00:00:07,770	Welcome. Let us pray. Father, we come before you today. We’re thankful. This beautiful day and we’re thankful we’re living in the great state of North Dakota, which you have blessed abundantly.

00:00:37,630	We pray for the councilman today that you’ll give them wisdom in whatever transactions they do, you said that in a multitude of councilors, their safety, so we’re thankful for that. We ask you to bless our nation today. We ask you, Lord, that justice would be served, that the truth would be made known and we just give you all praise. We ask it in your name. Amen. Let us stand for the pledge.

00:01:03,230	I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Appreciate that. Oh OK And with that, I’d like to call to order the county. Chair. Could I have 30 seconds real quick a special request from Comm. Woodcox.

00:01:30,200	We have a The fun part of, uh, one of the fun parts of doing this is, uh, we have employees that have been here for a long time and we have one today that we would like to celebrate and Missy Hansen, you want to come up? She is our, uh, she was a employee, and then she became

00:01:50,900	an elected employee and so she has been here 20 years, so I’d like to present her with this plaque, have her picture taken, and congratulations. Congratulations Congratulations, and she, she is an elected official. I don’t think she’s running this fall, but uh she will be in 2 years, so well, so vote early, vote often.

00:02:27,370	But thank you. Is that how that’s done. Thank you, Missy. The chaplain called for the truth and transparency. Come on now, uh, with that, uh, county weed board, I like to call the uh county we board meeting to order, please. Comm. Schwab. Comm. Woodcock, Comm. Munsen, Comm.

00:02:52,970	Bittner, Chair Bakken here, uh, first set them up approval of the agenda. To prove to approve motion 2. Any further discussion? Call the roll, please. Christian Woodcox. Yes, Christian Munsen. Yes, Comm. Bach Bittner, Comm. Schwab, Chair Bakken, yes, next item up, uh, consideration of the August 5th, 2024 meeting minutes. Any amendments to the, I move to approve the minutes motion 2 for the discussion.

00:03:21,170	I can call the roll please, Comm. Munsen. Yes, Comm. Bittner, Comm. Schwab, Yes, Comm. Woodcox, yes, Chair Bakken, yes, motion carried, next item up, uh, we brought up a discussion of minute approval process, Comm. Schwab, yes, now that we’ve Had a meeting Technically, we have to Post the minutes.

00:03:51,630	And then approve What we just did. At the next meeting. Even if we don’t do anything, and it’s going to be a continuous deal. So I’m wondering if there isn’t a way that the commission can approve, being that the commission is the weed board without Having The weed board Call to order.

00:04:25,300	Mhm Because The next meeting, like I say, we’re going to have to have the weed board again to approve this minute, and then the following meeting gonna have to. And the weed board approved. Again, Approval and approval. Is there a stipulation by which you could just be part of the uh consent agenda. You, I, I hope I’m explaining this correctly.

00:04:49,800	Um, the only problem is, since it’s a weed board business, you’d have to notice it as weed board business being taken care of at the meeting so that any notice going out would indicate it’s got weed board information in there wouldn’t do it as a consent agenda since it’s a different board and you have to um Convene as that board, um, I

00:05:07,700	put it as a separate line item. Within the County commission I think it’s best the way we’re doing it is we’re doing it as a separate weed board because the wheat board is separate just like you do the county park board separate. That’d be my recommendation, Mr. Chair.

00:05:26,670	I was just going to offer that, so the park board meets as needed. And so we haven’t had a meeting for a couple. Weeks or a couple meeting cycles and we’re not having a board meeting just to approve minutes we approved them at the next. Call me meeting, so I don’t know if we would have to have a weed board every 2 weeks.

00:05:47,170	We could just wait till the next. Cycle where business was required. And then we could approve it at that point. That’s, yes, that’s correct, Mr. Chair, that good work. Because all we’re gonna do is approve. The minutes we approved.

00:06:15,570	So I can go with that, but just so we You know, Have, have this problem of getting these minutes out. This one isn’t important, we just But if something really comes up that is important. I want to see him in transparency. I want to see him up as soon as possible.

00:06:36,030	But we could just do that as needed is uh and be the next meeting that we can get those minutes back out so as long as everybody’s aware of it. Um, I happen to be this my month to review the bills and I did see a couple of weed board ones and I did approve them, and we also have park board ones in there all the time, so we do the same process with them, even though

00:06:51,630	they don’t have a meeting, we’re approving the bills or so they get paid on time, so that’s taken care of, so we don’t have to worry about the bills really. OK. Um, Consensus at the next.

00:07:12,630	We weren’t meeting will approve what we did today is how we’re gonna do this consensus on doing it the way the park board does it. Absolutely. All right, that’s fine with me. Good. Um, any other business? Hearing on on this county board is adjourned. For sure. OK, we’ll call the August 19th, 2024 meeting of the Burleigh County Commission order to order first item is roll call members, please, Comm. Bakken here, Comm. Schwab, here, Comm.

00:07:36,900	Woodcock here, Comm. Munsen here, Chain Bittner here, all members here. Next item is the approval of the agenda and before we get started. Look to item 7A. Where it says consideration of special use permit appeal. Um When I was talking to Marla from staff about this item, um, this was not intended to be a consideration item.

00:08:06,100	This is intended to be clarification when we get there, so rather than the word consideration insert clarification there, please. Other than that, I don’t have any changes. Anybody else have any changes or items you want to pull out? As for a motion to approve the agenda. Move to approve. motion a 2nd to approve the agenda.

00:08:26,900	Any further discussion? Seeing no colorable. Comm. Bakken, Comm. Schwab, Yes, Comm. Woodcox, Comm. Munsen, Jan Bittner, yes, motion carries. Consideration of the August 5, 2024 meeting minutes and bills, Comm. Woodcocks, Mr. Chair, I did approve the bills today and I would move that we approved the bills and the August 5th meeting minutes.

00:08:50,700	motion a second to approve the meeting minutes and bills. Any further discussion, seeing an uncul. Comm. Schwab. Yes, Comm. Woodcock. Yes, Comm. Munsen, Comm. Bakken. Charon Bitner, yes, motion carries. Next is consent agenda. Are there any items on the consent agenda that you want to pull out for discussion.

00:09:11,100	Otherwise we’ll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Move to approve. 2 motion 2nd to approve the consent agenda. Any further discussion? Seeing no, Comm. Woodcox, Yes, Comm. Munsen. Yes, Comm. Bakken, yes, Commission Schwab, yes, Chain Bittner. Yes, motion carries. Bismarck City Planning manager Daniel Nairn regarding Bismarck Renaissance Zone program. Welcome, Daniel. Good evening, Cha Bittner, County commissioners.

00:09:37,770	So I’m here to give you an update on Bismarck’s Ranison’s own program as well as a request for support for continuation of this program for 5 years, and an approval of the development plan.

00:09:56,570	Um, so a little bit of background, you may recall about a year ago, uh, we came to this body and other political subdivisions for support of this program. At that time we had a discussion about changes that needed to be made to the program guidelines and so the city commission gave a letter of intent.

00:10:14,170	Back in November of 20203, and uh that outlines some things that they committed to changing and so I’ll go through that letter and just talk about how those changes were made. Uh, the first thing they committed to was appointing for one year, uh, a Burleigh County Comm. to the Renaissance Authority. Uh, so Comm. Munsen was appointed.

00:10:32,830	Uh, we owe a thank you now to him for uh helping during that process of amending the development plan, amending the ordinance, and making changes. Uh, and so. That was the first item. The 2nd item was that uh any of the um authorities of the either the school board, the park board, or uh really County commission would have the ability to appoint an ongoing basis a member to the Renaissance and authority.

00:10:52,830	So that was, uh, included in the development plan and now you would have that authority going forward. Uh, the third change was that any changes to the development plan, the rules and guidelines for this program would need to come to you as well as the school board and park board and so.

00:11:07,930	Uh, so that you know, uh, how the program works and you know that if, if there are any changes you would have a chance to see those. That includes boundary adjustments, it includes changes to the terms, any of the requirements. And so that is now in the development plan as an amendment process.

00:11:26,400	Uh, the third change, uh, I’m sorry, the 4th change would be uh a change in how the um exemption is calculated. This is probably the most important change, uh, previously a in a project would be entitled to all Of the building value being exempted for 5 years. Uh, now the change is made so that only the increase in the building value would be exempted for 5 years.

00:11:45,600	So Burley County and all the other taxing entities would continue to collect all of the same baseline tax revenue on that property as they had before. The only difference would be that the improved value would be delayed for a period of up to 5 years.

00:12:04,000	So that change is written into the uh development plan, those, those changes were approved by the city commission on July 9th as well as an amendment to the city ordinance to allow these changes to occur.

00:12:23,400	Uh, so therefore, uh, we are asking you to, uh, approve um in your new capacity to do so, these changes to the development plan and also to authorize a 5 year support for a 5-year extension of the Renaissance Zone program. Uh, your selection if you wish to choose. Uh, to select a member to the Renaissance Authority, uh, that wouldn’t have to be done now.

00:12:41,170	That could be done any time between now and December, uh, and then that term would start on January of 2025. Uh, if you have any questions for me, I can attempt to answer. Um, we have, uh, the chair of the Authority here as well. Jim Christensen. I do have a question for you about that one year county member appointment.

00:12:56,170	You were, you were clear to say that that was a one-year appointment? Does that? Continue Or is that just this one year I was put on for one year to get to this point now starting January, Burleigh County will have someone appointed to the to the commission for the five-year extension. OK, thank you. Um That’s good clarification.

00:13:19,570	The other question I have, um, Somebody else asked the question, is particular to a uh Project that was going on, I think it was called the Fleck House, the hotel over here. Um, the question was, Uh, that building was purchased and then I think it’s in the Renaissance Zone program. So what happens to the property value of that structure once it was torn down.

00:13:39,930	What does that do to Taxes for Uh, moving forward. So, uh, Chair Bittner, Comm. members, so, so that particular project, so it was approved for design review. They never were approved for Renaissance zone, uh, they were going to come back for that and they ended up delaying that project.

00:14:03,230	So, uh, that, that has not been approved if they were to be approved in the future, um, it would currently right now it’s a vacant piece of land and so the way that development plan is written is the Renaissance.

00:14:24,530	An authority could take into account um prior demolitions, so if they so chose to, they could use the baseline value as the building value when that building was there, um, but they would be able to take into consideration the um condition of the building, any historic nature of the building. So if, if it were in poor condition and a blighted property, uh, then the value could be taken essentially at 0, so that’s if Comm. Munson wishes.

00:14:45,000	Elaborate on that because we had a we had a lengthy discussion on, on how demolitions would, would be treated Mr. Chair, if I could, um, From the day that I was asked to be part of this group, um. The the Renaissance own authority was very specific that every project that went through.

00:15:06,300	From that day from our letter or for our from our request to have these rules changed. Every project that came through there has been judged by those guidelines, even though they weren’t actually set in stone by all of the governing bodies, um. The Fleck house is gonna be the one that when it comes back in for Renaissance zone.

00:15:27,970	Uh, to be, to be part of the group that the the board is gonna have to decide at that point if it is 0 or if it is at the value that it was prior. Um, and the board has been very good on all the projects so far to go back to that value that we were collecting taxes on.

00:15:46,870	Yeah, I appreciate that, but we’ve got an appointed board that basically is making tax decisions for. Um, all the entities that receive property tax. This this one in particular seemed like a. Kind of a slick way to get around property taxes. But they haven’t been I understand I understand.

00:16:04,670	So it’s easy like if it was me that was doing it. Easy for me to come in and say, well, it’s a lot, lot, yep, guys, so. Building had no value. You can’t prove it had value and it’s gone. Um Anyway, I don’t, I’m just not very comfortable with that. Mr. Schwab.

00:16:25,130	You know, a long time ago I asked for a documentation. On the 143 projects and how, how you came up with 108. 1 million and I’ve never got it. Why is that? This was a meeting that we had last year. Uh, is that top secret? No, Comm. Schwab, we, we published the project project project spreadsheet on it.

00:16:51,530	Oh, I thought we had said that it is in every packet or at the meeting that I had. With the city We recorded it and you’ll find out what I’m talking about. Never got it. The second question I have for you.

00:17:10,930	You kind of set boundaries here, but over the 5 years you can extend the boundaries, can’t you? Any time you wish. So maybe I’ll, I’ll address the first question, so the in every pack of the Renaissance own authority, we have a project list, so every packet that is publicly released for the Renaissance and Authority meetings each month includes a project list that adds up to 108 million of the estimated

00:17:31,800	values so that that’s available for the public to see every month. The second question is changing the boundaries of the Renaissance on a program district would require approval by you, um, so that that is a change. Development plans, so any change to the boundary would have to come to the Burley County Commission.

00:17:51,200	It ain’t the way it was before. It’s not correct. That’s a change. That’s what we requested and that’s what was approved. It would come back here for approval. Mr. Chair, Mr. Woodcock, so the 3 or 4 things that we requested a year ago. You’ve had meetings and you’ve taken care of all three of those.

00:18:12,900	Problems, not problem, but suggestions. So that has all been taken care of, is that correct? That is correct. OK, thank you. Is that in document form someplace? Yes, it is. So the the development plan was attached to the memo that was sent out, so I believe it was in your, in your packet. Mr.

00:18:36,000	Chair, I would move to approve the five-year extension of the Renaissance zone. Second, I have a motion in a second to approve a 5-year extension of the Renaissance zone further discussion. Mr. Bakken Uh Daniel or uh Comm.

00:19:06,100	Munson, um, As a pointee on that, um, I’m a little Has on 5 years, but every all those changes that we had requested that have been put into place, they are locked in for that five-year term. They’re locked in, correct. Thank you. Especially if we improve. Mr. Chair. I’d like clarification on the motion. I wanted to included in my second that it not only includes the 5 year, but it includes the new program that we’re we’re presented tonight.

00:19:27,470	That goes right along with the with the motion is that I would amend my motion for that. Yeah, thank you. That Uh, defined the uh the new program. Well, there’s a new program that’s in there.

00:19:46,470	It’s in the in our packet with all the new changes and it lists them all and they’re all in there that I wanna be improve the new program along with the five-year extension. So the new program as included in the packet is included in the packet. Thank you. Go any further discussion. So unco. Comm. Bakken, yes, Comm. Schwab, No, Comm. Woodcock, Comm. Munsen, Chair Bittner, motion carries. Next item on the agenda, County planner Flanagan, um, In case we need that.

00:20:18,770	The issue is clarification of a special use permit. Did you want to add anything before I? Uh, no, commissioners, Mr. Chair. I, um, I mean, unless you want more information about the corn maze and the application especially use and that’s sort of where we’re at on it.

00:20:41,830	I mean, it was um We have set this uh public hearing for August 29th, and we should be able to get to present a Ordinance 2 on the 2nd. 4th sorry yeah and just everybody knows the reason for that particular date is that’s simply when we could get a quorum plus get the uh room. So, um, that was as early as possible date for That thing.

00:21:05,130	Anyway, I asked for this to be a clarification item. Because there was some confusion expressed after that last meeting about what what that really meant, what we did.

00:21:30,100	And since, um, We We did not, we do not have an ordinance currently in place that allows for a special use permit for that function as well as some others that fall into that kind of category, um, Burleigh County has been working towards an ordinance for that. And in the absence of an ordinance that allows for it, We were not able to issue a special use permit.

00:21:52,800	And then, so that was, that was one of the decisions was kind of paraphrase it, essentially that, that there, there was no ordinance that allows for it, and we expedited the Meeting of the Burleigh County Planning Commission to address that. That was in a nutshell, one of the motions, and then the secondary motion was to Returned the fees, the way I understood it, for that special use permit, um.

00:22:14,000	To the applicant Now keep in mind by doing that, um, Burleigh County already incurred those costs of getting that. To that point. Um, you know, the notification process, the the meetings my understanding, we’ve had meetings on this since. A stakeholder group meetings we’ve had those, but we’ve, you know, we had the one planning commission meeting on July 10th.

00:22:39,970	So we’ve had a lot invested in this at any rate, um, the clarification that I’m after is, is something along the lines of there was a In a, an appeal of the denial of the special use permit, which is what the agenda item was.

00:23:05,170	So we either need something like a motion to deny the appeal or as uh was suggested to me today. Um Uh Um A motion. To deny uh hearing the appeal. Which is Deny consideration of the appeal. Because there was not a Ordinance to apply under or or a basis for appeal.

00:23:36,430	So I don’t know, it got kind of confusing and the goal was to clarify that. Um, the county does not have an ordinance that allows it yet and we’re working towards that, but. This is, this is not intended. I know there were some misleading. Understanding or misunderstanding in the public that we would be considering the special use appeal at this meeting based on this agenda item, and that is not the case.

00:23:59,730	I want to be clear that this is not a consideration of the special use appeal so much as just for clarification. Comm., Comm. Schwab. Number one is until we get an ordinance. If we would have gone ahead and And uh let this thing go forward.

00:24:28,900	We’d have all kinds of people that are going to try to beat the ordinance. So I’m going to make a motion that we can’t. We can, we deny the permit. Until the ordinance is in place and then they can. Either reapply or appeal.

00:24:57,200	That be sufficient? Because I don’t want to see 10 more people coming in before we get an ordinance and if we treat 11 way, we gotta treat them all the same. I don’t think there would be a a a need to, to include an appeal in that because there is no, there is no permit. In the process to apply for, so I mean you’re, you’re on, I think you’re totally on the right track with the motion, just that.

00:25:16,900	Adding the word appeal. Mr. Chair Comm. I’d like our attorney state’s attorney to say, is it, do we need to do anything at all? No, there isn’t anything that you need to do because it can’t be considered because there isn’t a an ordinance to consider it under.

00:25:40,970	OK, and, and review we’re gonna have a public hearing on the 29th of August, which is what, 10 days from now or whatever. Something like that and then we’re gonna act on it. On our September 4th meeting, is that correct? So it’s only 2 weeks away that we’re gonna be acting on a new ordinance.

00:25:59,570	If, if it’s in place or if it’s available and then we have to approve it or deny it, one or the other, correct? Then they could come and apply if, if so assuming it passes, then they could come and apply for a special use permit to have the maize, is that correct? Not entirely, but.

00:26:17,270	Go ahead Well, I would like to add uh if we’re speaking of clarification, I would like to add that this had to be heard. They applied for a special use perimeter and we had to present that to the planning commission.

00:26:37,930	my department doesn’t have the authority to reject the permit based on What what is in the ordinance or not, the our ordinances are not specific exact for everything in this world. They’re, they’re Over encompassing, in other words, they, they’re kind of wide ranging and then I don’t wanna say vague, but they’re wide ranging. And we had to listen to this in front of the planning commission.

00:26:57,730	Now, based on what you guys were discussing tonight, there was no guidelines to go by because we didn’t have specifics for a corn maze. With a special use permit application had to be heard anyway because we couldn’t, we didn’t have the authority to reject their permit or application or petition.

00:27:18,430	So would that mean that some Change in the ordinances needs to reflect that somehow to give you some or or are you just saying that no matter who comes in and makes an application for a Anything. That we just have, you have to hear it and then we have to go through.

00:27:35,300	Well, it’s not for anything, but it it would be, you know, if it’s close enough into our ordinance then we have to hear it and it’s just close enough. I mean, it’s we’ve we’ve allowed other things in our ordinance like the um Airsoft uh several years ago, that was, that was approved even though there’s no airsoft in our ordinance. You know, the, the. Paint paintball type thing.

00:27:54,600	Um, so it’s, it’s, we had to listen to it. We had to, we had to allow them to petition us. And then you guys, it’s it’s not I’m saying that you’re wrong and and denied and what I’m saying is that the denial was based on finding of facts and also there was no guidelines to go by.

00:28:13,800	OK, I, I think the denial is fine. The question really is only whether we need a motion in a second to take that action, or is this sufficient clarification? Comm. Sch? I’ll withdraw that motion if you guys want to order a different. But they need the clarification. I can understand that. Mr. Chair, Comm.

00:28:35,000	, um, based on state’s attorney’s lawyers, uh description, we really don’t need a motion because we don’t have an ordinance to attach the motion to. If I heard that wrong. That’s pretty much the path we were on to begin with, but that kind of led to that confusion amongst the public and then I, I’m going, well, We’ll get clarification here, so.

00:28:57,000	And I think you took care of it last time when you, um. When you basically made the conclusion that there wasn’t an ordinance to decide this under and return the permit fee. Thank you. Um, I’m, I’m just gonna go ahead and say there’s no further action required on that.

00:29:14,500	I think that’s as clear as we can be. Thank you, Comm. Thank you, Mitch. County Engineer Hall, developer waiver requests in 2025 highway budget clarification. Good evening, commissioners. I have a couple of items on the agenda. The first one is a pavement waiver request.

00:29:43,070	Uh, as you know, our, our, um, payment policy requires developers when they’re developing a piece of property to pave all in internal roadways and then also connect their particular development to the payroll system. We have a subdivision, a proposed subdivision out in Sterling Township. It’s going to be a three lot subdivision and they’re asking for a pavement waiver on that. Uh, there is a map included in your packet showing where the uh.

00:30:05,770	The proposed subdivision is and the particular portion, and this is 17th Avenue, uh, that they’re requesting, um, at this time it’s kind of just a, just a little bit of a trail going back there. You can drive it, but it’s nothing more, uh, under our payment process policy they would have to reconstruct that and pave that.

00:30:25,430	Uh, that’s about, uh, just a little under a half a mile there. they’re requesting a waiver, waiver of a pavement policy by the county board just allows the plant to move forward and get approved.

00:30:45,430	It does not preclude the county and the township uh from requiring the property owners and sharing the cost of this construction at some point in the future, they would be a benefited property, uh, if that was reconstructed and paved, so we would expect them to contribute to the uh to the that particular project. There is a proposed resolution in your packet. I’d be happy to. Answer any questions. I do recommend approval. Comm., any questions from workers? Move your proof.

00:31:07,830	Second, the motion a 2nd to approve any further discussion? Seeing non-collateral, Comm. Schwab, yes, Mitch. Woodcock, yes, Misha Munsen, Krisha Bakken, Chain Bitner. Yes, motion carries. Next is 2025 highway budget clarification, and I want to apologize. Because I did see an email that you wanted to chat. And I just didn’t have time. I’m sorry.

00:31:29,400	Before we do that, we have one more pavement waiver. There were 2 in that 2, yeah, alright. So we’ll get on that one. we have another request payment waiver, uh, this one’s up in Riverview Township. There is a, it’s going to be a two lot subdivision.

00:31:45,500	There’s a map included in your packet showing where this one is located at, uh, and, um, in this particular case, 156 and 80th are constructed, but they would be required to pave those particular roadways.

00:32:05,900	As I mentioned, this approval of a payment waiver does just allows the plats to move forward so they can go ahead and build on those particular pieces of property get permits, uh, does not preclude, uh, the county for township from requiring them to do cost sharing on that road at some point in the future if it is ever paved. There is a proposed resolution in your packet. I do recommend approval of that resolution. Mr. A motion and a second to approve.

00:32:25,170	Any further discussion? In Nun called. Comm. Woodcox. Yes, Comm. Munsen, Comm. Bakken. Yes, Comm. Schwab, yes, yes, motion carries. Next, I’ll just repeat my apologies, no problem.

00:32:47,270	Uh, this is going to get a little bit complicated just because the highway department is always a little bit complicated, but um the way we do budgeting, but I’ll I’ll kind of present it to you, uh, under most departments, um, the revenue side of the equation is always cash. You deal with dollar figures under the highway. Department, we kind of look at the dollar figures, but we also look at the mill levies actually set aside for the highway department.

00:33:02,870	And the reason we do that is because of the DOT requirements that we work under and the things that the DOT actually looks at, such as uh they look at the mill levies that you’re applying each individual colony when they do the determination of what how.

00:33:21,570	How much of the federal rural money we get, so rural money split is based to a certain extent on a mill levy, so. couple of meetings back, the county board directed the highway department to put a budget together that, uh, showed the same level in 2025 as we did in 2024, so that’s the kind of budget we put together, had the same revenues, the same expenditures, total

00:33:44,030	expenditures. Um, at the last meeting. And, and therefore, at that time we put our budget together basically keeping the mill levy the same 3.613 from 2024 to 2025, uh, at this last meeting there was discussion on Mi Lvy and dollar figure, and, uh, the county board had made the direction that we should

00:34:07,930	keep the dollar figure the same and therefore let the mill levee float and that was. For overall, the total package basically. So if the dollar levy is kept the same from 2024 to 2025, then the mill has to come down a little bit.

00:34:30,100	And, uh, most departments just doesn’t matter because they’re based on dollars with the highway department since we based our budget on mill levy, it does matter because the question comes into play then. Did the, does the board want us as the highway department.

00:34:54,700	To reduce the revenues in the in the property tax line item such that they were the same as the 2024 line items or do you want us to keep the mill levy the same as we did in 2024. There’s two different things there. And if you do decide to go with the keeping the dollar figure the same that is we’re going to have to change the budget a little bit to make to take that into account. Uh, that changed.

00:35:13,400	is roughly about $235,000. So we’d like to know what way to go so that we can present the budget, um, the final budget to the county board with that taken into account. I hope that made some sense and what we’re looking at. There’s basically two ways we can look at accomplishing that.

00:35:35,070	One is by increasing other revenues by the 235,000 or we could look at cutting the budget in some areas to decrease it, um, and then the, the The email that I presented to Comm.

00:35:56,570	Binner, I, I threw out one fund and that was the general revenue reserve account to take money from that to, to make that budget whole, so, but I would happy, um, we’re looking for some direction from the county board on how you’d like us to present that. Mr. Schwab, I think that Maybe the meeting before the last meeting, we said we didn’t want to cut the budget. But we weren’t increasing it.

00:36:21,170	So going by the dollar amount would be the way to go, wouldn’t it? And is that the the total budget or just the the local property tax and portion of it so that we didn’t think about this little caveat that you’re that you’re proposing here, but, but really the goal was to make sure that we weren’t miscommunicating with the public about our

00:36:46,730	intentions for property taxes. The goal was to not increase property taxes by utilizing the mill levy as a cover for that. And so Um, I think your, your budget was proposed at 14 million and then we said, well.

00:37:10,530	16 million because that was last year’s budget and maybe we can find some adjustment when we get to the final budget, but I think that our goal. My understanding of it was simply that we keep the dollar amounts the same. Not Muddy it up with um Uh, mill levy increases. It was my position on it. Comm.

00:37:35,100	Woodcock, I’d like to ask our auditor what the the new mill levy is one mill is worth about 700,000, correct? A little over 700 previously it was 666 or something like that approximately yeah so there’s. 40,000, say 40,000 additional. Now if we, if we live the same mill levy that we did before, that’ll pick up 40 times 3.2, he said.

00:37:58,000	So that’s 150,000 right there that you’ll pick up an income without doing anything because of the milk la went up. That’s the value of the mill so like, like uh uh engineer Hall said it was approximately a little over $200,000 that would equate to the increase in valuations so that is 0 mL increase over last year, they would, they would.

00:38:17,800	We would Collect an additional $200,000 which we don’t to be with a 0 mL which we our intent is not to increase the taxes to the public, period. That assuming we’re all in the same page, so to speak, OK. Right, I think I, I Comm.

00:38:44,800	Woodcox at that meeting too we also stated that Uh We didn’t want to raise property taxes etc. So we would find the money and if we need money, we’ll find it. And our other accounts. I don’t want the highway department run short. We got a lot of stuff we got to get done.

00:39:05,000	Well, I think that’s reflected in the fact that we didn’t have the highway department go down to the $14 million in anticipated budget we we talked about increasing that. However, there’s going to be, there’s going to be some trade-offs here. There’s going to have to be $200,000 on a $16 million budget isn’t. Deal breaker. Probably not. So the thing about it is so that they can get that thing done.

00:39:26,770	Tired of budgets Well We got a ways to go. So it’s done right. Mr. Chair, do we want to do something or want to wait till uh Final budget hearing when we can. Adjusted.

00:39:54,770	Well, you want to, yeah, we want to make sure the final budget that we present to you is accurate with what your desires are from the preliminary budget, so and I’m dealing under two resolutions now, and I’m just trying to understand the confusion there, but I think our, our intent was real clear.

00:40:14,270	It was that property taxes are going to stay at that level for this year and how we get there is something we’re just gonna have to um discuss, uh, probably during the final budget hearing. But for the purposes of getting there, use that as the guide, the dollars. and we’ll See what we can do at the final go ahead.

00:40:36,130	Uh, if you, if you don’t mind, so cause we had a, we, we had a motion from the commission at a preliminary budget review to have a 0 mil increase for the highway department. Then last meeting we had a $0 increase. If it’d be possible to get that in in motion.

00:40:54,330	So just for for clarification just so that we know that we’re doing the right thing because yeah I understand what you’re asking too, but the uh the motion about the mill levy had to do with the request from the highway department for increasing numbers of mills, not increasing the value of the mills. That motion dealt with The number of mills for the highway department.

00:41:15,830	At the preliminary budget preliminary budget, so that wasn’t a question about the dollar amount or the mill levy amounts that was amount of mills. Amount of meals applied for that because he said he’s at 3.613 currently? Is Is Is that, that’s 3.6 mil increase requested during the there was some other number in addition to that.

00:41:42,100	So the way I understand Marcus, tell me if I’m wrong, there was a requested for a meal levy increase and the commission chose to um increase the budget to the 2024. expenditure budget. However, to keep the mill levy the same as in the 2024 budget. And not have a mill levy increase but to increase the expenditure, the allocation of expenditures to the 2024.

00:42:07,700	Is, is that your understanding? That’s that’s, that’s not what we’re. OK. All, all I was gonna say is, um, if you want the dollar value to stay the same under the Property tax portion of the highway department budget, then we will decrease the number of mills that we have, OK, instead of 3.613 will have 2 3.27. And Mills Mr.

00:42:35,670	Chair, and then we will need to come up with. Either we’ll have to decrease the total budget by that amount, or we’ll have to come up with other revenue sources to to make that work. Mr. Chair Comm. Woodcox. I don’t, I don’t think we should reduce that 3.61 mL.

00:42:54,870	I would rather see us move 220,000 from our general fund to balance that cause it’s a it’s a small amount of uh considering where, where we had 2020 million. Well in the if you, if you, if you don’t reduce the mills.

00:43:16,070	So if you, if you want to buy that down with general fund reserve funds if you then you’d have to reduce the mills, because if we don’t reduce the mills and you want to offset that, we just collected that twice. That means that we still collect that in property taxes and you also infuse that from the general reserve.

00:43:32,430	So if the commission wants to infuse that from the general reserve or or cut it from the budget or whatever the commission chooses to do, then they, you need to do the dollar amount from 2024, and that would reduce the mills. Vegetarian Comm.

00:43:50,330	, I don’t want to see us reduce our, our efforts with our roads and our projects that we’ve got, we got a ton of them, I know that, and they always see something pops up. All the time. I don’t want to see us reduce our, our, our building of not building, we don’t build new roads, but repairing and our structures and all that might be. I, I don’t want to see us back off. We had 7% inflation 77% is a ton.

00:44:08,630	I think we all agreed on that, Comm.. It was possible resolution would be then to reduce the proposed mills in the highway department from the 3.613 to 3.271955, um, That will keep the dollar the same. But then Backfill that equal $1 amount through a transfer from the general fund reserve account. That I won’t go so far as to agree to that.

00:44:41,200	Um, you wanna give me that number again, 3. the second one and it gets odd because it just keeping the numbers the same but so 3.271955 now just for just for the commission knows, we only go to 2 decimal points. In our mills we, we don’t go that down that fine.

00:45:03,900	So Paul, I, I’m an engineer, sorry I apologize for that. Mr. Chair, I would move that resolution to be approved. Second. I don’t have that resolution, so. Pardon me, I don’t have a resolution in front of me. Just read it off.

00:45:34,370	Did you? What I propose is the Mills off, so yeah, it’s reduce the mills within the highway department. Yeah, um, by the numbers we talked about there, but backfill that revenue so that the total budget can remain the same with general reserve money. OK, that’s clear enough. The other discussion? Is everybody on the same page with this? Yes, I believe I, I’ve received the clarification that I need to clarify it.

00:46:06,070	Yes, you were using the same dollar amount as last year. We’re basing off the same dollar amount as last year. At this point. That might not make it through the final budget here, but it gives Marcus what to know what the accurate final budget numbers. Col.

00:46:26,530	Uh, who, who made the second? I’m sorry, I did. OK, thank you. Comm. Schwab, yes, Comm. Woodcox, Comm. Munsen, Comm. Bakken, Chair Bittner, no. Just for the fun of it. Because we’re gonna have more, more discussion about that. Yeah, you know, the goal is the goal is certainly to take care of the infrastructure we’re responsible for.

00:46:54,630	There’s no question about that, but right, correct. So you know it’s a heavy lift, but that’s our, that’s, that’s why you make the big bucks. They’re, you know, you just leave it. OK, next, Sheriff Leben Burley East remodel update. Welcome. Kelly, good evening, Mr. Chair. Comm.

00:47:14,630	, hopefully this is a little clearer, um, but I can’t promise, um, so basically, um, I wanted to come here before the board kind of update you where we’re at. And then maybe get a little direction from the board, um, so to give you an overview at a recent meeting, the commission authorized us to move forward with the Berlese remodel project.

00:47:38,600	Um, I spoke with Chair Bittner, um, we are not contractors where we don’t deal with this a lot, so we’ve learned a lot in the process, um, we didn’t think this project was going to be big enough to fall under some of the requirements, but we know what it is, so we’ve been making adjustments to that. So in North Dakota Century Code Title 48.

00:48:00,400	Basically outlines the project requirements, anything over 200,000, and then what you have to do to comply with that. So basically because we anticipate this project will be over that.

00:48:24,200	We have to follow the requirements just like the Provident remodeled the Burley Morton detention center, all of those big type projects and so like I said, it’s an education process for us we’re working our way through it, um, speaking with other departments. And heads making sure we’re doing this correctly.

00:48:43,900	The reason I’m coming for you tonight is uh basically we had to kind of put the brakes on and regroup and we are going to have to reach out to an architect or an engineer to come up with plans for this project. So basically we can’t just advertise it. We have to work with an engineer. Obviously that’s gonna add some cost to this project. We’re kind of in the process of finding that out right now.

00:49:05,500	So basically, uh, where we’re at is we have put out feelers because of the the cost of the project, we don’t fit into the category where we would have to bid the engineering or architect services, um, so we can just, um, do our best to make sure we’re looking out for Burleigh County. As we find an architect to work with us on the project.

00:49:27,270	So right now we are in the process of just meeting with some architects, um, to kind of see what they would be looking at. And what that cost would be, um, so.

00:49:48,670	Kind of tonight I guess what I’d like from the commission is just to confirm how we’re gonna pay for this when the time comes, um, because if we move forward with this, and again we’re not there yet, but I think we were, you know, we had had discussion on different funding sources and then um the discussion came up about the uh courthouse or the detention center maintenance fund which, but also that was gonna sibly go towards the uh boiler rework in the courthouse.

00:50:14,970	So, um, initially when I met with you, I brought up using ARPA funds. Uh, we currently have 2 ARPA funds that are not being used anymore.

00:50:36,530	For the PPE equipment and also for the um give me a second, I can tell you the uh or the uh Burley East repair work, which um we didn’t have to spend all that. So that’s roughly 142,000 per fund and then we also have uh that local assistance and tribal consistency fund, which is hasn’t been dedicated to anything for 100,000, so I just.

00:51:02,630	I want to confirm that basically those would still be the primary sources if we’re looking at that boiler project using those other funds for that, so, um, I see a couple heads nod. So my next question for you would be then is is the commission OK with this for us to at least meet with the architects? To come up with an idea of what this is gonna cost, um, and then what I would do is come back before the commission,

00:51:26,000	um, before we actually would enter into an agreement with an architect, but basically to meet with the architects, find out what they’re proposing or what they would propose on this project, which a lot of it we’ve done already, um, but they, by law we have to use them and then what we would do

00:51:45,700	is make a on an architect and then come back before the commission. Hopefully that kind of explains where we’re at and. Chair, on Comm.. Comm. Bakken was ahead of you. I did, uh, do you have any, uh, indication what that would increase the project cost by Um, we’re kind of learning this right now.

00:52:16,400	I’m going to say it’s probably gonna increase the cost at least $500 to $100,000. OK. And then, um. initial consultations. As far as the preliminary meeting with some architects or engineers. Is there Added cost with that or is that kind of their pre-bid process.

00:52:42,870	That’s kind of their pre-bid process where they just want to see what we’re actually looking at and um whether or not, you know, they would be able to fit it into their schedule. So basically there’s going to be um potentially two costs that would be negotiated.

00:53:01,870	Just like on our bigger projects, and that’s kind of the frustrating thing is, you know, in the big scheme of things this is not a big project, um, but because of that legal threshold, it becomes one so basically there would be the cost for the plans where the architect draws up the plans and then the entities bidding on it can look at those plans, um, much like what we already had done, but then the

00:53:22,470	other part is we have to enter a process basically. We either we have the architect oversee the project or you know, we go with the uh construction at risk or whatever method we’re looking at. Like I said, we’re not experts on this. We’re doing our best to get through it.

00:53:43,330	And the other question I had was, uh, is there a process to do this project if it was phase that would not fall under those thresholds. So you can’t do that. OK. That’s, that’s illegal, um. Comm. Woodcock, sorry, I stepped on you, but no worries.

00:54:06,230	I had, uh, only you’re asking for approval of contact and architect and did you want the engineer included in that, or is that after we do the architects that’s I can answer that for you that that process engineers usually get involved via the architect, um, yeah, the, the architects usually come along with With that, and, and I guess I would hope that Um, you would at least contact

00:54:26,200	the, the architects that are on the Province. Project because I know quite a few of the architects just had no interest or no time available at the time, but these guys have been working pretty good for us, so. OK, and we definitely will.

00:54:43,400	We just are slowly putting together a list of in speaking with other people and then like, you know, uh, ones that have worked previous projects for the county, so. Anybody else, Mr. Chair, to prove that we have a sheriff, uh. Leaving contact the architects and get that process started. motion of a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Schwab.

00:55:09,100	If this project’s going to be that big, why aren’t we just taking bids from the architect. Instead of meeting with them and just select one, is that what you’re saying you’re gonna do? Mr. Chair, Comm. Swab Schwab and commissioners, basically what we will be doing is looking at the price.

00:55:33,170	The law says, um, if it’s over the the threshold of $200,000 on the architectural services, then you gotta go through a formal bidding process for that, um, but if it’s under that 200,000, then basically you’re able to negotiate, um, so we’re still doing the due diligence, um, just not going through a Formal bidding process. Any further discussion.

00:55:58,870	Before we go any further, there is a there is a possibility, although it’s remote, but there is a possibility that the company I own would probably may bid on that project, I’m going to recuse myself from the vote on this item, OK? Is everybody clear on that? Call the roll.

00:56:19,470	Uh, can I get some clarification from Julie on, on um the recusing, because I believe that there has to be consideration of the full commission on the recusal of the vote to see if there is a conflict there. So typically, yes, if you’re here, you’re supposed to vote on things if you disclose a conflict the other commissioners have to decide whether or not they’re going to allow you to vote on that issue, so we should have a

00:56:35,230	vote regarding whether or not you should vote. Well, everybody was shaking their head in agreement, so that looked like a vote to me motion I would move that Comm. Bitner not be allowed never to bid on this project. No, hey, hey, hey.

00:56:55,230	Sorry, I said did I I did I said I’m gonna see you in the park. You’re bigger than me that he’d not be allowed to vote on this particular motion is second. That’s that’s what I wanted. I know I know that was a slip, I, I don’t hold that against you call the roll. Comm. Munsen. Comm. Bakken. Yes, Schwab, Mr. Woodcock, Chair Bittner. Oh, he can’t.

00:57:19,830	Sorry, I’m, I’m trying to stay out of that motion passes stain absent, yeah. OK, as to the second motion motion there was a motion and a second any further discussion on that call the roll please, Commissionerer Bakken. Yes, Comm. Schwab. Yes, Comm. Woodcox. Yes, Comm. Munsen. Yes. Motion carriage. Thank you, Kelly.

00:57:47,400	If we find our genes yet? No blue jeans. No, just an update. Thank you for the sake of clarity, uh, Comm. Woodcock’s question on occasion, items get misplaced that belong to inmates and then unfortunately, we sometimes have to pay for it, so what did we lose pair of jeans and and an earring, yes, and an ear,

00:58:13,700	yes. Don’t ask, don’t ask. I’m not, I’m not gonna, I’m, I’m just, I’m trusting you. I authorize payment Thanks, gentlemen. Thank you. How do you lose a pair of jeans in you? In the wash in the wash, OK. I’ll I’ll speak to you after the meeting in the parking lot. Yeah.

00:58:40,100	County finance director Lee Jacobs on a sales tax bond update welcomely. Good evening, Chair and commissioners. Excuse me, I have a brief update tonight. Uh, on the sales tax bond. Uh, we executed on our contract with the bidding agent today. So we’re, we’re, we’re moving forward, um, the bidding agent is going to recommend securities for us to purchase.

00:59:05,300	They’re going to be most likely US Treasuries or some kind of, you know, security that’s backed by the. Full faith and credit of the US government, um. And the The maturity and interest payments from these securities will be sufficient to make our future bond payments, so that’s, that’s the purpose here.

00:59:24,100	um, we’re going to purchase them as soon as we can, as soon as possible, then we will be locked in at the current rates, so, um, that should be approximately 4%, uh, interest. against our, our bond payments, which are 2.25%.

00:59:44,970	So we’ve got a, you know,,, 11 and 3/4% uh basically profit if you want to look at it that way from here till 2032. So that’s, that’s still positive. We’re still, we’re still doing good, um. We are getting our sales taxes this week.

01:00:08,970	Uh, Morton County is getting a, a an a large check, um, it’s about twice as as big as usual and sometimes, uh, perhaps large retailers just don’t pay one month, they just get behind and so Morton’s essentially getting a double payment this month, um, they will get that probably Wednesday, and they will be within 100, about $105,000 short. So they’re very, very Very close to, um, just having the cash on hand that they need to fully fund this, um, this escrow payment.

01:00:31,830	So my, my plan is to speak with the Morton County auditor this week. I tried calling today, uh, she’s out till Wednesday, um, but I’m gonna. Call in at least, you know, and tell her what’s going on, um. And I, I guess the ball’s kind of in their court, I think, um.

01:00:54,630	We will purchase as much as we can for Morton with this bidding agent, so we’ll basically buy for them until the money runs out and then they’ll they’ll need to come up with, you know, with cash to to fill the short the shortfall at some point, um. So that’s, that is all I have, be happy to take any questions. there’s any questions.

01:01:15,530	I, I just want everybody to know that I appreciate the hard work of uh. Of everybody that’s been involved here in doing this, they, they really did a good job of putting this together in the diligence is certainly appreciated and it’s going to be beneficial to the Burry County. So, thank you, Lee. Appreciate the update. OK, last thing on the agenda.

01:01:39,000	Um, There’s a request here to hold an executive session under North Dakota Century Code Section 44-04-19.1 parentheses 9 regarding contract negotiation and negotiation strategy. Um, is there anything else I need to do to move into executive session? There should be a motion and a second and, uh, vote to convene in executive session.

01:02:05,900	OK, Chair, I move that we adjourn the regular meeting and move into executive session under North Dakota Century Code Section 4404191.9 regarding contract negotiations and negotiation strategy. Second, motion to second any further discussion. Seeing on Comm. Schwab, Yes, Comm. Woodcox. Yes, Comm. Munsen, Commission Bakken, Chain Bitner. Yes, motion carries.

01:02:33,970	Um See, the last time we did this, we cleared the room. I don’t think we need to do that, but um that is the last item of business. The only thing that’s going to happen after this executive session, assuming there’s no other business to discuss as we will be, um, disclosing, uh, the results of the executive session and there will be no other activity after that,

01:02:52,670	right. So we will reconvene after the executive session, but we will move to adjourn directly after that in case there’s any questions. Thank