Metro District Tech. Hi >> and state a brown. >> Hi >> council MTS Peterson. >> Hi >> tab coordinator kugos. >> Share the motion at 20 eyes. Thank you. Thanks Robbie. Um Bethany um will you be continuing? >> I will. Thank you chair. >> Thank you. Um Robbie, can you please go back to issue number three? We do have three projects here. Um for issue number three where TAB has established a minimum funding request threshold for each applica application category. For the regional bike facilities that threshold is $1 million and for the proactive safety category that is $2 million. Um, we have three projects that don't quite meet those minimum thresholds. And the first is the Carver County Lake Matonka Trail Project 05390. They requested $734,000. We have the Anoka County Lake Drive and Elm Street Roundabout Project 05242 and they requested $1.5 million. And then the Richfield 76th Street and Newton Avenue intersections um project 05210 they requested 1.7 million. And so uh while they are below that minimum historically this funding and programming committee has allowed applications to compete. So with that, the um staff has provided their recommendation to disqualify these because they are below tabs adopted minimum funding request thresholds. And I do believe all three applicants are here. >> Thanks, Bethany. Can we start with uh Harvard County? >> Yep. Thanks for the opportunity to present uh chair and committee members. Uh we are below the minimum per our previous discussion in the last uh round. This should be disqualified as well and we'll reapply next year the next opportunity. >> Thank you Anthony. Um is there anybody to speak to the Anoka County project? >> Uh chair this is Jerry Ojay no county. I'm in I'm in agreement with uh Mr. Selner. Um we should have Q QA QCed our application a little bit better meeting the minimum qualifications. So therefore I think we're we're out as well. >> Great. >> Thanks. >> Thanks Jerry and Richfield. >> Thank you chair. Uh Matt Harder, transportation engineer for Richfield. Uh we also just yeah we did not meet the qualifying criteria. We will obviously we would be okay with the committee choosing to qualify it still but we will uh respect whatever the committee chooses to decide. Thank you. >> Thank you Lisa. >> I just want to know I mean it says historically that funding and programming has allowed these to pass through Um, I'm also wondering why we actually even have TAB put a minimum on here now that this has come up. Um, with federal money in particular, we know that entities are only going to apply when they think it's worth it to deal with federal requirements for a certain amount of money. Um, I am not I have been on TAC longer than I've ever participated in FNP. So I don't know if somebody can provide the context about that note, but I would hate to say you three are out of here if historically we've allowed we collectively have allowed projects to still compete if they're under the minimum. you know, Lissa, I'm going to jump in and um I think uh Sver staff can certainly speak to this a little bit more clearly, but um I believe that with the new uh uh kind of overlap um in categories um particularly like with ATP and you know [clears throat] trail regional trail projects so that you know kind of the ranges are stacked so that you know you're directed at one or the other. also believe with like HSIP and the safety category. Not sure about the other categories, but I'll let staff speak to that and kind of affirm my sense of that. >> Yeah. Oh, Bethany, >> go ahead, Steve. >> Yeah, that uh this one this is a this is a tricky one. The maximum or is almost more important if you're way over the maximum than the minimum. I would say the reason we put a minimum is because there there is a an amount out there where it's not worth it to federalize it, send it through state aid and go through the the process. Um not sure what that magic number is, but we didn't want a bunch of say 50 or $100,000 projects being federalized and having to go through the state aid process. That was too ownorous. Um so that's in part why we we made um minimums across the board. People do get tripped up sometimes when we change them. I'd say every cycle we change it, which in this case, we've got some new minimums. That does usually trip at least one applicant up. And usually they're pretty close to what that minimum was in the past and we've let it go through. Um, in this case, at least the HIPP ones, there is kind of another avenue for them to they can apply through HIPP. And I think both Richfield and Noa County are going to apply for the HIPP. Well, it's closed now, but are going to apply for HIPP. Um, you can apply for both and we say that in the rules, too. I'm throwing a couple wrinkles out there. Uh, so that's maybe some of the history on Wyatt and maybe Elaine or others want to add on to that. Thanks, >> Anthony. Go ahead. >> Yeah, for my perspective here, our minimum that we're comfortable with for federalizing a project is about a half million. And uh but that being said, I do want to respect the fairness across all boards. So if if this committee in general would like to to have another application as per Richfield's, you know, we're open to it. So but uh I do want to be fair across the board. Over. >> Thank you, Elaine. Hing on to what um Steve had said specifically with the HIPP in the past there was they could apply for both HIPP and then we had a spot mobility category in the past for this solicitation we added the new safety categories. So TAB specifically worked with the HSIP amounts for those that so HIPP was anything below 2 million and the solicitation would be over 2 million and then also to address where we've had some exceptions in the past where TAB has funding programming allowed some projects to go under there both the two I could think of in the past they were just under the minimums. one had been an application had applied in the roadway modernization category and then reapplied and in web grants you were just able to move the previous online software move an application from the previous one into it and copy it over and they did not realize that their the minimum had gone up a little bit so that's why they were below it um and that was the reason they let that one go through and I think another one was like within 50,000 or something so it was a smaller amount again I think it was transit project that I think had applied a couple years before that and had not upped their budget to meet the minimum. Thank you, Ela. Is that helpful, Lissa? >> Uh, that is, but I'll I'll make the motion to say that these projects should be qualified, not disqualified to go with the historic precedences here. >> Okay. Is there a second for that? >> I'll Thompson will second that. I know it might give Colleen Brown some extra work, but I mean if they're doing more projects at a lower cost for the region. I think this is different from the last item we addressed. So I don't see how this would be there would be any downside to this to the region other than maybe a little bit more workload for for a few folks. >> All right. Is there any other discussion? All right, we have a motion in a second to approve these three and and um disregard the qualification that of the um minimum amount minimum funding thresholds. Robbie, would you like to call the role, please? Thank you, chair. Anoka County OJ. >> I county seller. >> Hi. >> Dakota County Chapik. >> Hi. >> County Bule. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leaseman. >> Hi. >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi. >> Washington County Lightner. >> Hi. >> Egan mass. Not nay. Eden Prairie Ellis. >> Nay Coer. >> Hi. >> Lakeville Omi. >> Nay. >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi. >> Thompson. >> Hi. >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi. >> Metro Transit. >> Suburban Transit. Fight. >> Hi. >> You know Spooner Walsh. >> And by Pedoshi. >> Hi. >> And Metro District Tag. Hey. And >> that's a Brown. Hi. PCA council MTS Peterson. >> Hi coordinator Quitsukos. >> Hi. >> Sorry Elena. I couldn't hear that again. >> Hi. >> That is an I. [snorts] The motion has 16 eyes and four Ns. >> Thank you. Motion approved. Um so we'll go ahead and um maintain the inclusion of those um um beyond the minimum threshold. Bethany, will you be continuing? >> I will. You're stuck with me for a little bit longer. Chair, >> thank you. >> So we are on to issue number four. Uh similar to issue number three, TAB has established those maximum funding request thresholds for travel demand management. The maximum award is $750,000. Uh we do have this bicycle alliance of Minnesota project that submitted a request of $800,000. When we reached out to them, they did propose a project change. However, there is no precedent for allowing such an action and staff does not support this. Um, and so for that reason, uh, the recommended motion is to qualify them pending submittal of documentation that they will increase their local match to maintain the project that was submitted. Um, so they would increase their local match by 500,000 and reduce the federal funding request by $50,000 to meet that maximum federal funding request. And I am not sure if this applicant is here. Um, >> uh, uh, we are we are available um, chair and members to, uh, answer questions or I can speak to it briefly. >> Michael, go ahead. Um thank you for the opportunity to um be here. These um the the process was a little bit um we got a little bit confused on some of the logistics of the project and I think what we ran into is actually um not more of the um the data entry got us. We are fully supportive of what staff is saying that this was um this was our intent all along. We've been working with staff to perfect any errors. So, we do appreciate the recommendation that we be qualified and we'll certainly have the updated documentation uh to to you by then. It's um I think we're learning this new um flux system a little bit as well. And we're a we're a small nonprofit that does big things throughout the uh metro area, but we don't necessarily have um consultants with the uh background working on this. So, um a special thank you to the teammates that helped us work through this process. We are grateful for the recommendation that we be qualified pending the submittal. We will certainly do that and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> Thank you, Michael. Excellent. Appreciate that. Um any discussion by the group on this one? All right. Is there a motion to support the either the recommended motion or another motion? Somebody you'd like to make? >> Mr. Chair, so move the recommended motion. Matthysse. >> Thanks, Russ. Is there a second? >> Second, Chavic. >> Thank you. Any discussion, Steve? >> Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. Um just want to confirm with the applicant in this case because we're asking them um to reduce their federal funding amount and then essentially increase their local just want to make sure that they're they're on board with that and maybe ask maybe that's the first question then and then uh we'll probably need some additional documentation if that's the case. >> Um uh thank you uh members uh to answer that question. Yes, we are absolutely on board with it. we have the um resources in place and we will submit the documentation. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Thanks, Steve. >> Other questions, discussion? >> Seeing none, I'll ask that the role is called in the motion. here. >> Hi. >> Seller. >> Hi. >> County Chap. >> Hi. >> County Buell. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leemith. >> Hi >> Scott. County Rudolph. >> Hi. >> Washington County Lightner. >> Hi. >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi Eden. >> Prairie Ellis. Okay. Hi, >> thank you Fley Coer. >> Hi >> Lakeville. >> Hi >> Minneapolis White of >> Hi >> Plymouth Thompson. >> Hi >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi >> Transit. >> Suburban transit fight. Hi >> and Blake Penoshi. >> Hi. >> And Metro District Tech. >> Hi. >> And state aid brown. >> Hi. >> Council MTS Peterson Peterson. >> Hi. Sorry about that. >> Thank you. Kugos. Hey share the motion at 20 eyes. >> Thank you Robbie. Thank you Michael. >> Thank you everyone. Have a great rest of your meeting. >> Next item Bethany. [sighs] >> Okay. Thank you chair. Um our next issue is a local match commitment. So with qualifying requirement number nine, we do say any project that requires a financial contribution from an agency other than the applicant must have a letter indicating such. We found three projects. Uh the Washington County project was qualified in between the posting and now. So the minutes should indicate that uh the trunk 61 corridor 05071 is qualified. We also have the Carver County project that was just qualified in a previous issue. Um their application sites county and state funds and then the final project without a local match commitment is the Henipin County Cass 9 reconstruction 04866. The application states there is a cost participation expectation from Robbinsdale, but Robinsdale did not provide a letter indicating um they will uh participate in the cost of the project. Uh Henipin County did provide their cost participation and maintenance policy. They also proposed to shorten the project to exclude the Robinsdale segment. But um I do know that Henipin County and Carver County are here if they would like to address the committee. >> Thank you, Bethany. Uh just a quick question. I think in the recommended motion there's a date of August 11, 2026. Can you speak to that date and why that was set? >> Yes. Um >> or recommended to be set. >> Yes. So, um we staff have recommended that um the applications be qualified pending submittal of this documentation and we do believe that if they had the documentation that they likely just um missed attaching it and so they should be able to provide it by this August 11th date. >> All right, thank you very much. Let's see who we have first on Lyndon. Yeah, thanks Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think I sent an email about ours. We do not intend to use state funds. That must have been a mistake in our app. Um, we are planning on using if we are successful, uh, the new taa money, but I think that's considered local funds and not state. So, I don't think we need a letter of support from the state. I mean, Bethany, go ahead. I'll let you jump in. >> Thank you, London. Um, we were unsure if uh your email covered both projects that we indicated. I do believe with your verbal announcement and that email um we could deem your application qualified with that clarity. So, I would ask the chair how you would like to handle that. if you'd like to include it in the motion or just note that the in the minutes that this project is qualified. Um, I guess what I would just say is we'll allow the motion to be made by a committee member and if they choose to exclude Carver County um, based on the commitment here today and memorialize that, Carver County would work with staff to, you know, provide documentation any subsequent documentation that's needed to clarify and qualify their project that that just be memorialized at the end. And let's see, Emily keeps flashing up. So, but >> thank you, chair. >> Um, thanks for the opportunity to respond to um the local match commitment for our County Road 9, 42nd Avenue reconstruction project. This project is in the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale. And so as we included in some of our supporting materials and Bethany alluded to in the emails, um so we have been in touch with both cities since May of 2025 when we were working to add this project to our CIP. Um and then earlier this year as we were starting to think through our regional solicitation candidates reached out to both cities um to make sure um there were no major concerns moving forward with this application. Um, since that time, the county is reviewing our cost participation uh, policy. And so, I think some of those conversations have intensified and we've learned of a new position when we reached out for a letter of support from the city of Robbinsdale. And so, we were unsuccessful in getting that letter of support from the city, but we did receive a letter of support from the city of Crystal. So, our application included our written notice to the city and then um we also included our the county's cost participation and maintenance policy. Um that's a board adopted pol uh policy and county staff view that as sufficient in um assigning cost or yeah cost to our city partners for the project as well as uh overall maintenance and those responsibilities to the city. Um so we had originally asked um Met Council staff if that document would be sufficient um in lie of the commitment from the written commitment from the city of Robbinsdale. Um and then um Bethany, you mentioned that kind of as a another option, the county proposed to amend our project limits. And so if that were to be supported, um I just want to provide a little bit more detail on that. That would be about um four or five blocks. And so that would be rather than um the eastern limit being welcome, it would be a dare. and that would um put the project entirely within the city of Crystal. Um one of the key points there that I want to highlight is that that distance that we'd remove from the project potentially would be 0.27 miles. Um and that's within the uh what we've uh understand to be the allowable threshold of.3 miles. Um that could be accomplished without a a tip amendment. So we'd just be working through that on the front end. Um, so happy to answer any questions, but that's a little bit more background about um, this project >> and I'll just ask Bethany, you know, do you is there anything that you want to add to that before we move on for discussion? >> Um, I would thank you, chair. I would also like to note that this project is going to come up for a similar reason on a future issue on the year- round maintenance. So, this is not the only conversation we're going to have about this project. And um the committee did just vote to not allow St. Louis Park to change their extents and so staff encourage consistency. However, we are um recommending qualifying pending submitt of that documentation. >> Okay. And Emily, I'm just gonna make a little light here and just say like you weren't able to get Crystal to pay for Robbinsdale's portion, I'm guessing, right? >> No, unfortunately not. [laughter] >> Okay, Lisa, go ahead. >> Um, I know Washington counties, we m we made our commitment here, but I just want to note this is another place that there needs to be updates for next round. Um, this statement here doesn't say what that letter has to say. Our letter, our project had a letter from Forest Lake. um to us this reads you need a letter of support from the city that it doesn't say what the letter has to say. So if we need an explicit statement in letters of support about financial commitment that is something different than just like you need a letter of support. Um so we had a letter of support we had to go back and get another one. In our case our city was okay with that. I also wanted to note in our investigation of this though, if you go through all these applications and look at what people write for match, some say local costs, some say county costs, some say Mindot and Forest Lake. The level of specificity specificity in this ranges widely and if Henipin County would have just said their like county funds, this project would move move through. And so in knowing how much like Robinsdale entire council will likely change over between now and when they actually need the financial responsibility for this project and so I have no problem, you know, they're going to have to cancel it themselves if they cannot get Robbinsdale on board as it goes through. And we know that causes other issues within this process. But I am fine moving Henipin counties through and just telling them to delete Robbinsdale off that list and don't change the project scope because that is there's other projects in here that don't list the cities when we know the cities will have cost participation. >> Thank you. Comments related to that or any discussion? Elaine, go ahead. applicant submits their application and then they put only their that they will be supplying the the local match. That is fine. They are on the hook for all that local match. They can at any time get other local match added to the project. If they don't, they are still providing that local match. However, if they say someone else is providing part of the match, that is one of the requirements is that you can't just say someone else is doing it and then they don't agree to it. Um, we've had some instances where cities said they'll provide the match and we contact them and they said no, we didn't promise that. So, we that's why we say if you're saying someone else is providing it, we need that confirmation. Otherwise, you could leave it off and say, "We're providing it." And then you would be, but you could always add in later. >> Thank you, Russ. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so much to point. Um, I'm assuming Cassan 9 needs don't stop at the Robbinsdale boundary. Emily, is that correct? >> Yes. Okay. And so would the county just stop a project at the county border or they would just continue it into Robinsdale and deal with the funding? >> Um, that's a a great question. I'm not sure I'm prepared to be able to answer that today. Okay, that's honest. Thanks. >> Yeah. >> Other questions, discussion? Steve, go ahead. >> Yeah, I'm just trying to understand and absorb what Emily said here that as the applicant. Um, so your reason for putting in um the two cities as as contributing to this project is because you follow your local your cost participation policy. Um, so it's not like they're bringing additional money to the table or some competitive source. It's just when this project gets fully designed, they'll need to contribute just like any other county project. Is that my right understanding that? And then Lisa kind of said, "Well, there's really any project's going to have cost costs that are going to go up or down." And um but it's not like some other source of money that you're seek that you're putting in there for Robbinsdale beyond like your just your local cost participation policy. >> That That's correct. This would be standard county procedure and we'd work through this as um the project develops. So maybe I'm change changing my tune a little bit then on on this one at least that if they were to amend amend it and either take out Robinsdale I think was one of the options that someone said for now knowing that that's probably going to come back in um this would that would seem like a viable solution here but it's up to the rest of the committee to you. >> Um Emily you had you you were going to respond to that. Um, yes. And just to clarify, you know, Steve, if if that were to be allowed, what would be your timeline for the revisions, would that be August 11th as well? >> Maybe Bethany wants to answer that. >> Yeah, Bethany, why don't you answer that from a sta staff perspective? Yeah. >> Um, so I'm going to start by saying it is there's no historical precedence for changing the scope of the project. That said, all of our scoring committees kick off next week and so effectively, you would need to have the change to us tomorrow for us to be able to begin committees. So, it would be very challenging for us to get you the materials back and back to us. I think we could work with you if that's what this committee would like to do. Um and I I'll just leave it at that. >> Yeah, if I can just jump jump in quick. I think my I think uh what I was proposing not to change the project limits and extent was was to just uh clarify in who's financially contributing that just to put county and then and that would be then they would move through the process. Lisa, is that what you're thinking? >> That's what I was trying to clarify. Chair and committee. That's what I was trying to clarify and if but that I mean that's if Henipin County is comfortable. I will say we are inconsistent because we have different people do ours. Some of ours say city contributions, some of ours do not. And ultimately we are not building these unless there is that city contribution. And that was mostly a consistency error from different applicants [laughter] too and maybe in the application process itself. Does does a tab really care what how you slice and dice the funding? If I've got state aid funding or if I've got, you know, whatever funding contributing to this project, right? I mean, if I'm responsible for the match as an applicant, you know, it just makes sense to be responsible for the match somehow, right, Michael? >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, question for the county. So, sorry I missed part of the conversation, but if if the local city, Robbinsdale, doesn't come forward with the match or the cost participation policy, are you still going to do the project? That's the question that I have. So, if they they say they're not going to pay anything, is Henipin County going to do the project? If they're not, then it should just be disqualified. >> Yes, that's a that's a great question, Michael. I don't think I'm prepared to be able to give that answer. I'd definitely have to discuss with others at the county if we would amend the project limits or um continue as is that would have to be a a separate discussion. And Emily, Emily, would it be something where from a practical standpoint, you know, you proceed should should the committee, you know, recommend that, you know, you're eligible that you proceed until such a point you find that you may not and you withdraw your application. Is that kind of how you might proceed? Yeah, I um if if the changes that Steve proposed, if I'm understanding this correctly, are just, you know, changing the the match, um that's something I'd have to take back and talk with others at the county. If we would still be able to to move forward and have the August 11th date, that would be much preferred, kind of assuming we can um um get the documentation needed to satisfy that requirement. I don't know if that's actually amending something in flux or if you're looking for um something just written separately. Um but yes, that would be preferred to keep this uh qualified moving forward and we'll discuss you know with others I'll discuss with others at the county to to meet the requirement >> and maybe I'll go with Elaine first. Um just getting some historical this has been added as a requirement because we have had applicants even say that they were going to provide all the funding and when they a partner did not provide the local match they were withdrawing which then affects our pro program of projects. So that that's why it's included. >> All right. And then Bethany I'm not sure if you had something to add there or not. >> Thank you chair. I was just going to note we are trying not to make any more changes in flux. So, anything that you would need to send us, Emily, we would take via email and then modify your application attachments. >> Thank you, >> Alissa. >> I just want to note that if we get a letter from a city council today, we got one from Force Lake, that city could become incredibly squirly within the time frame that we actually need their financial commitment. So, to Elaine's point, this can change as soon as a city council changes. This can change as soon as one project element slightly changes. And so these getting these financial commitments from cities is like means almost nothing quite frankly to us from a project development standpoint. We never go back and say, "Hey, you signed this four years ago." Because their council could be totally different. Their financial state could be totally different. And so while I understand like why this is a requirement, it's it's from a pure project development standpoint where the rubber meets the road is when you actually execute these agreements with the cities. And I would assume Henipin County would in that then shorten the project, have to go through a scope change project, etc., etc. But I will make a motion to uh on the Henipin County one that they remain eligible if they are willing to modify the local match sources to state county funds only. >> This is Leeman Ramsey County. I'd second that motion. >> Thank you. A motion in a second. Lisa, I won't take offense to your lack of faith in city commitments, but um is there any more discussion? >> Um could could I just clarify? So um is the the motion to essentially we can um continue to be on the qualified list pending that change and then um because because I'll have to to run all of this by others at the county before committing to anything. So I don't want to make that commitment today before you know having the chance to discuss with others. >> Yeah, I'm comfortable and maybe it's maybe a week's time frame to make sure that whoever scoring this knows that they can score it and have that information. I'm comfortable. But what with whatever date staff um that's what I intended to make the motion is with Henipin County. Obviously if you email tomorrow and say I want to pull my application, go forth. Okay, thank you. >> And Bethany, maybe you want to speak to that kind of really tight time frame because I know we reviewed the ATP um qualifications earlier and said there was a little bit more time provided I guess to come up with some supporting documentation on those couple of those applications. So maybe you want to kind of get at I I get like understanding like the you know that we're scoring one more application but I don't know that if the you know if we're measuring that on the burden itself of that application or not. So >> yeah thank you chair. Um we do have a great group of volunteer scores who will begin um their scoring kickoff next week. Um given the number of projects that we have um given a grace period to, I do believe our plan would be to have those scored. And then um if applicants do not meet the deadlines established in the committee today, then we would just simply not show them as qualified projects with a score when we get to those funding scenarios. So, a little bit of extra work for our scoring volunteers, but um probably not a significant lift. And we uh hope that all of our applicants can get their commitments by those deadlines. >> Okay. And so the motion in the second relates to Henipin County project uh Cassan Reconstruction. [gasps] Is there any further discussion? If no additional discussion, Robbie, will you call the role, please? >> County. >> Hi. >> County Selder. >> Hi. >> Dakota County Chapik. >> Hi. >> Hen County Bule. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leeman. >> Hi. >> Scott County Rudolph. Hi. [clears throat] >> Washington County Lightner. Hi. Uh Egan Matthysse. >> Hi >> Eden Pis. >> Hi >> Fredley Kosucher. >> Hi >> Lakeville Omi. >> Hi >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi >> Thompson. >> Hi >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi >> Suburban Transit Fight. >> Hi Bike Pedoshi. Hi >> and metro district tag. >> Hi >> state aid brown. >> I council MTS Peterson. >> Hi >> coordinator Kugos. >> Hi. >> The motion at 20 eyes. >> Thank you Robbie. And then um just one I I I believe we'd want to additionally um memorialize my understanding is the other two projects listed on this slide, Trunk Highway 61 corridor, Washington County and Carver County uh Lake Minnetonka Trail, the applications are um sufficient with pending some maybe additional documentation on Carver Countyy's part. Bethany, >> correct? Correct. share. Um, we do have an email from Lyndon already about a different project and so we will just follow up with him on that same email to clarify. 05390 was intended as part of his. So staff would deem that application qualified. >> Perfect. And I'll request that the minutes reflect that. Thank you. Uh, next slide. >> Okay. Issue six. Um we have the year- round maintenance commitment. Um in the qualifying requirement number six does require the owner and operator of the facility to maintain it for year round use which includes um winter maintenance as per the link. And there were a variety of ways applicants could meet this requirement. And the only um application to not be able to provide this documentation is again the county road 9 reconstruction project and that Robbinsdale segment. >> Thank you Bethany Emily. I'm presuming that you're representing the applicant >> might be able to speak to this. >> Yeah, thanks chair. I don't have too much more to add. Um since this is the same project as the last um issue, issue five that we were discussing. Um but since we did not get that letter of support from Robbinsdale, we were not able to get the maintenance commitment either. Um we did include our cost participation and maintenance policy, which again is a board approved document um that we view um as sufficient um for assigning cost and maintenance responsibilities to our city partners. Um um and so I see the the recommended motion here seems very similar to the last one and that um if we are able to provide um that documentation um or commitment by August 11th, we can keep this project moving forward. >> All right. Is there any further discussion or questions for Emily? Uh >> yeah, chair, this is Michael Thompson. Hi, >> Michael. Uh, so Emily, within the the week or so, if Robbinsdale says they won't do year- round maintenance or maintain, would Henipin County then step up and do it or would you not apply for the project or is that to be determined? >> Yeah, Michael, that's a a a very good question. I I don't think I'm in the position to be able to respond to that. I' I'd really have to discuss that with others at the county. I will note that this project is in our capital improvement program. Um, so there has been uh quite a bit of planning and and programming up to this date. Um, but I I can't um I I guess I'm unsure where that would lead us. Um, I'll have to talk to county leadership. >> Okay. Thank thanks for that information. And just as some background there, Henipin County is meeting with a number of its city partners on revising the cost participation policy. And so I don't know if that plays into this, but um appreciate your answers, Emily. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other discussion, >> Emily? Seems like you have the line share the work to do here coming out of this meeting. So, um, is there a motion, I guess, to support, um, the recommended motion on this slide? >> Thompson would make that motion. >> Thank you, Michael. Is there a second? >> Lissa will second. >> Thank you, Lissa. Any other comments, discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask that Robbie call the role. Thank you, sir. >> County I >> County Chapek, >> he's he's gone. He said he's left the meeting. >> Yes. >> Edan County Bu. >> Hi. >> County Leman. >> Hi. I [clears throat] >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi. Washington County Lightner. >> Hi >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi >> Eden Prairie Ellis. >> Hi >> Fidley Koslucha. >> Hi >> Lakeville Omi. >> Hi >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi >> Leth Thompson. >> Hi >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi >> urban transit fight. I >> and Blake Pen Ji. >> Hi. >> And Metro District Tech. >> Hi. >> State Brown. >> Hi. >> Council MTS Peterson. >> Hi. >> Coordinator Kosukos. >> Uh chair. The motion had 19 eyes. Thank you. All right. Um Bethany, we'll move on to the I think the last item here. >> Issue number seven, chair is our last um motion. So, uh we have a qualifying requirement again number nine about letters of support. Since posting, Carver County was able to provide their letter and is now qualified. That is project um 05389, the River Bluffs Regional Trail. We still have one remaining project that um is the Dakota County Vermillion Highlands Greenway 04910. Um that project is on land owned by our environmental services division. Um and our regional parks and trails department is also working on this project with Dakota County and environmental services to work towards a solution on that. Um knowing that we are recommending that this project be qualified pending a submitt of letters of support from our environmental services division. >> Okay. do believe the applicant is here as well. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Uh, one question that I had, Bethany, and and maybe the applicant can answer this. Um, I would [clears throat] presume that there's an easement that'll be required from Met Council Environmental Services and then like is that part of the project development timeline, you know, post scoring, you know, and awarding award of funding? I mean, is that a rightway activity, I guess? >> Thank you, chair. I I do see that Tony has his hand up, so I will let him answer the progress that they're making with ES. >> Thanks. Go ahead, Tony. >> Yeah, thank you, chair, and members of the committee. Um, I can speak a little bit to the history of our coordination with Met Council staff. It actually goes back years um probably back to the the early 2000 or 2020 area. Um recently we've been working with Met Council staff um for about the last uh 6 to9 months on really in alignment through the Met Council property. To your point uh about an easement we're working on that now. We're actually in the process of coordinating with real estate staff um from Met Council. Sounds like there was a little bit of a a change in staffing. So, there's been a slight delay there, but we do have an alignment that's been uh kind of approved um in terms of just location. We're trying to identify what that easement distance would be um to make sure that we maximize um construction and maintenance ability of the greenway, but also limit any sort of additional easement needs on u council property that has future development needs, too. So, >> all right, that help answer the question. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Any other comments on the project or the request here? >> Uh, go ahead, Elaine. >> Just wanted to add, um, as we mentioned, we've been working with several of the different staff in our departments, the council departments with the trails and then our real estate and then our environmental services. And we did get an email this morning from our environmental services, the plant engineering team. It said that they continue to have concerns with the project and have a meeting with the real estate team in late July to discuss it. But also said given these concerns, environmental services cannot issue a letter of support until the project team addresses them and encourage the project team to continue to work with the plant engineering team. And then if the concerns are addressed, they can revisit a letter of support. >> All right, Tony. >> And I'm happy to speak to that as well. We have had uh multiple meetings this year um related to that. Uh part of that I think concern was related to um uh potential contamination on site. our staff's actually looking to do um some borings to help identify that as well as identify what the right solution for construction is. Um we we had some correspondence just within the last couple weeks related to that too. So just to let the uh committee know that those conversations are ongoing with that staff as well as uh EMTT. Um, so >> thank you. >> So let's go back to >> I was going to add the park our parks was in support of the project. It was our plant engineering team that was not. So you got about halfway through. >> Okay. Go ahead, Russ. Uh, >> Mr. Chair, I move the recommended motion. >> Thank you, Russ. Is there a second? Steve Peterson. >> Steve, thank you. Um, is there any further discussion on this one? >> All right. None. Uh, none apparent. Uh, I'll ask Robbie to call the role. >> Sure. >> County OJ I. Carver >> County Selder. Hi. Dakota County Tabic. All right, that's right. I remember county view. >> Hi. >> Ramsey County Leeman. >> Hi. >> Scott County Rudolph. >> Hi >> Washington County Lightner. >> Hi >> Egan Matthysse. >> Hi >> Prairie. Ellis. >> Hi Fley. >> Kos Lucher. Hi Army. >> Hi. >> Minneapolis White. >> Hi. >> Thompson. >> Hi. >> St. Paul Weber. >> Hi. >> Suburban trans fighting. >> Hi. >> And bike ped Joh. >> Hi. >> And Metro District Tech. >> Hi. >> And state aid brown. >> Hi Council MTS Peterson. >> Hi. >> Coordinator Kugos. >> Hi. >> The motion and 19 eyes. >> Thank you. Um Bethany, anything else from from you? >> Um I will just say quickly that we did have issue eight um and filling completing the ADA plan requirements. Since posting, both projects did submit their ADA plan and therefore we have no motion to clear out this which does complete our um action transmitt 2026-36. Um and that is all we have for that. >> Thank you. And can we have just have the minutes reflect the uh you know that the ADA transition plan elements on item 8 were accepted prior to the meeting. And then on item seven, the Carver County project um was also um approved prior to our meeting today. Go ahead, Elaine. I just want to make a comment that all projects that were not disqualified have made it through the qualifying review and we will let the applicants know in an email tomorrow. >> Perfect. >> Uh Steve. >> Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Do want to thank a lot of my colleagues here. We we had probably about a dozen people working on this qualification review and less than a month over fourth of July here. I think next year we're going to take two months to do it, not one. But um under Bethy's leadership really they did really a great job um on this. But maybe I was going to try and maybe summarize what I what I heard in the mo all the motions today. And I think the only projects that actually got um disqualified outright were an active transportation or no project and then um the the functional class related ones that being two in Ham Lake and one in St. Louis Park. Um, I think those were the only one, two, three, four projects that got completely disqualified. A few others got qualified or need to they'll continue to scoring but need to supply some additional information. But I think that's more of a manageable number that maybe we started today with. So that's I think a good sign for for all the applicants that um ended up worked through a few issues and I think we got there and for the most part. So thanks everyone. And Steve, I would say that, you know, maybe that's a little bit more of an artifact than the subsequent cycle will be. Um, just from the standpoint of, um, having, you know, materials a little bit tighter, having the flux system kind of under wraps as far as, you know, qualification and can, you know, can can an application be made that could be disqualified or not qualifying? Anthony, go ahead. Just a general item for the entire group for consideration. Uh not that it has to be voted on or there should have been a motion earlier, but would it be possible for this group to consider an in-person meeting at some point to enhance collaboration and new connections, especially for the new faces on the scene? >> It's a great question. Um we haven't we haven't talked about that um in some time. Um I do believe that there and [clears throat] you know Robbie and Steve may know of a future time we have discussed um once scoring gets underway that you know it's it's probable that we'll be meeting in person. Um so yeah good suggestion. Thanks Anthony. we've kind of forget us, you know, that have been on here a little bit. Um, kind of know each other a little bit more. And so, yeah, be I think it'd be great. Um, let's see. We have I think the next item I think we're complete with the 26-36. Let's see. And the next item is trucks are going to get way out to the top. The Oh, I think uh Tony is going to give or facilitate a presentation on electrical electric vehicle city support. Thanks Tony for sticking around through all that and maybe he didn't. Go ahead Robbie. [laughter] >> This Thank you, chair. This is we don't usually go all the way through funding and programming. Um the calendar invite I send is for 2 hours from 1 to 3 p.m. bylaws does not have a time specified for funding and programming. Um so I was just talking with Tony. Um I think he's okay to present at the next funding and programming so that everyone can be um a bit fresher for for a presentation. >> Perfect. All right. That's that's a good thought. So, um, with that, um, I think that might complete our agenda. Uh, other business, if there's any other business that anybody like to bring forward. Um, if not, um, I'll ask for an adjournment and hopefully everybody can get out and enjoy some of this nicer weather. >> I need a motion. Ela will make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. >> Thank you. All right. Have a great day, everybody. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you.