00:00:10,600	be chairing the meeting tonight. First thing that I’d like to do is I’d like to take a moment. Uh, on the silence for those who lost their lives, uh. And uh continue to and those that are continue to lose their lives as a result of 9/11 attack on the United States. So let’s have a moment of silence.

00:00:46,430	All right, moving on. Um, First of all, turn to Marla for a roll call. OK. Comm. Bittner Comm. Connelly, Comm. Jarrett. Comm. Munson. Comm. Patrick. are rich. Comm. Streifel. Comm. Zaroff. And Chair Agnew. We have a quorum of 6. So, uh We’ll look at the minutes from Our July’s meeting.

00:01:36,230	Um, Do we have any Additions or corrections to those minutes? We could Motion to approve by. And second by uh. Comm. Streifel. Um, All those in favor? Aye. pose Marry none those minutes are approved. And the next item on the agenda is agenda is our consent agenda. Next item and, uh, we’ll turn to Mitch.

00:02:14,670	No OK, then we’ll go to Marlow. Uh Sorry about that, Marla. That’s right, we’re all Ms. So. Well, um, this is the application for the Macanowski subdivision. And they are requesting a. Public hearing For their Subdivision I’ll put one up here for you to see. In this subdivision is. 73.18 acres and it’s for lots.

00:02:54,200	The zoning is from Sterling Township. And they are requesting a public hearing. OK, Burley County was approached regarding the four lot subdivision and a zoning change from a agricultural to R one single family residential. The review committee did not find the issues of concern.

00:03:21,770	A stormwater waiver has to be requested a paving waiver has been requested and granted by the board of Burleigh County Commissioners. Zoning for the property is under Sterling Township’s jurisdiction, Sterling Township has approved the continued a agricultural zoning of this subdivision. And they have also approved this subdivision. They have no concerns. And today We are asking.

00:03:55,070	The subdivision fulfills all requirements of the Article 33 of the Burleigh County Zoning Ordinance, um, a paving waiver has been granted. A storm water management plan or waiver request will be done. This preliminary plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities and all concerns and corrections have been addressed. Sterling Township has recommended approval, and they have zoning jurisdiction.

00:04:23,770	The subdivision meets all the requirements of Burleigh County Comprehensive Plan article 3 residential neighborhoods Objective 1 and 2. The preliminary plat meets all the administrative requirements of Burleigh County zoning ordinance and staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Hence the planning commission, you can approve it and call for a public hearing.

00:04:47,530	I’ll prove it with conditions and call for a public hearing, deny the preliminary plat with reason, our table the plat for more information. Any questions of Marla? Yes. On the one, even though you are chairing uh commissioners on the one point you said there will be, so there’s one that portion of it that it hasn’t actually been, it’s still in process, is that correct? when you introduced it, you stated the pavement waiver

00:05:20,270	has been done. The next one you said will be and then the rest of it has met the stormwater management plan, um, we usually get that Or a waiver request. And that has to be done before the public hearing. The request has to be in. So on. Any other questions? Comm. Risch, uh, come here, Mr.

00:05:46,500	Chair, Commissioners, is the intent to build one or more homes on this? Is that the intent? I mean, I’m just curious. Well, it’s a family lot and um it’s um they’re dividing it between the family members and one of the family members’ daughters is going to live on the property.

00:06:06,900	There’s one lot that’s like 3 acres. And they’re gonna build a house on that one. And that’s all through Sterling Township, we only have planting jurisdiction. Comm. Sreifel. Chair and commissioners, Marla, can you tell me why the two numbers are outside of that blue line? Is that, what do you mean the numbers? There’s uh. 646,380 are not included in the.

00:06:35,330	Highlighted area. Oh, on the maps, right. Well, the amounts I’ve been just getting off a GIS and I um. Don’t sometimes don’t grab the whole thing. OK, you know, but there’s no problems with it, um. We haven’t had any issues or concerns. You know, and when this does get divided, we’ll look at the addresses also.

00:07:05,270	So Any other questions? I promise Mine is probably just my my question just to clarify in my mind, so we’re The the request is to change from agriculture to R1. They requested that in their meeting with us, but Because Sterling Township has zoning jurisdiction. We can’t change the zoning.

00:07:33,630	We’re not going to change it, when they first came in, they asked about it, but since it’s not our jurisdiction, and we did um send notification to Sterling Township. And they had no problems. OK. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Hi Closure preliminary approval and schedule for the year. We have a motion in a second.

00:08:01,930	Any further discussion on the motion? He none we’ll call for we’ll call. OK, the motion is to, um, approve the subdivision for a public hearing. A yes vote means you approve, a no vote means you don’t. Um, Comm. Streifel, yes. Comm. Rich. Comm. Bitney Bittner, I was looking at Conly, Comm. Connelly. Comm. Jarrett. And Vice Chair Patrick, yes.

00:08:45,070	told me anything but too late. Um, all right, the next item on the consent agenda is, uh, the Cheney-Morriset subdivision. I’m going to ask who you’re going to speak to that. OK, Marla, would you please? Hm OK. This is the journey more set subdivision. OK, um.

00:09:36,670	The petitioners are Jacob Morrisette and Jason and Sarah Turney. Um, Mark Isaac is the land surveyor. The location is part of the Northwest one quarter section 5 Township 140N range 81 West Burley County. There are 6 acres, more or less, and they’re going to divide it into two lots. Burley County was approach regarding a Two lot subdivision containing 6 acres, more or less.

00:10:07,870	The review committee did not find any questions or concerns. A stormwater waiver has been requested a paving waiver has been requested and granted by the Board of County commissioners. Zoning for the property is R1 rule, single family residential. And Staff findings.

00:10:41,530	The subdivision fulfills the requirements of Article 33 of the Burleigh County Zoning Ordinances, the paving waiver has been granted a stormwater management waiver has been requested. The preliminary plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities all concerns and corrections have been addressed. Zoning is R1 rural single family residential, and the sub subdivision meets the requirements of the Burley County Comprehensive Plan, Article 3 residential neighborhoods objective 1 and 2.

00:11:07,770	This position petition for a preliminary plat meets all administrative requirements of the Burleigh County zoning ordinances and staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and calling for a public hearing. And as Comm., you can.

00:11:34,330	it and called for a public hearing, approved the plot with conditions and Paul for call for a public hearing, denied the preliminary plat with reason or tabled the preliminary plot for more information. Any questions from Any commissioners. Right, Mr. Chair Marla, so what are they asking for? They’re it’s sovereignty zoned. Rural family, single family dwelling. Yeah, it was already zoned R one and basically what they’re doing is dividing a lot in half.

00:12:05,500	for two owners. Any other questions? Her comments Well, I have one question related to the stormwater management plan or waiver is it going to be, they’re gonna have a plan or is they’re gonna have they’re going to ask for a waiver. OK.

00:12:27,800	No But they’re willing to submit the plan if they have to if the waiver is not grounded, that’s no problem. Any other questions? Yes. Comm., that uh driveway area that looks like an extra long driveway that would be all of their personal responsibility, not on the owners it’s um a private access so it’s open to anybody who owns the backlog, but not, not the public. It’s good.

00:12:52,300	It shouldn’t be on the citizen’s back. Yeah. Any further questions or comments? Yeah I’d move to approve the preliminary plat and called for a public hearing the Comm., uh, Streifel first and Comm. Jarrett is a 2nd. Um, Any further questions on the motion? Hearing on. Let’s move to a roll call vote, Marla.

00:13:26,430	The motion was to Approved the preliminary plat and call for a public hearing, a yes vote means you approve of the motion? Comm. Jarrett. Yes Comm. Connell Yes. Comm. Bittner. Comm. Streif on Comm. Rich. Vice Chair Patrick, yes. All approved motion approved.

00:14:02,270	Next item on our agenda is the amendment to the zoning ordinance, um, Article 8 special uses Section 10 data centers, I think they uh. Mitch is going to address that. Good evening, commissioners, Mr. Chair, um, first is this is a rough draft of the uh Section 30 special use permit for data centers. AI conversion centers, the facilities.

00:14:27,330	Um, that the basically it’s the same outline, the same draft that I presented in July to this board. I did make some changes. I added some additional definitions, and I, uh, in addressing the, um, there’s, there’s been. Uh, discussion, uh, um, nationally and probably worldwide of of these data centers converting into AI facilities. Uh, which is, um.

00:14:53,530	It’s not a, not a big, big change, but it would increase their electricity use by probably double. And it’s uh. The idea is that they can make more money off an AI facility than a data center.

00:15:14,630	Because of the massive investments and and the cost of doing these AI research and and uh creations, but the um The the idea is that the facility would already be there. They can convert it to an AI, but it, it would take a reapplication for the special use permit. The, uh, I did add.

00:15:37,270	A couple of definitions of the data data center AI conversion facility, a data center that’s converted and used to support artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency is this type of decentralized digital currency that investors can buy and sell along the blockchain, unless banknotes or minted coins that have, unlike banknotes or mini minted coins, they have a tangible physical form, cryptocurrencies can only be assessed using computers and other electronic devices. The blockchain is a digital record of those transactions involving cryptocurrency.

00:16:04,530	The only other thing that I, I did change on this from the rough draft. is the uh at the very page and page 6 was I added any change of use within an existing permitted data center, i.e. AI conversion center shall require a new special use permit review and approval.

00:16:31,270	Not sure how long our our ordinance will be effective if we do adopt it because there’s discussion at the state level for the PSC to regulate data centers. Because of the use, the massive use of electricity, and the effect on the power grid, the impact on On infrastructure in North Dakota. They like North Dakota because it’s, it’s cold climate up here. It’s winter time, um.

00:16:57,400	And they, it costs a lot of money to keep these buildings cooled. It spent thousands hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, if not millions of dollars a year, just try to keep these buildings cold. The uh temperature gets up to 140 degrees. In some of these buildings.

00:17:19,670	And the sheer amount of electricity that these computers, these massive banks of computers that use for research. And we have an abundance of electricity or the possibility of the abundance of electricity in North Dakota. So that’s, that’s the reason why there’s, there is concern. I mean there is, um, possible more development of these in the state of North Dakota. They don’t like regulations either, so. Have that in there. Any questions or comments, Comm.

00:17:44,200	Conley. Well, similar to another conversation that’s been going on in relation to these that is regulated by the PSC, the fact that the one up in the Williston area, um, drew so much electricity and then the courts got involved and they increased everybody’s electric bill statewide by a little bit more than $13.

00:18:06,930	70 per month. So anything that I think that can be written into an ordinance so we can say no, because why should we arbitrarily raise all of our citizens’ electric bill in order to allow somebody else to make money. Oh, yeah, thank you, Comm., Mr. Chair.

00:18:28,570	Um, it’s the idea is not to restrict these and to allow them by special use, but also dis discuss this in public forums here like in that this commission and at the county commission board.

00:18:50,200	Um, so that these questions and these concerns for neighbors and for the impact on, on their, you know, electrical rates for everybody around, even, even if we don’t live near one electric rates may go up. Because these are massive infrastructures that they have to build. They, they want to be near, near the uh substations. So it’s kind of, I don’t know I don’t know if you’re going to be near a uh populated area like Williston was.

00:19:09,200	The problem that Williston is that they promised him a decibel level and they uh when they applied for the permit and they didn’t reach that decibel level, it’s almost double what it was, what they intended to do. They promised a decibel level of I think 16 it’s up to 95. So that’s one of the reasons why they got a lawsuit, but, but also it’s, it’s that.

00:19:27,870	The noise they can hear this noise. Chair and commissioners, with all due respect, I think that can move him up to Canada. Any other questions, comments? Comm. Risch, thank you, Mr. Chair, Comm., um, So anyway, in my other life, I used to try and save coal-fired power plants.

00:19:50,900	That was my, I represented the railroad workers hauling coal. The last I checked, the coal-fired power plants nationally are running about 43% capacity, but when I checked in North Dakota, our power plants are running far, far higher.

00:20:10,600	I think Col creeds at like 90% capacity, so they’re selling all their power, but if we were at 40% capacity and we don’t have a coal-fired power plant in Burley County. We’ve got one here. Is it McLean? No, where’s Um Yeah, come here.

00:20:31,930	But anyway, um, these things would ideally be suited to go next to a coal-fired power plant that’s only running at 40% capacity, put it right next to the doggone thing and and and it’s more lucrative to sell the power to a data center because they get, they have to pay the retail rate rather than putting on the transmission lines at a far lower wholesale rate. But anyway, that was just my thoughts.

00:20:46,070	I was look I was thinking about, you know, how I tried to save coal and try and increase the production at the coal-fired Power plants and this would be a fix for some of that, but it doesn’t appear to be the problem in North Dakota. We’re selling all our energy. Just a comment Um, Mitch, I, I had a comment about on page two, Underage you talk about.

00:21:11,930	Record owner, should that maybe be owners because a lot of times there’s multiple persons or corporations involved. Does that make any sense? Which section or the application requirements under A. OK. I made myself a note here. I’m just I was just thinking about, you know, so you’re gonna go after somebody. And you got 11 name out of. Three names, you know.

00:21:39,200	I mean all three of them could be held liable. And the other comment I have is on I think it’s on. See Um, And I’m assuming that you would leave that up to the acoustical engineer. I, I questioned, should there be some something about distance to occupied buildings, but maybe that’s not appropriate in here, you know.

00:22:01,670	Uh, because acoustical engineer should, should probably be able to deal with that, you would think. And then on page 3, I’ve got another comment, um, and this one I. Kind of bothered me, um. Under K down the the big paragraph, uh, 2 I. And in the middle there it says financial security. Shall be in the amount of 125%.

00:22:27,300	You see that? My question there is, you know, 125% today. Um, Um, Might be sufficient, but what about 1520 years down the road. I, I mean, I don’t know. I’m just sitting here thinking about.

00:22:56,730	You know, Well, You know, the estimated cost to maintain a data center would increase, I believe, with along with property values or inflation. I would think it would maintain the same level, but I, I, I’m, I don’t know, I, I’ve just brought that up because. It’s a good question. I, I mean, I could look into it, um. You’re saying 125% is not enough. It might not be.

00:23:22,830	Depending on the costs, you know, who knows about construction costs and so forth, you know, they may go out of sight. I’ll look into that. Any other comments or questions? So we’re looking for the action, Mr. Chair, for to recommend this to the public hearing. Do we have a Emotion, I’ll move we approve and go to a public hearing.

00:24:14,070	2 Is there a second? Your second? OK. Uh, seconded by Comm. Bittner. Uh, any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Chair, I would like to add that, that these data centers are set back at least 1 mile from any single family or multi-family dwelling schools, etc. I saw that, yeah, yeah. Mr. Chair. I do have a question. Uh, Commissionereriel.

00:24:40,800	Drain our stakeholder meeting, Mitch, wasn’t there a comment from I think there was someone there from the Department of Commerce. And number 2, under design standards, there was a concern that we were requiring 3 miles from any lawfully existing data center that would prohibit these data centers from actually being in an area of their own.

00:25:06,570	Was that Something that you recall from those stakeholder meetings was. Maybe they should be allowed to be closer to other data centers so that they were. At least confined to an area? I don’t recall that part of the discussion, but it, I mean, it could be a consideration, um. You know, it’s. It’s supposed to be in an industrial area.

00:25:31,470	And we really don’t have any industrial parks up in Minoan. No industrial districts in in Burleigh County, so it’d be basically we want to build here you gotta change it to an industrial zoning. So it’s The idea is, um, It’s going to be a kind of a.

00:25:54,470	I mean, it’s, he’d say spot zoning, but most of the rural counties are spot zoning because of that, the fact that you have just one little use right out in the middle of nowhere. But the intent was to keep these things from clustering together and causing You know, the additional noise or or. You know, impact in that area of, of the county.

00:26:13,670	But other than that, I wouldn’t, I mean, if you wanna have. And industrial, you know, the zoned data centers. I mean, that’s fine. I mean, that’s to me it would be, it would make sense if they’re get next to a substation or on directly connected to the grid. And it’s already his own eye.

00:26:30,200	Um I mean, it’s. I can see if somebody owns the property there and there’s room to put another one. Um, I don’t see a problem with that. Mitch, I just wanted to clarify when I brought up the financial security, um, It said estimated cost to reclaim. And restore the property. I think that estimated cost.

00:27:02,730	Uh, is, you know, today is going to be different than it is 20 years from now. That’s what my, that’s what my concern was. OK. Does that make sense? Mhm. Yeah All right, any further discussion on the motion.

00:27:25,370	Are you suggesting to change the 3 miles? I, I mean, that’s if, if that’s one of your part of your motion, I can certainly include it in the, in this draft. I was just bringing that up because it was brought up as a concern at the stakeholder meeting. I don’t even remember why we were talking about this, but oh, we had it at one of the meetings, right? stakeholder.

00:27:43,870	And that was a concern that was brought up was if we require them to be at least 3 miles from any other data center that they can’t Be in the same area where They can be confined to that area and away from the public, but. That’s fine, we’ll take it out. I don’t know. I mean, it’s.

00:28:07,430	Mm I mean, I could see it, see this as an impact if it gets closer to the to the city or to the closer to to where the more populated areas are, but I don’t think that’s the case for these.

00:28:25,000	They, they go out where the grid, the substations are and the electricity is available directly for them, so I don’t see that that would be an issue. Mr. Risch. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, it seems like it might be a better idea to put two of them together that’s causing a bunch of noise in two different spots. Yeah, I mean, that’s it. I think their impact. Um, You know, because they’re going to be zoned industrial.

00:28:54,970	I mean that would take a a heavy lift for if it’s in a populated area to rezone that I industrial for a data center to be placed next to people even within a mile. Of a house I think it’d be a heavy lift for that to be get an approval. It’s uh if it’s 10 miles out.

00:29:13,100	You know, on a substation out there with the maybe. The nearest house is 6 miles away, then yeah, make it an industrial center for data data industrial district for data centers. Any further comments or discussion, Comm.

00:29:40,200	Connelly? I guess the counter to that if I was thinking out and it’s not my area of expertise, so, but thinking creatively would like two data centers require more capacity, and if there wasn’t capacity in that area to allow for it, um, does that complicate it and we’re separating them to put them on two different. Um, Power sources to supply them, so. Mr. Chair, Comm. Connelly, I You know, I don’t, there’s so many different providers for Burleigh County.

00:30:07,600	You got, um, MDU and you’ve got. Capital Electric, so I mean it’s I. Depending on where they’re going to be located, I don’t, I don’t know what type of impact they’re going to have on these on this grid system or the electric companies, you know, I haven’t. I don’t know. That’s a good question, but.

00:30:26,070	Um, to me their impact is the same if you cluster them together in one. One location or separate them out by 10 miles. It’s still gonna take the same amount of electricity.

00:30:40,770	It would, it would save a developer’s cost if you if you allowed them next to each other because he probably owns the property and he can put them all in one location. But it doesn’t make sense to build separate buildings either instead of just building one. I don’t, I don’t get into the development of these things, so it’s kinda. I don’t see, I don’t see an impact.

00:31:02,130	Of Doubling up an impact if you’re in a in a in a regional area or a rural area that’s zoned industrial. It’s so You’re gonna have you got to put it somewhere or they want to put it somewhere, it’s the impact is going to be the same where you put them two together, or 3 miles apart. Oh Anyone else, any further comments? Before we call for the question.

00:31:27,530	One more time. Any questions, comments? He not Marla, would you call your role, please? Motion is to Um, approve Article 8, Section 30 data centers for a public hearing, um, with No changes or width changes. How do you wanna Well, I think Mitch, who made the mulch you were planning to make a few changes.

00:32:01,300	Am I correct? I can, yes. OK, with, with any changes. the motion, move to approve Article 8 Section 30 to a public hearing with corrections. OK with that change. I’m OK I’m OK with that change to the motion. My secondary OK. ctor yeah. All right. Good catch Comm. Jarrett. Yes. Comm. Conley, yes. Comm. Rich, yes. Comm. Streifel.

00:32:45,000	Comm. Bittner. Vice Chair Patrick, yes. The motion was approved. OK, um, Next item on the agenda is the amendment to the zoning ordinance, um. Article 8 special use of Section 31 Accessory dwelling units, Mitch Commissioners, Mr.

00:33:21,270	Chair, this is, um, was discussed before at the uh uh previous hearing the, um, This is to allow uh mother-in-law suits or extended families to live on to have a separate uh dwelling, separate living spaces on the same lot, same parcel of property. Uh, there are 2 in here of, of one is an accessory unit where it’s part of the house.

00:33:40,930	And the other one is an accessory dwelling which is it is a detached garage, detached shop kind of deal. Um, this, we, we don’t have anything in our ordinance now. We have had several requests for it, as you may recall, we had a complaint on one a couple of months ago, uh, down in Brierdale area and uh it’s a classic example of an accessory dwelling, he converted a garage

00:34:02,570	into a living space. Put a, put a meter can on the outside and and ran. You know, the services to this building, so his father could live there.

00:34:26,500	And that’s what this is an intent is to allow this through special use permit, um, It is, I did make some I’ve made any changes, but I do, I do suggest some changes on this that and I mentioned at the last meeting that these, these sizes are fairly small on page 3 of 5 on uh. Item C. It, it describes the floor areas of an accessory dwelling unit and a detached. Um, dwelling unit.

00:34:53,730	The um one for a house if it’s within the building within the same house, it’s allowed up to 800 square feet. And then on a um um on any lot or parcel is allowed up to 1200 square feet.

00:35:17,270	Um, The the idea is that some of these lots are 58, 10 acres, so he, I mean, his stands the reason that you build a larger building if you wanted to. We don’t want to restrict. If they want to build a 2000 square accessory dwelling. But um. I mean that would be up to this board to consider. Um, I would, I would, it also depends on the areas.

00:35:37,330	I mean, this is heavily depends on the areas if you can allow room for a septic system. For us for a building that size. You have to have it, you not only have to have the air for the septic system, but you have to have an area of replacement for that septic system.

00:35:53,530	So you got two systems on a 5 acre lot you have to have two areas of replacement on that lot, so it would be a kind of a review based approval. We have to make sure that. You know, that they would have enough room to do that. But Um, I could see. People asking for coming in and asking for more than 1200 square foot detached accessory dwelling.

00:36:14,330	People seem to be wanting to have larger areas, larger buildings. The idea is that you wouldn’t want to have it larger than the than the primary structure. Um, but there’s, you know, Some of these accessory buildings are getting huge. 8000 square foot for the last one that I issued.

00:36:43,770	So it’s they want to put an accessory dwelling in this 8000 square foot shop. How do you figure that one out? So it’s kind of, you know, the idea is we want to kind of. Allow these to happen on a variable size lots if the lot lots larger than stands the reason they could have a larger accessory building. Comm. Bler, thank you, Mr.

00:37:02,870	We probably address that with like a special use permit or something. That’s what this would be under, yes. These will be under a special use permit. Right, but the different sizes than you could address, we have a sentence that says, you know, yep, I could, I could amend this to allow a um um contingent on the lot size, um,

00:37:23,630	that sort of thing award it so um it’s a case by case basis really for the if you have a 2 acre lot, you have a 10 acre lot. So you have some variability that recognizes the restraints on the law. OK, I put that in there. Any further questions, comments from Mitch, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jarrett.

00:37:50,370	Um, follow up with Comm. Bitner, um, because that is my question. All this is is a special use permit, right? So you, you can. You have some leeway right in what you can require what what in in the planning and zoning, we’ll vote on it and all that, right? So if we don’t nail everything down with hammer

00:38:08,000	nail. We’re OK, right? I mean, yeah, I, and, and like I said, it would be based on. Um, If there’s room to put a building at large,,, 12, are there covenants that restrict these accessory building sizes, many, many subdivisions do.

00:38:30,270	Are the, you know, the, the, the septic system would be allowed if it’s uh the services, the setbacks from from all buildings and from lot lines if it works out, of course it’d have to be, it had to fit that review for the specialist even be able to present it to this board.

00:38:49,070	Mitch, you might, you might they always come about because of the shop condos that are being built and some of that. It was just part of that. Well, that that different animal, so no, this is more of a response to some people. I I like to complaint for Don and Brierdale. I mean, it’s, he had a 3 acre lot there is it wasn’t bothering anybody.

00:39:11,730	Nobody, nobody really said anything about it until. And they complain. And they got this little. This disagreement between each other and it’s like. Um, Why, why should we not allow this, and we don’t have it in our ordinances. It’s not like we’re trying to restrict regime from the beginning. We just have never addressed it.

00:39:31,130	And so Yeah, Comm. Bittner, I, I can add a little bit more to that. Um, we Uh, the city of Bismarck planning and zoning as well as the city commission, you know, that it’s a common.

00:39:48,870	It it’s getting to be a more common thing where people are doing, they call them granny flats or you know, it’s, it’s an assisted living thing that, that helps to keep. Essentially to help keep elderly people at home. I don’t think it’s intended to be a rental like a Airbnb or anything like that, I think. We have to make sure that it’s limited to the family type of concept.

00:40:08,200	But generally speaking, that’s why it’s down in those smaller square footage numbers because. Grandma doesn’t take up as much rumors as a whole family, you know. I mean 1200 square foot for For an individual is is a pretty good amount of space. I know I live in a 1200 square foot house, so it’s seems to be fine. Uh, my family.

00:40:28,900	So anyway, that it has been a topic for a long time and it’s and it’s getting to be more and more acceptable. We just don’t have it in our ordinances so. should be Yeah, that’s why I mentioned the shop condo because how my my question then to Comm.

00:40:48,970	Bittner would be then how do you control Um, the fact that you don’t have a. B&B and some of that other stuff. How do you, how do you control that? Somebody builds it and says this is for grandma, and it ends up not being for grandma. Well, that’s Well, we can certainly include a non-conversion agreement.

00:41:09,470	That’s part of the special years that it has to be for family members or or uh. Connected somehow by the family. OK. But then again, I mean. If you, what would be the problem with the B&B? Well, I mean, what, why would we want to start restricting B&Bs. Well, I, I can answer that. Some people don’t want, um. Strangers. In their neighborhood every different day.

00:41:41,530	You know, I mean, I, I used a, we’ve actually used a lot of those Airbnbs, and I’m not aware of any problem that we’ve ever caused for any neighbors, but I could understand that under the right set of circumstances, somebody might not want that in their neighborhood. Because it is a, a different group of people.

00:42:00,700	Either every day or every couple of days or something. And you just never, you don’t know them, and so. Mr. Chair, I, I, I agree. I’m not disagreeing. I’m just threw that out there for a discussion. What about renting these out? What if they wanted to rent these out? Well, that wouldn’t be the purpose of it. This Right.

00:42:24,730	No, it would not be the intent of of an accessory dwelling unit, but the chances are they could make A lot of money renting these out compared to the rates of rent in this town. That’s where the non-convergent agreement kicks in and then you lose the ability to do that. OK. Uh, Mr. Chair, Comm.

00:42:46,130	, I’m just thinking, what if Grandma dies and then you have this 1200 square foot relatively new home. It only makes sense that you might rent it out. Yeah, I mean there are many, many other county or well towns I know that do allow them to rent them out. It’s, but those, I mean, there’s probably grandfathered in too as well.

00:43:09,600	Cause you’re into single family dwell, any single family zone districts are for one family. They they’re not for multi-family rentals. But there is that there is the, you know, I, I always intrepidatious about creating ordinances that create loopholes and problems.

00:43:32,530	And I, we could easily see this going down the road where they’re raining them out, but The non-conversion agreement can certainly apply to this. They they have to sign it and we have to record it at the recorder’s office. attached to that property. and build one, you agree to those terms. Pretty hard to say something later. It’ll Comm. Colley, you know, to add some context to it.

00:43:55,530	The first conversations that I was aware of started around 2011. Morton County started making their adjustments around 2013, 2014, and then Bismarck made um their um added the 8DU80 spaces in 2016. Um, so it’s normal that it’s trickling.

00:44:21,130	I work in the long-term care area and there is a strong push for more because we know that families can Care of their loved ones and stay together at a much more affordable rate than the government. nursing home standard rates in North Dakota, uh, base rates are around that $10,000 a month, but there’s some of them on Medicare, Medicaid, they’re running $35,000 a month and the costs only go up from there.

00:44:38,270	So there is this generalized push and there’s going to be more state legislation towards it, and it does make sense on some levels, but um, once you open that genie, then how do you regulate that and actually uh um. Kudos to Comm. Bittner, um, when we’re talking like the septic systems and things, the state law with these um.

00:45:02,800	Double drainage systems and things with the ghost plating, um, with new technology, uh, I really wish the state would get rid of the double requirement because you can take one out and put it back in because the infrastructure for it is significantly smaller than it used to be.

00:45:21,030	And the capacity has gone up, but that would allow for a little bit more flexibility, but, um, under the special use permit you do catch a lot of the things to where it doesn’t go off the rails in the other areas, but, um, I know of at least one encouragement because I’m part of the discussion on um how can we address it from a state level in order to maximize the

00:45:39,600	keeping families together without the uh. Um, cost of um the inflated rates for elder care. Any other comments, Comm. Stiifel, is this something that would work for people who have farmers who have temporary farm workers. Mr. Chair, that’s already, that’s already in our ordinance.

00:46:05,800	Yeah, it’s a temporary farm work is, uh, is a special use permit. It’s um. We haven’t issued any lately, but it’s, it’s designed for farm health, temporary farm help. Anything else? Questions, comments? I think my only concern would be, and I think. Comm. Bittner maybe part should address that is that. My concern would be how do you regulate. Who’s in those units, you know.

00:46:40,570	Well, non non-conversion agreements are pretty effective. Any other comments or questions? here. OK, motion by Commissionerner, seconded by Comm. Jarrett to schedule a public hearing. I’m not here. Anything else?? 00, I thought it was, I’m sorry, I was looking over here. Sorry. Sorry about that, Comm. Connelly. Mar name seems to be tripping people up tonight.

00:47:17,800	Uh OK, um. If there are no more comments or questions, we’ll move to a roll call vote. Give me a second. The motion is to approve Article 8. Section 31 accessory dwelling units. As presented. Yasmine, do you agree with the motion, um, a no means you do not. Comm. Bittner. Comm. Conly, Comm. Streifel, Comm. Rich. Comm. Jarrett.

00:48:01,030	Vice Chair Patrick, yes. Um, all approved. Comm. Carey OK, let’s move on to, uh, public hearing agenda. We have 2 items, uh, On the agenda tonight. And the first one is the Aberley 2nd subdivision, uh, and zoning change. Marla, OK, this is um. The public hearing. For the Everly 2nd subdivision and zoning change.

00:48:47,000	The petitioner and developer is Janice Everly. Uh, engineer is Swensen Hagen and Company. The location is part of the Northwest one corner of section 29, Township 139 North range, 78 West. It contains 66 acres more or less. There is also a zoning change request from agricultural to R1 rural single family residential.

00:49:17,130	And the petitioners are requesting a due pass recommendation. Burley County was approached regarding a one lot subdivision and a zoning change from agricultural to R1 rural residential. The review commissioning commission committee did not find any issues of concern.

00:49:44,070	The stormwater water waver has been requested and approved, and the paving waiver has been requested and was granted by the board of Burleigh County Commissioners in May. The surrounding properties are zoned A agricultural. However, the size of the property conforms to similar parcels in the area. And you can see it’s a one lot. They’ve done the access easements that are required.

00:50:15,730	Um, this subdivision and zoning change fulfills requirements of Article 33 and Article 12 of the Burley County Zoning Ordinance, the paving waiver has been granted a stormwater management plan Weaver request has been granted. This final plot has been submitted to all reviewing entities, all concerns and corrections have been addressed. This subdivision and zoning change meets the requirements of the Burleigh County Comprehensive Plan, Article 3, residential neighborhoods objectives 1 and 2.

00:50:44,400	The petition for the final plat and zoning change meets all administrative requirements of the Burleigh County zoning ordinance. And staff recommends approval of the final plat and the zoning change with a due pass recommendation to the board of Burleigh County Commissioners.

00:51:09,000	The commission can approve the final plan and zoning change and give a due pass recommendation, approved the final platin zoning change with conditions and give due pass after all conditions have been met, denied the final plat, and zoning change with reason and tabled the final plot and zoning change for more information. And that’s it. Any questions of Marlow. the commission. Any questions? Every now and then we will.

00:51:44,000	from the public hearing and those that want to speak with you approach the podium and state your name and sign in on the, on the sheet there. Thank you, Comm. Lana Nimmiller of Swarnhagen Engineering representing Janice Averly in this, uh, really nothing to add to what Marla had there’re just here for any questions if you have them. This is.

00:52:06,130	One of these standards single life family where it’s a large piece of family agricultural land, raking out a piece for for somebody to to build their single family home on. Any questions or comments? Any questions or comments? Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak to it? Anymore, uh.

00:52:40,300	Persons that wanted to comment, please approach the podium. Last call for comments. OK then we’ll close the public hearing. On the Aberly 2nd subdivision. And zoning change Any comments from anybody on the commission. Motion to approve Motion by Comm. Bit to approve 2. And second by Comm. Conway. Got that one right. Any further discussion.

00:53:19,270	All right, the uh motion is to approve Everly’s 2nd subdivision and the zoning change from agricultural to Our one single family residential. Yes vote means you approve the motion. A no vote means you do not. Comm. Streifel. Comm. Bittner, Comm. Connelly, Comm. Rich. Comm. Jarrett, yes. Vice Chair Patrick.

00:53:53,430	All approved All right, then we’ll move on to the, uh, Next item on the public hearing agenda and that is the amendment to zoning ordinance Article 8 Special use Section 29 solar farms and we’ll turn to Mitch for that one. I’m back again, commissioners, Mr. Chair. Um, as you recall at the, at the, uh, stakeholder meetings and previous.

00:54:21,730	Um, discussion out there for the rough draft, this is pretty much the same thing for a solar, solar energy systems facilities within Burley County. Um, The Packet that the the the ordinance that was in the packet for some reason it was missing the second page of the ordinance when it scanned, it didn’t do that, so we gave you new copies.

00:54:49,470	Of That with which included the um changes that were made from the uh Stakeholder group and uh especially on the definitions, um, I added. Um, Several new definitions. The um Photovoltaic panel system, the solar collector. Solar thermal system and solar farms are, are better or more um.

00:55:34,800	Defined So this is for a couple of items in this I, I, you may recall is 11 application is for an accessory solar system. The other one is for an actual solar solar farm. So the accessory building is allowed by right. Um, in, in all districts.

00:55:57,700	Residential agricultural, you know, you can industrial, commercial, you can put your solar system on the roof or on the side, um, they asked to meet setbacks and that sort of thing, but it’s allowed by right you don’t need a permit. The, um, Ground system, so the larger ground system, ground mounted systems are for the um basically for the farms, solar farms. Same thing with the community solar energy systems, solar farms are for um You know, a large scale 4500 acres. It takes.

00:56:24,530	Quite a few acres to uh to um. Create a kilowatt of electricity. And Um, So it’s The idea that these are going to be large scale if they do come, we’ve had one, The flicker tail, I think the flickertail project down in uh. Oh, it’s south of. Wahpeton Um, it’s the PSC reviewed that.

00:56:54,070	Yeah, it was a township, uh, proven it’s like 56 00 acre system. So that’s what this is for. We don’t have it in our ordinances is to address it, is to allow it by a special use permit. Um, If you have any questions for the ordinance or anything. Any concerns? Any questions? Yes, Comm. Risch. Uh, Mr. Chair, Comm.

00:57:23,270	, um, an applicability, it’s a if it’s over 50 megawatts of power needs PSC approval. Is that state law or already? OK. Any further questions of Mitch before we go to the public hearing. There ain’t none. Thank you, Mitch.

00:57:53,130	Uh, then we’ll open the public hearing on the uh Uh Zoning Ordinance Article 8 special use, uh, Section 29 solar farms. Anybody want to approach the podium? Uh, again, sign in and state your name, please. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, uh, my name’s Greg Owen with Capital Electric Cooperative. Engineering manager, so get involved with the application for interconnection for any kind of distributed energy system.

00:58:23,530	Solar would be one of those types, so this is in our, our wheelhouse on a a daily basis, so thank you for your attention to this topic and um for the effort that’s been put into it. Um, couple of comments, kind of in general, I guess would maybe have.

00:58:42,270	Some of the different sections of the ordinance, um, referred to things like uh National Electric Code, National Electric Safety Code, or the North Dakota Board of State Board of Electrical Inspectors. Um, thank you. I think that should be uniform across all. All sections, whether it’s a solar farm, a community farm, an accessory use, those kind of. Requirements would apply. To each one of them, um.

00:59:06,800	As opposed to trying to pick which one to put certain. Qualifications within. Um, so that’s just from a safety perspective, we want to keep the public safe, safeguard property as well as line workers working on the lines if there’s danger of back feeding onto the system. That’s why these.

00:59:26,130	These codes are important to apply across the board, so. Um, Another kind of general comment regardless of the size or type, there would be an interconnection process with the utility. I know it was mentioned in.

00:59:46,870	Um, One or two of the sections, but, um, whether it’s an accessory use or a solar farm, a community farm, there would be an application process with the utility, at least from the Capitolle perspective, regardless of the size if it’s connecting to the grid. There’s an application process with the utility, so we just support that kind of requirement, um. Across the board in all sections. Um, and then to kind of clarify the, the PSC comment, yes, that. Century Code dictates 50 megawatts or above, um.

01:00:07,730	And that would be the requirement. I believe there was a note. Um, In solar farms section 4, this is on page 4. These types are permitted and regulated by North Dakota Public Service Commission.

01:00:26,270	That would be true if it’s about 50 megawatts, um, if it’s a 20 megawatt, it wouldn’t necessarily have to go to the Public Service commission. So it’s kind of a just a distinction. It may be easiest to do that across the board, um, upfront. It’s kind of a thought there.

01:00:46,370	Um, I had a question, I guess, on the very beginning where it it says uh section 29, a solar energy system may be permitted in an agricultural district district, um. Is that intended to? Place solar energy systems only on agricultural districts. I believe later on it does say. Um, I think in the accessory use cases or. Districts where things are permitted. I wasn’t sure if that was the intent or if I was just misreading. Um, that first sentence, Mr. Chair, yes.

01:01:09,730	Yeah, the, uh, the intent of that on Ag District is for the solar farms. The accessory the accessory solar systems can be allowed in, in all districts. They’re allowed in R1 commercial. Industrial insurance as well. OK, I, I thought it might be a good clarification to. To know what solar farms and.

01:01:35,900	Um, I guess another question I had would be on definitions number 3, the community solar energy system. Um, This, I think this is kind of a unique case, uh, I know of at least one cooperative um Cas on Electric and in Fargo has has something like this where they have a utility owned solar farm, and members can essentially uh participate by either purchasing a portion of

01:02:00,400	it or a panel, you know, utilities do it different ways, but that’s kind of a one way this model works and then that. The usage from that panel is offset on your own consumer’s electric bill. Um, so that makes sense when it’s the utility owned side of it.

01:02:20,600	Um, I wasn’t sure if this was intended to allow for, say, a third party to install, uh, say a developer, you want to develop a new subdivision and we want to put solar farm in the back and then that gets utilized by all of the consumers on site, um.

01:02:39,870	In Our interconnection processes now, there’d be 1 m for that solar farm, one entity, say a developer. That developer would get the payment for whatever energy was produced back to the grid. There would not be a direct correlation between that and the Consumers within the the neighborhood, they’re gonna have their own meters. This is not a direct correlation if that’s kind of making.

01:02:59,170	since you’re that if it was the intent that that developer could sell power from the solar farm to its. Individual residences that would fall under the entry code 490301 is the definition of a public utility. So the developer would become a public utility regulated by the PSC.

01:03:23,170	Um, May not be the intention of what what that’s written for, so I wasn’t quite sure when, when the definition says to provide retail electric power um or a financial proxy for retail power to multiple community members or businesses located offsite. Um, I’m just, it was a little unclear to me what the envision for that.

01:03:44,470	Definition was and um maybe I could learn a little bit more about it. Mr. Chair, that, that was the intent is, is for a developer in say a subdivision commercial subdivision to create a solar system that is, is um connected to all the businesses there. They have one central uh solar uh site.

01:04:09,800	And it’d be, it’d be one connection where I’m, I’m not sure how. Of the, the connection to the To the grid itself would be one connection. It’d be just one. Entity they’re not all the businesses. Connected to that? Sure. Um, so yeah. they wouldn’t be selling power directly to the consumer, I guess it’s in that they would be selling it back to the grid.

01:04:34,530	And whatever financial mechanisms they have behind that with people participating, say within it. Um, That’s out of our purview, but. Just so long as it’s not selling. Retail power to end consumer cause that’s a utility function per centry code. That makes sense. I don’t, OK.

01:04:58,130	So I don’t know if that warrants any changes to the text, but that was one clarification I was seeking just to make sure there was a clear intention that there’s not. Developing other public utilities based on that. That ordinance Um, See if I can Go through a few more of my comments here. Um, So, Comm. Bitner. So in regards to that. The the community solar energy system.

01:05:25,500	Paragraph change a couple of words, add a couple of words to that that would clarify that? How, how would you, uh, how would you want to see that? Um, Yeah I would say it’s. You would have to abide by the North Dakota Century Code for definitions of of public utilities to. Provide Retail electric power to consumers.

01:05:48,800	I don’t know the best way to frame that as far as adding a few words, something along those lines, um. Uh, a, a utility could certainly do this and you would. You know, like I mentioned how they could measure and provide a direct payment on their bills as a utility owned system as a third party merchant.

01:06:10,870	Type operation, it wouldn’t be possible to do that, so it would make it. would have to have the um abide by the North Coast Century code for. For that section, I guess, as far as retail power. So it be fine just to say as for North Dakota Century Code? Yeah, I would say you could add the.

01:06:30,070	490301 is some of the um code. Sections to reference, yeah. Mr. Chair, Yes. On page. For of the article, it’s um You see the 3 community solar systems. This, this is, these, these, these other types of solar systems are, are For not to sell wholesale electricity it’s for the consumers only off-site use is not, not to uh connect to

01:07:02,670	the electric electric transmission grid. So basically if somebody wants to create this solar community solar energy system. It goes to those consumers that are on that system. It doesn’t, it’s not designed to sell electricity back to onto the grid. Or to the uh uh uh wholesale market. Comm.

01:07:32,570	Bler wouldn’t wouldn’t that be functioning as a utility then? It’s kind of what he’s concerned about. use utility. Um, I mean, if you’re. Providing power to a group of people. That’s where state law is regulated. Yeah. I get at a point, Mr. Chair. That helps, um.

01:08:06,930	I kind of I think what is thought about there is sometimes you hear the term micro grid. micro grid is kind of a lot of things behind the meter, so there’s. Consumption, there’s load, there might be different types of generation, and there’s a grid connection. Grid would be the meter and everything happens behind it, so there’s like say um.

01:08:26,100	Campuses, you know, a hospital campus or a college campus, there might be 1 metering point from the utility and a lot of things happen behind it, and it’s all owned by that. Say the college owns all of the infrastructure back here.

01:08:42,570	That’s kind of sort of what could happen in this case, you could have that solar coming into the campus and that would serve these buildings, but it’s all behind the meter, if you will. That’s about where I could see this. This section playing out as something happening behind the meter. Now in the subdivision, if you have the solar over here. That has to flow through the grid to get back to the individual consumers. There’s not a.

01:09:02,830	Grid behind the meter to get from that community solar garden to. 10 different houses, for example, that comes back to the grid and then flows back out. So Um, Yes, I agree that would be the intention would be to be consumed by a certain retail sector by the community garden.

01:09:24,570	It just would flow back onto the grid, you would interface with the utility and then back out to the end consumers is is how the path would flow physically. So Um, Again, I, I think it’s a little bit unique of a case you certainly hear about it. Most of the cases are utility owned.

01:09:46,000	Community solar gardens or solar um participants. So it’s easier to manage that way. Um, But just to be It would get into the kind of century code definition of of who would be able to provide that power unless you are again behind the meter with more of a campus type. Microgrid setting. So Just had a couple more questions, um.

01:10:20,730	On the, uh, this would be in the solar farm section. Um, I guess there’s a Item G talks about an interconnection. And owner operator must complete interconnection with the utility. That’s great. And we want that for all types, I guess the sub bullets, I assume that was meant for the county.

01:10:44,170	To review those uh the utility is going to have our own interconnection requirements. I wasn’t sure if these ABCD Uh, or A, B, and D were meant to be included with the utility application or if that was intended solely for the um county’s use. Mr. Mr. Chair, that was for a county review and approval. OK.

01:11:14,600	Um, I guess wherever in this ordinance it does talk about North Dakota registered design professionals, uh, whether it’s foundation design or different thing, I, um. Recommend a professional engineer, I guess is um some of those designs, but this language. I’m not gonna Spend more time on that. The last thing I guess would be on the decommissioning plans. Um, section 6.

01:11:39,270	And this is page 7, I believe. About the second sentence. Uh, plans and provisions for removal of all structures and foundations, the removal of all electrical transmission components and so forth, um.

01:12:01,830	Not not sure what the intent was there and if there was any financial stipulations if there was utility owned equipment, say with on this the premises of a solar farm, for example, uh, is this requiring the utility. Assets to be removed as well, is it from the meter on, I, I don’t know if there was a clarification make I guess the. The point I make there is if.

01:12:21,930	Say we had buried cable on the site, typically that we’d abandon that in place if it was retired, wouldn’t dig it up and pull it out. I’m not sure if the intention would be to. Require Removal to that degree. Um, if it is, that would be.

01:12:39,570	Another cost we would want to make sure we have recovered from the developer upfront, kind of you’re talking about the securities with the data centers. To make sure that That effort is accounted for if indeed that is the case, um, if there’s things that. Can be abandon in place below grade, that would save a lot of it, and we could pull out any poles or remove any transformers that are on site, um.

01:12:57,670	I just wanted to seek a little bit more clarification on that point, Mr. Chair. The intent was for all structures and foundations structures are above ground. OK. And the and the foundations for those structures, that was the intent that so that’s nothing left there for. Uh, that people can see, you can’t see on the ground so the utilities would not have to be removed. OK.

01:13:20,600	Thank you. Um, I believe that covers all of my Comments I had, again, thank you for all the effort that’s gone into this and for your consideration and. Would certainly entertain any more questions from the commissioners. Any questions from the commission? Comm. Risch, Mr. Chair, Comm.

01:13:42,730	Greg, I, I see what you’re saying here right at the last thing you were commenting on it says removal all structures and foundations. The removal all electrical transmission components, so I think it would include all underground water. The way it’s written out. You go wrong. I guess it just would be good to to have that if it is.

01:14:10,800	To clarify it so we can properly apply it towards the interconnecting customers. I have a question you talked about. wholesale, um, selling of power, for instance, um. Let’s assume, well, I am I decided to put a solar collector on my roof.

01:14:39,270	That doesn’t preclude me from selling the excess power back to to capital does it because that currently is happening, correct, yeah. OK, Comm. Connelly. Well, I think when it comes to the infrastructure and things, um, other conversations outside of this have been um to be consistent like when the conversations of wind farms came up and things, the uh footers that have to go into the turbines or the transmission lines.

01:15:02,670	It’s a significant amount of concrete underground and so they were trying to address these. It takes less of that with this, but to be consistent, I would see where like what Comm. Risch was saying is is that. Um, you want to make room for that because you don’t know what the consequences would be with anything that you leave behind.

01:15:17,630	Um, So I think there should be some considerations and I know. Like Comm. Bittner and Comm. Streifel, when we had the wind turbine conversation years ago. That was a big concern is what’s left behind if those go away. Comm.

01:15:45,970	Bitner, so you’re able, you’re able to deal with it if it’s in there as long as you understand that that’s. What’s got to happen you’re you’re not. You don’t have a problem with it being in there clarification. Correct, Comm., as long as we’re able to plan for it upfront receive any financial securities or deposits that we’d need to retain to make sure we’re covered for those costs at the end, yeah. Yeah, yep.

01:16:08,930	Because it does look pretty clear. All of it Hm Mr. Per Yes, Comm., uh, one other question I have for you, Greg, is The requirement that all the power lines be buried that that’s a significantly higher cost than overhead wires. Mr. Chair, Comm., yes, it is, um, but from a reliability standpoint, it’s.

01:16:38,070	Can’t be beat, so that’s kind of our standard design is to go underground, um. There are cases where might see more in the oil field where there’s so much expansion happening so quickly it’s easier to upgrade overhead than underground. So in some use cases it does make more sense to go overhead, but. Any more questions? Comments question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

01:17:03,400	Um, so you made some comments early on about. Um, the applicability of Um, Of certain wording across all categories. Um Did you did you work with Mitch at all on, on that, or would you be willing to? Um, to, because I didn’t quite understand, you know, what you want changed, but I, I would

01:17:29,400	make a motion like, for example, I would make a motion to. You know, uh, uh. Approve this subject to changes that, you know, you can work out yet because it’ll come before the county commission yet but Mr.

01:17:48,000	Chair, yes, absolutely be willing to work with Mitch and I apologize I didn’t get comments earlier um than today, but. Certainly Definitely work together, yep. Any other questions or comments? He in and uh thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any other? Comments from anybody else that wants to speak. No one else? But Mr. Chair, did Uh, Comm. Bittner make the motion? No, he said I didn’t know it’s, it’s still a public hearing.

01:18:20,200	I just said I, I wouldn’t, you know, I would be inclined to. It’s a good I have a lot of respect for Capitol Electric. I’ve been serving on one of their boards for Forever.

01:18:38,870	But um I would, I would like to have them, um, certainly be involved in the ordinance because they’re, they’re the biggest, you know, besides MDU, I mean, there’s a heavy hitter in Berk, so. Any other comments? Hearing now, we’re gonna close the public hearing. And with that, uh, Any discussion amongst the commission? Or questions for Mitch.

01:19:02,800	I can certainly work with Greg, get his phone number or his email and we can incorporate some of those clearing up some of some of the mortgage, yeah, I think it all it all made sense to me. Yeah, it’s just that I didn’t, I didn’t catch the exact wording and write it down so you can yeah, it was that a registered design professionals, those are anybody that’s licensed by a professional regulation in the

01:19:19,470	state of North Dakota engineers, designer, uh, not, you know, um. Interior designers, these are for. There’s someone who can design the system. Who’s licensed by the state of North Dakota. Electrical engineer or or a civil engineer, or mechanical engineer, that sort of thing.

01:19:41,200	I would, I would make a motion to approve subject to changes. Motions. Is there a second. Comm. Jarrett, 2. We all understand that they’re assuming you know those changes look good. Any further discussion? Any further discussion. OK, then we’ll move to a roll call vote, Marla.

01:20:20,730	The motion is to Fruit Article 8, Section 29, did you, um, Since this is a public hearing, did you want to approve it for the county commission, move it to the county commission. I I think as long as these changes are made and inserted before it gets to the county commission. Because they’re pretty clear, I know Mr. Jarrett you’re OK with that, right? Correct, yes.

01:20:43,200	So the motion is um approved the amended ordinance, um, with the corrections suggested and move it to the county commission. Yep, that’s OK. Um, yes vote means you proved no vote means you do not. Comm. Bitner, Comm. Conly, Comm. Jarrett, yes. Comm., yes. Comm. Streifel. And vice Chair Patrick, yes. Motion is approved.

01:21:16,400	OK, that moves us to the end of our agenda, uh, any other business? From Mitch Marla, but there is none, then we will declare the meeting