00:00:13,900	So 5 5:15 on August 26th, we’re in the Tom Baker room of the City County building. This will be the board of City Commissioners. meeting, but before we start, if we can have Chaplain Wolfgramm lead us an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Good evening, Mayor, and, uh, City commissioners, thank you for the opportunity.

00:00:32,470	Let us pray Lord, we thank you for this beautiful summer day. Uh, no better place to be than in North Dakota in the summertime. Uh, we pray your care and blessing for our community that you would, uh, watch over and protect our first responders.

00:00:47,630	Thank you for the service they render Thank you for these leaders as they make decisions that are beneficial for our community. Um, may they rest in you and seek your good and gracious will in their conversations this night and as they continue to serve. We are grateful for your presence and ask that your peace would rest upon us. We pray this in Jesus’ name. Amen.

00:01:04,170	Amen. 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, sir. Thank you very much All right, we’ll call our meeting order if we can call a roll, please. Comm Risch. Here.

00:01:31,370	Comm Zenker. Here. Comm Connelly, here, Comm Cleary, hereeror Schmitz, here at this time, it’s time for public comment. I do want to make a note in case there’s any confusion, the South Meadows 3rd edition rezoning, hearing is actually tomorrow night. Um, it’s not even on our agenda tonight.

00:01:52,170	It will be on the agenda planning and zoning tomorrow night. So if there’s anyone here for that, just so that they’re aware that tomorrow night’s a good time to come and speak to that, um, and so at this point in time we have public comment.

00:02:08,730	Anyone who wished to speak to an item that was on our prior meeting agenda or is on the consent agenda tonight or as a regular agenda item that is not public hearing, please come forward, sign in. Uh, tell us who you are and which topic you’re speaking to. A My name is David Stout live, live in South Bebe.

00:02:48,730	I am here to ask a question Are we an actual city that it will take anybody uh I’m not sure I’m following the question, sir. Are we in which agenda item are we speaking about? Well, I’m not, I’m something different Completely different.

00:03:12,370	So, so I, my, our public comment is for the items on this agenda, Lassie’s last meeting’s agenda, and, and that’s what it’s limited to. No wonder nothing gets done. Sorry, sir the. So, uh, I’m gonna clarify I do just for clarification, the there is an agenda item that’s ETA.

00:03:44,470	This would be an opportunity time for public comment on that because that’s not a public hearing later That’s why it’s on the agenda so we can get public comment now for those who might wish to speak to that. Whenever we talk about the ETA, I always have to come and say something.

00:04:15,330	You know, it appears that it looks like the fees for building anything just for the record, I mean, I know who you are, but for the record for the Robert Field. OK, thank you. But it, it appears the fees for building on larger acreage lots is going up. Is that correct? Um, well, are you talking about for 2026.

00:04:39,330	Yeah, and your fee schedule That, yeah, there is a fee schedule, yeah, so we’ll, we’ll we’ll be discussing it next meeting, certainly, so basically at this point, you should change the title to the ETA because nobody in Bismarck has a 5 acre lot. unless they’re in the ETA, so it should be transparent. that that’s targeted in the ETA. not the city.

00:04:58,070	Unless you’re going to get rid of some of the golf courses. You never see anybody playing golf on, then you would have 5 acre lots Fair comment. I’m not appreciate your comment because we need to look at that. Thank you. Thank you. For the record, Travis Jensen, ETA resident.

00:05:30,170	um, and I wanna echo what the past speaker just said about the uh the permit increases you know, we just had a joint, um, commission meeting not too long ago. and everybody sat at that table and sounded like they wanted to make headway. but now again we hear another. another deal where the ETA people are gonna be suffering.

00:05:53,430	You guys are making a permit increases and for those of the, uh, those watching and those in the audience, they did do a, uh, a quite extensive explanation, and I found it very interesting that the permit fees in Bismarck varied so greatly versus the county. But now you guys want to raise them again.

00:06:12,170	You know, it seems like you guys have it out for us ETA people. You know, maybe it’s cause we can’t vote for you. I, I don’t know but what can we do about it? All we can do is stand up here and give public comment. Otherwise, our hands are tied. We can’t do anything.

00:06:30,800	When do we get some sort of recourse. for disagreeing with the rules, regulations, ordinances that you guys are forcing upon us. and I’m using that word forcing. very prevalently because we are being forced. We don’t have a say. We can’t vote for you guys.

00:06:57,530	We can’t do anything and you know I look at you guys’ agenda and it’s hidden in there you know, it’s hidden in the consent part. So nobody really finds it unless you scour these agendas word by word, PDF by PDF. A little transparency would go a long ways, you know, you guys talk about wanting to make headway with ETA.

00:07:21,100	I don’t believe that I, I really don’t, because again this this raise like he said, it’s not gonna affect your, your city folks. It’s gonna affect us folks in the ETA and again, you guys only want the ETA.

00:07:41,530	when you profit Thank you, sir Again, this is a public comment, anyone who wish to speak, please come forward. A 3 or 2nd call for public comment. A 3rd and final call for public comment. Seeing nor hearing anyone, public comment period is now closed.

00:08:22,500	Comm with regard to consentogen, I do need to note that we need to pull item items D3 and 4 from the consent agenda because the applicants aren’t ready to proceed forward, and that’s a transfer of liquor license, um, so they’ve asked, they’ve asked for it to be pulled Mr. Connelly, you had mentioned something. I would like to pull F2. And then I would move to approve the consent agenda at that point. unless there’s somebody else that has something to pull.

00:08:42,730	Second, Any discussion Here none will call roll Comm Zenker. Yes, Comm Connelly? Yes. Comm Cleary? Yes, Comm Risch, yes, Mayor Schmitz, yes, Comm um, this is, uh, for public health to apply for a $30,000 grant.

00:09:12,730	Um, when you go onto the PDF that goes with uh the agenda is, it’s for training, uh, for education where we go out to say, um, schools and that and talk about vaccines. There’s a lot of families that have kids in schools that aren’t comfortable with that conversation. So, um I’m gonna vote no on that So. OK.

00:09:42,470	Any other discussion Um, no, I guess I. I would, I do support the grant, but it’s uh through the um North Dakota Health and Human Services, uh, the North Dakota Department, so through the state, um, I think a lot of our work that we do through public health is grant funded, and so I just don’t want to skip out on any of those

00:10:05,600	opportunities if it’s something that we can provide to our constituents. Obviously, they don’t have to all take part, um, it’s their right to not, but, um, I still would like to like move forward with the process, so I would move to approve.

00:10:28,370	is there any further discussion Harry Dunn will call a roll on that motion. Comm Connelly? No. Comm Cleary? Yes. Comm Risch, yes. Comm Zenker. Yes, Mayor Schmidtz, yes. We’ll move to the regular agenda now.

00:10:55,630	The first item is to receive a representation from Joe Marset, the state of North Dakota Director of OB and this is in regard to how House Bill 1176 works and to educate us and everyone else as to how it applies as we look forward to budgeting. our final budget adoption Joe, welcome and thank you for coming and accepting my invitation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commission members, uh, good evening. Pleasure to be here.

00:11:14,270	I’ve been in front of a lot of legislative committee meetings over the last 30 years, but this is my first Bismarck City Commission meeting, so I can check that off the bucket list. Um, but happy to be here and speak a little bit to 11176.

00:11:31,970	It was an important piece of legislation from the last legislative session, and I was, uh, honored to be a, a part of the work that went into it, uh, with, uh Governor Armstrong and the legislative leadership, and so I’ll, I’ll just give kind of an overview, speak a little bit to what it means at the local budgeting level and kind of what it means to individual taxpayers because I know that, you know, there are some, there

00:11:48,630	is some confusion about that. So happy to answer any questions uh as I go. Um, so 1176, um, it does, it does 4 primary things, uh, in, in a, a lot of statutory changes, but, uh, the, the main thing it does is it increases that primary residence credit that, that we,

00:12:10,500	we’ve had in the prior year at a level of $500. It increases that to $1600. It, um, it provides a, a dedicated funding source for that. So, of course, from my perspective as budget director at the state that how we fund that it was an important piece of this package.

00:12:30,170	The $500 credit was funded from the general fund, just the general revenues of of the state. This is funded from the legacy fund, so it ties it directly to the earnings of the of the legacy fund and that stream will grow over time.

00:12:49,000	And then, of course, the, the challenging part that, that you all are dealing with is the 3% cap, the reform piece that we’re imposes this 3% cap on, on not just cities but all political subdivision, um, budgets, not the overall budget.

00:13:11,470	I’ll I’ll speak to that in a bit, uh, and then it, it provides um you know, kind of an incentive for, for prudent budgeting and not necessarily maxing out that 3% cap by saying if, if you don’t use all that 3% authority if you levy something less than that maximum 3%, you can carry over that unused levy, um, perhaps to, to build that up for a, a, uh uh.

00:13:32,630	something in the future where you know you need that additional authority and levy that additional 30 once every 5 years. So the funding source, the legacy earnings Fund is um, it’s, it’s the uh the fund in uh in the state structure where the earnings from the legacy fund are deposited, and so the legacy fund as you probably know, uh, receives 30% of all

00:14:00,470	the oil and gas taxes collected by the state, and so 30% of it goes into the legacy fund, the legacy earnings fund, as it’s been defined by the legislature, looks back for the last 5 years, calculates a percentage, 8% of that average balance and says that’s what we’re going to call earnings, that amount goes into

00:14:20,270	the legacy earnings fund. So as the principal grows, that calculation will result in a larger and larger amount, no matter what happens with oil activity, there will continue to be growth in the legacy fund.

00:14:35,630	So we know exactly what, uh, went into that fund, uh, in, in July. We know that the earnings because we have this, this look back, it’s not as, as volatile as our as our accounts in the, in the stock market, it’s based on this history of what the balance actually was.

00:14:56,600	And so the earnings that um that are available that were available for the legislature to decide what to do with in the last session total about 687 million. And so the way the legislature allocated those, the 1st 102 million goes off the top to service existing legacy bonds that have already been issued and we have this ongoing debt service.

00:15:16,230	Then the next 30%, which amounts to about 175 million is dedicated to the Department of Transportation for roads, and then everything beyond that, the remaining, the remaining 70% is allocated to the legacy property tax relief fund.

00:15:42,370	So that’s 409 million in the state’s two-year budget period of, of July 1st, 2005 through June 30th of 2027, that is allocated to this, this property tax relief program that I’m talking about tonight. So, this is just a, an estimate. It assumes that the legacy fund is going to continue to earn an average of about 6.

00:15:59,530	5%, which is what the actuaries assume for our, our pension fund and that oil revenues are going to stay about the same in the on in the near future And so over the next 12 years, if those assumptions would hold true, the amount that’s going to be available for property tax relief. uh, is, is going to more than triple from about 409 million to about 1.3 billion by the 2037-939 biennium.

00:16:22,900	Just a, a rough estimate. I mean, you know, a lot of assumptions there, but just to give a perspective, this is a dedicated stream that will grow over time to increase the amount available for property tax relief.

00:16:45,470	So the 3% cap, the challenging piece for the political subdivision budgets, uh, so what’s subject to the cap? It’s just property, it’s, it’s, it’s taxes levied on property that was taxable in the previous year. And so there, there are a lot of exceptions to that.

00:17:05,630	Um, there are certain levies that are excluded, and then there’s the levy on any new property, any property that was not taxable in the previous year because it’s a new development that is not subject to the 3% cap. Uh, there could be new levies that are authorized by the legislature, uh, new, new levies or an exception to the 3% cap that’s approved by the voters, um, at a statewide general election that would allow uh that would be in addition to the cap.

00:17:24,330	Uh, levies, like I mentioned, the, the portion of the legacy earnings fund that goes to service debt, um, any levy that’s used to service existing bonded debt at the local level is, is excluded from this cap, um, other, other levies are, uh, certain other levies are excluded, like the garrison

00:17:43,000	diversion levy or the levy statewide for the UND Medical School, the one mill, uh, and then any funding from any source that’s not property taxes is not at all subject to the 3%. So to illustrate that, here is a kind of a hypothetical city budget.

00:18:02,270	um, a variety of revenue sources, right? The, the kind of darker blue color is, is the portion of the budget in this example and $89 million budget,, $32 million coming from property taxes. in the current year. um, also revenue that comes from lodging taxes and other fees.

00:18:25,170	uh,,, $20 million in this example, if that would be if that would be estimated to grow by 5% in the next budget, that is not subject to the 3% gap. Um. the, the little gold sliver on the in, in the 25 tax year, uh, assuming like $1 million of additional revenue from new property that wasn’t taxed in the prior year.

00:18:45,000	That’s outside the 3% cap. And then sales tax in this example, the city’s got a, uh, a local option sales tax, uh, that generates 37 million out of their $89 million budget. If that’s expected to grow by 5% in the next budget year. That’s not subject to the 3% cap.

00:19:02,630	So just to illustrate in this example, uh, the city budget could grow from $89 million to 94 million, have 6% growth and still fall within that 3% cap. because the 3% cap only applies to the property tax levy on property that was taxed in the prior year.

00:19:27,100	So, um, of course, it’s not um the math isn’t quite as simple as just taking 3% on, on a sliver of the budget, there is a, uh, a calculation in law that allows a city or any political subdivision to take the highest of two alternate calculations.

00:19:45,870	So in law it’s referred to as a baseer levy or an adjusted your levy. So the base year levy is um a look back to kind of account for um um. anomalies, I’ll say where maybe there was um, you know, a large piece of property that came off of the, off of the tax rolls one year, maybe it was subject to tax,

00:20:06,100	and then it became maybe the government acquired it and then it’s no longer subject to property tax, things like that that could skew a levy in prior years. So I’ll go through each of these calculations, uh, but my point on that slide was just that it’s the higher of the two.

00:20:18,470	So the base year calculation would be this 3-year look back. So we would look at what was levied in 24, 2 3 and 22 Um in this example uh, we’ve got, uh, kind of a normal progression of growth on the taxes that were levied on existing property, and then we’d have some exclusions that I, that I

00:20:40,230	talked about, we’d have some levies that are not part of the CAP, um, changes in, in what’s taxable property, um, but we’ve had, we’ve got a normal progression. We’ve got 16 million levied in 22, 17.

00:21:03,730	5 and 23, and then, and then 20 million in 2024 Um, if we had um you know, something different. If we had a higher levy in 23 because of some change in the city’s needs or some change in what was taxable, subject to tax, uh, we would pick the highest of whatever, whatever year was in that 3-year period. In my example, it’s just the prior year.

00:21:23,630	But we would take that in this example, the 20 million. times the 3%, which would add 600,000, so we would have a base year, um, calculation of 20.6 million. and then we would compare that to this adjusted year calculation where we allow for changes in taxable value, including new property, so, uh, based on my example, I’ve got a

00:21:45,000	type over over there, but it’s, um, uh, if we have 20 million in, in in taxes levied and assume an 80 mil levy, we’d have taxable value of about 250 million in this in this city.

00:22:04,100	If we assume that there’s some growth, um, in this case, uh, you know, 1.5% of new growth, we’d have $3 million in new taxable value and then maybe we’ve got some changes in what’s exempt from taxation, and so we adjust for that. uh, based on how it’s defined in law.

00:22:22,270	So we’d have an adjusted year taxable value of $252 million We would take that times the 80 mLs that the city levied in in the prior year. and then we would increase that by 3%. And so that in this example would give a adjusted your calculation of 20. 76 5 million about.

00:22:45,730	So my point being, we, we look at, we do those two calculations and we take the highest of those two, whatever is most beneficial to the city. So it makes the math a little more complicated, but it does provide some, um, ability to adjust and allow for changes in taxable value.

00:23:08,170	So in this case, the adjusted year levee yields a higher calculation, so the city would use that amount, 2,020,764,800 would be the, the, the budget limit that would be the limitation on the maximum amount that could be, uh, levied on property taxes.

00:23:26,800	So then the, the uh, the question is what does that do to the to the mill rate, right? The rate of taxation, because if the overall budget can’t grow by more than 3%, um, that doesn’t say, it doesn’t, uh, limit how taxable values is going to grow. Taxable value by a constitution should reflect the true and full value of the of the property. in the political subdivision.

00:23:49,230	So in this example, we would have growth on existing property of, I’ll say 5%, so that would take our taxable value from 250 million to 260. 2.5, and then if we have new property, uh, growth, the 3 million that I referenced before, um, we would add that in, we would make adjustments for other changes in taxable property, and we’d get to this 264.5 million taxable value. but our budget limit is 20,764.

00:24:14,370	80 $0 So to calculate our new mill rate, we would just take that budget limit, divided by our taxable value, and in this case, that would give us 78.5 mLs where we levied 80 mLs before, so anytime in my example, we’ve got property value that’s growing by about 5%.

00:24:36,730	more than the 3% cap anytime it grows by more than 3% cap. levies are gonna have to come down So in this example, we’ve got a reduction of about 2% in the mill rate, in the rate of tax from 80 mL to 78.5. So the mill rate, of course, is applied uniformly to everybody.

00:25:00,270	What’s not uniform is taxable value changes. My house might change in value more than someone else’s house, depending on the opinion of the appraiser and the market conditions in in in the location that I live. So, um, so we’ve got an example here of 4 different houses.

00:25:24,370	So um, the, and again, the, the math isn’t uh uh always simple when we talk about taxable value, right? If we have a, a, a house that’s valued at $300,000. to get to, to assessed value, we take that times 50% to get the tax toe value, we take that times 9%, so we get to $13,500 is our taxable value.

00:25:47,370	That’s what we’re applying the mill rate to. So in 2024 all these houses had the same taxable value, 13. 500 based on a $300,000 house. But each of these scenarios changes differently. Our taxable value on property A goes up by 1%. and property B goes up by 3%.

00:26:06,470	Property C it goes up by 5% and property D, uh, goes up by 7%. Our meal rate again, I’m using hypothetical, uh, numbers here. I said our city mill rate was going to go from 80 mLs to 78.5. Here I’m showing 220 mLs levied in the prior year, 215.

00:26:27,900	9 in the current year. I’m assuming that all political subdivisions that levy tax on this property, have to lower their mills by the same. in the same way that the city did, right, with whatever um Park District and, and uh all all all the other taxing districts are are lowering their mills in the same way

00:26:45,970	because the valuation overall went up by more than the 3%. So we’d have a reduction across the board in mill rates again, that’s consistent across all properties. So the, the gross tax bill that a taxpayer is going to see on their statement um.

00:27:07,370	on property A we had about a 2% decrease in mill rates across the board, but about a 1% increase in value, property owner A is gonna see about a 0.9% decrease in their gross tax bill before we take into account the impact of the property tax credit, the primary residence credit. And again, it’s, it’s a primary residence credit.

00:27:27,170	So if you, if this is not a primary residence, then the gross tax bill is their is their tax bill. If it’s a primary residence, then, then they would be subject to the, the deduction of that credit.

00:27:46,230	In property B, we’ve got a change in evaluation of about 3% but again, we had a decrease in overall in the middle rate of about 2%, so this person is gonna see an increase in their tax bill of about 1.1%. Property C, we had valuation increase of 5%, no reduction of about 2%. Their bill’s going to go up about 3%. So you’re probably not going to hear from any of those folks.

00:28:05,070	Property D had a valuation change of about 7%. no reduction of about 2%. Their their bill went up by 5%. So my point is that it’s not the 3% cap does not apply to the individual taxpayer. The 3% cap applies on the city budget.

00:28:27,430	and the impact on the individual taxpayer is going to depend on their, their own situation and their own change in assessed value. The very bottom line that the taxpayer is going to see though, is going to be a significant reduction for everybody who’s subject to the primary residence credit because that was $500 last year. It’s going to be $1600 this year.

00:28:45,530	So in, in all of my examples taxpayers that are that are getting that credit are going to see an overall reduction of, you know, 38 to 45%. Again, this is a hypothetical example based on a $300,000 house, but, um, I, I think uh that illustrates the, the impact. So, um I’d be happy to answer any questions.

00:29:06,900	That’s, uh, kind of my, my overview of the bill and how it might affect individuals. Are there any, are there any questions for Joe? Go ahead, Comm Zaker.

00:29:26,100	Mayor Commissioners, first of all, thank you for coming and giving this because it’s, um, it has shed a little bit of light I still have the same concern that I had from the very first time we had the conversation that the message to um, the property owners was that there was going to be a 3% cap, um, individually, obviously through this presentation, that is, that is not how it’s supposed to be

00:29:46,270	interpreted, um. do you see, are you, are you getting a lot of feedback from other cities, counties in the in the state as the same confusion that we, we had maybe. I mean, that’s a fair question, I think.

00:30:07,900	Yeah, um, you know, Mayor Mayor Schmitz and, and Comm, I, I’m personally not, um, you know, whether the, the state tax department is, or the, um League of Cities, Association of Counties are getting those questions, uh, you know, that, that could be, I, I’m, I’m, I’m personally not.

00:30:27,000	So, so, so I put that question to actually to Joe and one of the other individuals in the governor’s office. because that was my concern too And they both gave me the same answer that Governor Armstrong has not been at least fielding lots of those questions, but it, I, you know, I’m not disagreeing with Comm Zener’s concerns that he’s expressed because I’m, I’m sensitive to that too, but I

00:30:45,800	also know how the formula’s got to work in order to be appropriately fair across property values, and so that’s our struggle is how do we get there? Comm Connelly are you going to be presenting for Burig County Commission too at some point? Um, uh, Comm, I’ve not been asked to do that.

00:31:02,730	I would, I would if, if I was asked to do that. OK. Um, the reason why I say that is we’re 75% of the county and the county, um, they um, did not sunset a half cent sales tax, and then they also added another half and and um their conversations at that level that they’re going to with the

00:31:25,700	revenue generated from the sales tax, they’re going to back out of roughly 20 mLs, which is a little more than half of what they’re um amount is, um.

00:31:45,970	that’s, uh, changes those numbers a little bit from the county level, and it would be interesting to see a presentation, say from an office like yours on what those numbers would look like, um, when we add that little nuance into the conversation.

00:32:05,800	Yeah, Comm, I’d have to look at, you know, what, what that would look like at a, at a county level like that, but the any change in the sales tax again is not subject to the 3%, so it would affect that, that base level that future. 3% increases would be applied to if it affects the amount that’s that’s levied. Yeah. Thank you Any other questions Joe, I appreciate you coming because I helped, it, it did help at least put some light out there to help us.

00:32:26,000	whether it’s good or bad or indifferent. Uh, I just appreciate you accepting my invitation. Yep. Happy to be here. Thank you Comm Zinker, yeah, I do have one, not for Joe, but maybe for Dmitri. if on this topic. Demetri, are you online? I am. Oh, fantastic. All right, Mr.

00:32:45,330	Chernyak, so obviously you saw the presentation, sir. and you have a copy of it. So my biggest concern is, um on those four houses is D. Do we know how many properties that we have that are going to be um based on, because of evaluations are going to be more than that 3%.

00:33:07,100	So I’ve, I have Demetria, I think, pulling me some data. I haven’t yet seen, but I have. I probably didn’t go up 3%. I think I took a higher number, probably above 10, I think she said. And I do, I use 3% because. Yeah, now I get you where you’re coming from.

00:33:22,070	That’s Be the kind of cap, so to speak. Yeah. That we, that we thought thought. And if you don’t, if you don’t have that number, Dmitry, um, today after the top of your head based on a computer, um, if you could have it at least for next, our next

00:33:35,630	meeting when we talk about the budget and finalize the budget. I think that would be Commission sector. All right, thank you, sir. Comm C Cleary. I just think it, it’ll be interesting to see those numbers, but we, we do get presented with them every year when we talk about like the assessments and people’s

00:33:55,800	ability to protest their evaluation and that sort of stuff with uh Allison’s team. And so I think that like the group that House D, that person is gonna just be again those that list of houses that we get where they’re assessed values went up higher than 10%.

00:34:12,970	Uh, they get sent out a letter all of those things through the assessing department. I think it’s gonna be kind of that same category of home, so it, he should be able to give us the numbers of like the last couple of years too as to like how

00:34:26,700	many houses that typically is, so that we, we know what we’re looking at, so Commission Risch, I think we make the need to make it clear under all four of these examples, property taxes dramatically decrease, um, from 45% to 38%.

00:34:48,170	So overall, with the $1600 credit property taxes are going down, even for the person who’s taxes went up 7% and there’s an example. But that’s only for people who are getting the primary residence credit. Sure. So there’s going to be people that don’t get those on there, yeah. And, and only based on a $300,000 market value.

00:35:05,230	And being in the building industry, sir, it’s really tough to only find a house that’s only worth $300,000. It’s a break. It’s a break. But, but the point was that, I mean, that was, was good information for us to receive.

00:35:22,970	I do still want to have the, as I’d already asked Demetri to kind of sanitize that that parameter because I, because I think we need to know that. It may, it may affect our decisions. Anything else OK, again, thanks, Joe. I appreciate you being here All right. Next item is to receive a presentation from former Mayor Marinn Hawkinson. Um, I’m just gonna introduce you that way if that’s OK.

00:35:51,530	Come on up in Well, you’re on the agenda, so. Yeah, this is going to be a lot shorter. than the prior presentation. Um I don’t envy you people in the chairs up there. I sat on those chairs for 23 years and had to face some decision.

00:36:18,270	I didn’t like to make but I did those considering the will of the people. That’s important to me And if you, I thank you very much for the time on the agenda, Mr. Mayor, Comm. and this petition, I want to explain a little bit for folks who don’t recollect what it’s about. It lowers the water bills and the property tax only in Bismarck.

00:36:41,230	This is in the statewide petition. and briefly it’s an initiated ordinance Taxation and budget no increases in existing or in new taxes. and or fees or special assessments shall be permitted unless they vote. of the citizens in any future budget budget being passed for privacy taxes or utility.

00:37:10,070	water bills, rates or costs, or special assessments higher than the dollar amounts they were in 2018. 2018 was a long time ago. This has been in the works for a long time and my next uh page we’ll explain a little bit about why. it’s taking so long Exceptions, any annexed property or developed property shall be taxed at the existing 2018 mill rate 56.

00:37:35,100	88, which is the levy. at the time those properties are annexed or developed. after their assessed value resulting from their annexation or development. Any increases needed in budget items. shall be allowed as long as the property taxes and utility water bills, rates or costs. higher than they were in $2018 amounts are not exceeded.

00:38:04,600	so that is the total petition. You probably have copies of it. and I’m really not here to debate or argue the merits. I’m here to give you some choices or some options. and that uh is laid out. in this, which I’ll put on the overhead.

00:38:43,630	and it’ll take less than 5 minutes for the whole thing. When you were sworn in, this is regarding the water bills and reduce our property taxes petition. When you were sworn in, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution and represent the will of the people.

00:39:05,430	1600 signers are asking you to not violate or assist in violation of their civil rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. the North Dakota Constitution and the Bismarck Home Rule Charter. North Dakota Constitution Article 3 powers reserved to the people states. quote. People reserve the power to propose. and enact laws by the initiative. End quote.

00:39:30,500	This article is self-executing and all of its provisions are mandatory. Laws may be enacted to facilitate and safeguard. but not to hamper, restrict, or impair those powers. Bismarck Chron will charter states regarding initiated ordinances. Page 580, Section 3, Ordinances may be enacted to facilitate its operation.

00:40:01,900	but no ordinance shall be enacted to hamper, restrict, or impair the exercise of the rights herein reserved to the people. end quote I was informed by the Bismary city attorneys that there was no time limit to gather signatures. When we had sufficient signatures I was told to state time limit is one year North Dakota Central code 101-50 applies. and the signatures are no good. That section is very apparent to hamper, restrict, or impair.

00:40:31,270	and is a legislative overreach by the state There is no time limit in the Bismarck Chrome charter. Senior Commissioners could accept the petitions and not violating a your oaths to the people. And Bismarck whouche I one thing. They was, they were smart in doing that.

00:40:55,270	They didn’t want a time limit They wanted you to be able to exercise your civil rights, your civil liberties. So you can do that. You can accept. the petitions and not violating your oath. You’ll probably rely on legal advice that says you don’t have to accept them because of the state law.

00:41:20,430	If you do not do that as you have the power to simply introduce the initiated ordinance verbatim. and pass it through the normal procedures. thus representing your oath. and the 1600 petition signers. Did you not take affirmative action. I will print the petition of the Bismarck Tribune. for people to sign and circulate and force you to take action. Additionally I have failed a request with the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota.

00:41:47,100	and they quote Erica they principally address issues. involving challenges to a government law policy or practice. affecting the constitutional rights. that is, the civil liberties and civil rights of people arising only in the state of North Dakota. End of that quote North Dakota Centric quoted one Nashville, 150.

00:42:16,600	It affects all those citizens in North Dakota and their civil rights. Further, the ACLU states they are especially interested. in issues that may break new ground in an interpreting constitutional rights. My request was because they have, they asked you who do you want to sue? I don’t really want to sue anybody, but that’s the only option.

00:42:41,530	So my request is asking the ACLU to file a lawsuit against the state of North Dakota. The legislature the North Dakota Attorney General and whoever it takes to declare the time limit regarding petitions by citizens unconstitutional.

00:43:09,500	I firmly believe that and again, as I say, you probably wouldn’t make a decision tonight whether to accept those petitions or to put it on by yourselves through the regular channels. but you have my phone number, you can let me know what you decide. before I take this petition to the Bismarck Strivi. Thank you very much Commissioners.

00:43:32,970	Do you have any questions So I, I just, I mean, I have to address the concern that I have regarding the rollback because I’ve run the math and Mayor, I don’t mean to interrupt you. but I’m not familiar with that 10 minute, 15 minute presentation of what the state does. That’ll be up to you to decide, you folks. So, as I said, I’m not here to debate. or to argue Thank you for the time.

00:43:55,270	That’s fine. I’m still going to make my comment cause I think I have that ability to do that. So if we were to roll back I’ll just take property taxes because that’s the easy one for me because it affects some pretty essential services. and we would end up having to potentially riff.

00:44:16,100	somewhere around 35 to 40% of our police department, our fire department and our street department and to put that into perspective, we have somewhere around 160. police personnel, so that might be as many as 74 personnel, which I think would be a pretty big safety issue in our community, and we have roughly 93 fire personnel, and that

00:44:41,900	would be somewhere around 43. fire personnel or 40 out of that 96. So I think, you know, from my perspective, those are pretty critical concerns and in the in the street department, which was repairers and snow removal.

00:45:01,970	you know, of our 41, that might be 15 to 19 people that would no longer be able to provide services and clear our streets. So that, that’s a real tough thing for me to swallow, but, um, that’s just my comments. Comm Zenker.

00:45:19,630	Mayor, Comm, so I got to come, since my portfolio, I had Michael do some math too as well, right? So yeah, it’d be great, 2018. I mean, I would love to go back and buy furnaces and air conditioners and my equipment back to 2018 costs. I see a bunch of people that are business people in the room.

00:45:35,730	I bet they’d like to go back and buy, buy those, buy stuff at 2018 costs as well, right? We all endured COVID and, and um, spikes in costs for many years. Um, we have the same thing. We have EPA changes, we have codes that we got to follow. Um, those all add costs to to water.

00:45:57,000	um, and there’s one, there’s one big, you know, kick the can down the road sort of thing that happened with multiple commissions before we approved, uh, funding of, uh of increase, increasing the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant. So those are all costs that are in the cost for water. Yes, I get it. It’s expensive. I brought it to the table.

00:46:14,630	I lost 4 to 1, but we just got to suck it up and move on, you know, so those things are all in motion. We’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars to increase plant sizes so we can take care of not only the, the current needs that we have, but future needs of the city. And if we regress, we’re not gonna be able to do that or finish those projects.

00:46:29,070	They’ll just become mothballed. So, um, I do have one question if I could keep going, sir. Mayor Commissioners, I do have one because I remember, um, that, that was an item on the agenda when Mr.

00:46:47,170	Hawkinson brought it in, and it was a previous city attorney where they had a discrepancy is how that conversation went kind of put you on the spot here, Julie. That’s the warning, so to speak. Um, do you have, do you have that information, um because we, we were told that we’re, we have to uphold the oath. The oath is to to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state of North Dakota.

00:47:05,900	And I, and do you have the interpretation from the Attorney General on that by chance? Comm, I do. So that was issued in October of 24 after a letter was, um, requested from the previous city attorney in July, um, and so that attorney General’s opinion is that the petitioner has one year to file or present the petition,

00:47:28,870	meaning gathering the requisite number of signatures within one year to present. And that did not happen. Um, and the AG opinion also said that because the Bismarck ordinances did not specify a time limit. The time limitations in the entry code apply. So that’s how we get there.

00:47:48,530	And then as to the court, so the AG opinion also said that the application of that statute again, which is the one-year time limit, did not unlawfully encumber constitutional rights, and AG opinions in general governs the actions of or govern the actions of public officials until such time as the question is presented by the courts.

00:48:10,500	So it does have the force of law until it’s decided otherwise by a court. Comm So one more question for you, Julie. Is there a, is there a time limit as to how long a a petition can be out there, or is it just the time limit of from the, your first signature to your last

00:48:27,230	signature has to be within 365 days. So, once it’s approved, they have one year to gather the, the petition or gather the signatures for uh for presentation, right, and if you, if you fail within that year, you, you, it’s over that year, you can’t reuse the petition that you have to go.

00:48:49,070	You can’t recycle it. Well, you can’t recycle the signatures. You can recycle your petition, right, but he’s, but you’d have to still go through the process to get it approved, correct? Right. And you would have to start with the signatures all over again. OK. All right. Mr.

00:49:10,270	Connelly Um, having to go through this process and that, I was the one that asked for it to be on the agenda, Part of it because of the open meeting um uh, former Mayor Hawkinson did speak with the mayor and also when contacted me, said, reached out to Comm Cleary on it. um, reached out to me.

00:49:28,630	I just asked, uh um, not to talk about it and put it on the commission, so it came out in front of all of us. He’s been here before. It’s just out of respect to that open meeting.

00:49:40,730	That was the only way I could see getting to that end is putting it on the agenda. So we could speak his piece. But, um, as far as, uh, like the initiated measure process, um, the vetting it through court, I agree with uh. um, city attorney uh Mes is, is the, that’s the um in order to define the difference, because even when we went through the one for public transportation.

00:50:06,870	There was some interpretation to where the signatures were going to um be in when anybody running for office, it would have been that first week of April, and then there was a question that went out and because of conversations at the state level, it got pushed 100 days out from that point, but

00:50:26,530	then there’s specific code in century code that um if signatures are accepted, the city administrator has, or whoever’s designated for the jurisdiction has 10 days to verify those signatures, and if there’s not a election, normal election during that time, um, then there has to be a special election per century coat and then the date got moved again,

00:50:53,800	and that was all right in process when that initiated measure was going on. So it’s kind of a moving target a little bit, and that’s where the court s come in, uh, to some degree, or it’s defined by the legislature. Mr. Risch, yeah, Mr.

00:51:11,070	Mayor Julie, thanks for that clarification on the time limits. Um, I was a little concerned when we didn’t have it in our own ordinance, but we got an Attorney General’s opinion, but it’s important we have time limits. I mean, you might drag something out for 20 years and the people that initially signed the petition have changed our mind.

00:51:27,430	We might have property tax reform from the state level, paying down property taxes and people say, oh well, my property taxes are not so bad anymore, and they change their minds, so. we might consider amending our ordinance to include time limits, just, or do we have to amend the Home Rule charter.

00:51:42,900	There’d be a Home Rule charter amendment. You vote on it. Yeah. OK, we’d have to vote on it. Just to clarify things, but I have the police and the fire portfolios, and they would be devastating.

00:51:57,870	We approved a new fire station, um, if this passed, the fire station would likely be built, and we wouldn’t be able to manage. We’d probably have to shut down another fire station, lay off a third of the police force. I, I just don’t see how this would could possibly work, but anyway anything else OK.

00:52:19,270	All right, thanks for the discussion Next item is a public hearing on Ordinance 66623 to amend Title V5 regarding liquor licenses, Doug. Evening Mayor Comm, Title 5 of our City Code of ordinances addresses alcohol license and special event permits. Um, we decided to revise our, uh, our ordinance for a couple of reasons.

00:52:48,730	Um, Whitney and city administrator Tomonic had been sitting on some changes for a matter of time. We, we do this from time to time, evaluate. There are some inconsistencies in our ordinance, uh, some things that didn’t quite align with Century Code and some clerical adjustments that need to be made. And then also it was brought to our attention.

00:53:04,630	There were some concerns about how special event permits were being utilized by some of our um, license holders. So um, over the course of several months, uh, this last year, uh, the mayor called several meetings with license holders and stakeholders that, um, utilize special event permitting, and we got a lot of feedback as to what was going on and what their concerns were.

00:53:26,470	how the special events were being utilized, um, didn’t violate anything in our ordinance, but it was questioning whether the intent was, I guess, genuine with what it was, how it was originally drafted. So we took all that feedback back in, um, made those clerical changes.

00:53:46,730	That was really simple, other things that we did were, um, tried to make the business processes of the license holders a little bit more simple by aligning our renewal process with the state.

00:54:04,630	So, um, the renewal will now occur, um, deadline will be December 31st, and, uh, for this next cycle, we will have a 6 month grace period to allow those license holders to have an extended license and we’ll send to issue new license for that. But that’s the high-level changes that we can get into the minutia if you would like, but if you have questions for me before the public hearing, I’d be happy to answer. So there is one edit that came to the ordinance.

00:54:22,630	that being discussed yesterday because it was pointed out there was a a missing component. Do you want to describe that, please? Thank you for bringing that up.

00:54:38,630	Uh, in section one um, it reads, if you don’t mind, I’ll read it to you, a person may not sell retail at retail within the city limits of Bismarck, any alcoholic beverage without first having obtained a license, therefore, as herein provided, the section does not apply to public carriers engaged in interstate commerce or to a person licensed by the state as a domestic winery under North Coast Century Code Section 5-01-17.

00:55:00,600	The part that we are missing would be a domestic distillery under North Dakota Century Code, Section 501-19. That’s the portion that we needed to include that we left out. So that would wherever you land on your motion tonight, I would just ask that you include that language in your motion. OK Any anyone have questions of Doug or Attorney Meese? OK. This is a public hearing.

00:55:21,530	Anyone who wished to speak to this amendment to Title 5. Please come forward, state your name. Mr. Mayor Commissioners, my name is Rick Becker. I’m a Class D liquor license holder. I reviewed the ordinance for the most part, I don’t have uh any big concerns.

00:55:54,800	They’re, they’re in what I saw though, there’s a redundancy, and I wasn’t sure that seemed like there were two options Uh, and what I’m referring to is uh 50104G. perhaps I’m not looking at it correctly, but um, we, we have our attorney, uh, trying to track with you so we can try to clarify that and I should have asked you to just sign in

00:56:19,600	to Rick when you get, when you get a moment. OK. Um, for, for, uh, the attorney, what I’m looking at is on page 4 of the 9-page document. Is that correct? So if you look under about 2/3 of the way down on page 4.

00:56:35,500	and then approximately halfway down on page 6, they both refer to G, but they’re different language, so it’s as though there’s two options. can I pop up can can I pop up? Yep, absolutely, because we need to make sure we don’t have unnecessary redundancy for sure. Hi Oh, where it says licensing and licensing licenses Mhm.

00:57:10,730	different Let me see one We got a so we got some notes OK. So one, so one, OK, 2. Oh I’m not seeing that in my version. Do you have the 9 page document. So 4 and 66, yeah. I got you Mhm.

00:58:04,900	Mm OK well I’m not sure which version we It seems like the second version would be the appropriate because you don’t need the language because it’s covered under you for pulling that out for us. Sure. We definitely appreciate making sure we get it right. It’s just a matter of looking at it OK. for OK, second version is correct. Great.

00:58:28,730	So, we need that. So, just to clarify then, along with 5, sorry to interrupt, Mr. Becker. Um, 5-0119, we need to, on page 4, we need to remove that class G license too, right? Are we getting that if, if we approve it. Is that. Is that Clinically correct? Let me. the first is not OK. OK.

00:58:53,970	So, I think that answers your question, Comm. It does. Thank you. OK. OK. Go ahead. OK, and then just, um, some comments or suggestions that I would have, just a couple. Under 50113.

00:59:14,000	That’s the, the special event or what we’re now calling event um, for the most part, and that was the big thing that the Class D licensed folks had an issue with. Um, what we’re trying to do is eliminate gray areas, just make it very clear, um, so everyone’s on the same page.

00:59:31,700	The only thing I would add there is host, um, and, and perhaps indicate that the host must be distinct, uh, and separate from the liquor licensee and may not be an owner or employee of the licensee. So for instance, uh, if you’re doing a special event and someone’s hosting that event, you’re the provider of liquor. You can’t also be the host, so that you’re continually and forever able to just keep hosting your own quote unquote special events, so that would be one suggestion.

00:59:50,330	Just help me out, Rick, if you don’t mind, uh, in which paragraph? I just, I want to try to find hosts because there’s a lot of words here. OK, go to page 8. and, um, uh, one A. the paragraph that’s indented and folded. Host is on the 2nd to last line of that paragraph.

01:00:10,100	Um, that’s the that’s what I’m referencing. I’m just suggesting we clarify that host is not also any component of the liquor licensee. OK um, unrelated to special events, I, we have talked and whether we are the liquor licenseate D’s and E’s are under a false impression or not, you know, when we talk about some of the other liquor

01:00:33,070	license. um, categories, whether it’s F for restaurants, G for catering, there’s a couple of others. There’s a 40 or 45% requirement that, uh, or threshold that you must be under, uh, for liquor sales.

01:00:53,100	One of the things that has been presented to me again, don’t know if it’s true or not, is that a way to get around that is to, for instance, if you have a Jack and Coke, you say that the alcohol is $3 but the coke you put into it is $2 or if you have a Bloody Mary, the tomato juice is $4 and the

01:01:11,500	vodka is $4. So that’s a way to get around it, and I was just going to suggest that, um, for the F’s and the G and and anywhere where you are already changing other language to indicate that you have to present your sales, um that are presented to the Attorney General’s office or whatever it

01:01:30,230	is that you um also have language similar to the following, which would be for the purposes of determining the food and alcoholic beverage percentages, a beverage containing alcohol may not be separated, excuse me, separated into component parts of food and alcohol.

01:01:48,430	It’s if you want to get around that, again, I don’t know if this is something that truly exists, but if you’re trying to close loopholes, that would be um, one way to do it and then I only have one other thing, and that is really a, a question I’m, I’m curious on how things work.

01:02:09,100	Um, the $25 fee change from the $30 fees to um make it consistent with state law, uh, the city’s not been consistent with state law having charged $30 for for a long time. I’m wondering, is there a process by which the city uh confirms that is compliant with state law periodically? Is that yearly? Is it because I don’t know how it’s been quite a long time that, for instance, this

01:02:25,170	fee. So is there someone who cor uh corroborates, uh, with the century code for the state that we’re in compliance. That’s all I have Thank you, sir I guess if I could ask Rick a question. Go ahead. Um, Rick, thanks for all your input.

01:02:52,370	Um, I guess my one question just also being a small business owner in Bismarck. I know you have multiple things that you juggle as well, um, I just wonder with the whole like concept of the host and that the liquor license holder shouldn’t be providing their own liquor for the, I get what you’re saying, but I also know how Bismarck entrepreneurs

01:03:12,700	operate and like yourself and like myself, there’s many of us that wear multiple hats. So are you saying like that that entity has to have its own LLC, has to be its own corporation or can like an individual that has part of an ownership like at your establishment can’t be part ownership at say the

01:03:32,430	boutique that they’re providing, like, is it an, is it a person that you’re concerned about, or is it the like you’re not wanting it all to be under the same corporation.

01:03:49,100	The what what I would I just feel like you’re limiting some people there where, you know, like if they’re building a whole another business and they’re hosting events and we are limiting them, you know, as far as how they can utilize that, which I think was part of the problem, but it, I just wonder, like, as long as they’re creating their own entities as businesses if, if you’re part owner in one thing and part

01:04:06,970	owner in the other, but then you have to go find someone else to provide your catering liquor license because you can’t, do you see what I’m saying? Yeah, and just for the record, if, if I were king of the world, we wouldn’t have any of these regulations and people could just do what they paying

01:04:21,000	fees and buying licenses, but what, what my suggestion was is, uh, to try and help because it seemed that there were many loopholes and many gray areas and to clarify.

01:04:40,700	And if we’re trying to make it so that a special event or now an event, is truly what was intended that you could not be a, an entity holding a liquor license and just creating events for yourself. The idea would be you have a charity, uh, holding an event, looking for someone to provide liquor or you have a wedding party or a non-liquor license holding business or an individual. Yes.

01:05:00,270	Now, if if you in your discussion decide that that’s too restrictive, I certainly respect that. I, I get where you’re coming from. I just think that like it I think there’s a version of it that’s too restrictive, um, I think there’s probably a version of it that makes sense where you’re, where if you’re providing liquor to another

01:05:16,530	entity that that has to be a separate entity. You can’t, you know, your establishment can’t provide li liquor to your establishment at a different location. It has to have another, a different LLC or a different, you know, corporation or charity or whatever it might be, I think you, you probably get into some higher restrictions when you’re

01:05:36,800	just saying like, oh, I can’t provide liquor to myself at a different location. If it’s for uh anniversary party or a employee gathering or whatever it might be.

01:05:52,270	you know, you know what I mean? I guess they think that I just don’t want to make it too difficult if we’re really wanting the goal to be that it’s for events. So, because we want people to have events. So good point. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

01:06:12,100	Go ahead, Doug Mayor and Comm, just a point of clarification, um, we’re aware of the, the inconsistency with the fee for the $30 that we had in our ordinance in the Century Colonn I25. We were only actually charging $25 since 2017. And anytime there’s law changes, just as we did this year, um, all directors get together and evaluate, OK, what do we need to change in our ordinances.

01:06:29,730	It’s just in this case, it was a really small portion and we, um and our processes, we’re able to address it. So just a point of clarification there. Thank you. OK, and this is public public hearing, please come forward if you wish to speak to it. uh, Mayor, Commissioners, uh, my name is David Witham. I I’m here to speak to this, uh, I’m a resident of Bismarck.

01:07:02,170	I’m here to speak to this issue more from my uh in my professional capacity from a real estate development feasibility perspective, um, and mostly just kind of comment on the technical lay technical language and ask some questions from a perspective that may have been overlooked when the or may not have been, but may have been overlooked when the

01:07:23,730	language was uh being drafted, um, so just kind of for clarity the the perspective I’m taking on this with these questions is, uh, as, as looking at uh the development feasibility of a of an apartment building or a co-working space or something to that effect where adding some additional amenities might

01:07:45,100	be justified by the potential to lease out that space for private events, um, so that’s kind of where I’m coming from. with these questions. So, uh, I’m not here to, um, really support or oppose these changes.

01:08:04,730	I think I understand the intent if I can just kind of state it because I was not a party to the original complaint or so I’m just kind of taking this language at face value, but as I read it, the intent seems to be to prevent the exclusive use of one license at multiple locations, um. and so, uh, you know, it defines the purpose.

01:08:21,870	It does not define the host with as much clarity as I would, you know, to echo Rick’s comment, um. it does seem to create some gray area from my perspective of what is um, how far can the language of uh you know so that, that same section,

01:08:44,230	uh, uh, I don’t have it in front of me here. Um section 50113. 1A. So that’s totally new added section that’s I think kind of the crux of this whole thing here. Um, the, uh, the language around the purpose, date, and host.

01:09:04,170	That’s sort of how it, uh, an event is defined, uh, I, I think there could be some more clarity on what a host is, is it a venue? Is it a person? Is it sort of a combination of the two, you know, what is a host? I think the intent to Rick’s point is

01:09:21,100	that the host and the license holder are separate entities. Um, I think that is kind of the, the purpose. So from the perspective of the scenario that I mentioned where there’s a space it’s advertised as available publicly. It’s available to any licensed whole license holder, um.

01:09:43,470	you know, so that’s uh maybe that’s way, a way to define the um the host with more clarity to sort of specifically say it’s separate from so they begin to echo Rick’s comment, um.

01:10:06,530	um but yeah, I, I guess our intent is we don’t want to get caught in the net of if we want to have some ancillary revenue from renting out this space. um you know, we’re imagining private events, but maybe potentially pop-up events with with a food truck that might wanna rent the private space to, you know, more or less sell their food, um, as a pop-up event, so how

01:10:28,900	the language of the purpose is defined, uh, I think you could even just hone in on the host definition more so than the purpose, but so there’s um yeah, so I, I guess those are more my comments or my, my questions more than more than anything,

01:10:48,100	um, but my concern and my hope is that the the from the perspective of a venue that just makes the space available for events that there might, that there’s not over regulation of that, um.

01:11:17,970	to prevent uh just the space that wants to in invest in some um some more ambitious amenities for the for, for, for the community to be able to make those, those in those investments with the ability to lease that space out for events, so those are my comments. Thank you. public comment, anyone who wish to speak, please come forward. A second call for public comment.

01:11:45,270	I don’t see a pen Thank you OK Thank you all. I’m Michelle Kaufman, and I believe I am the reason that the language has been changed on the event permit. Um, I wanted to first speak to the host.

01:12:14,530	Comment that was brought up earlier, um, to Anne’s point, you know, I’m a partner in 7 different businesses. Um, some of them do and do not serve food and alcohol, and we have plans for more.

01:12:33,230	businesses down the road and partnerships that do and do not serve food and alcohol, so, um, as an example, you know, if I open a flower shop downtown and I wanna host a public event, then to, you know, Rick’s example, I wouldn’t be able to hire shakers on 3rd to cater. alcohol to that event if that language he suggested comes about.

01:12:54,100	And so I’m not really sure that that makes a lot of sense to me, um, but if it’s different LLCs in different businesses, um, then I think that that’s fair just to comment on that. Um, also to his comment, I have never seen a POS system that breaks out the alcohol and the mixer in a cocktail. I’ve never seen that actually happen. I don’t know whether that actually needs to be added to verbiage.

01:13:11,800	If it does, that’s fine, but, um, all of our mixers and drinks have always just been run in as the drink. You see that on your receipt when you buy one and you order one, it comes in at one price with one item. and it all gets billed as alcohol, whether it is or not.

01:13:25,000	Um, the changes to the event permits are only being proposed because I used them for my, uh, pop-up bar downtown. Uh, I’d obviously made the D license holders upset. even though they were allowed to use them in the same manner that I was. uh, they didn’t, and they did not want me to either.

01:13:43,170	I will stand up here and argue that I don’t think the language for special events was broken. I think the system works. The commission and administration has complete discretion over the permits that they grant, each and every time one comes in and one gets applied for.

01:14:00,370	you guys get to decide if it fits what you believe an event and the purpose of that event is. It allows for a lot more creativity and opens up a lot of different venues for people to be creative in some of the things that they host around town.

01:14:21,630	The more you restrict language, putting words in like special, you know, occasion, um different things I can see a lot of different ways that events can come up that you’re gonna have to look at that and say, OK, is this reoccurring? Is it truly special? Is it actually an occasion, who is the host, you know, I think that’s a great question that I had to when I read it. um.

01:14:44,530	I would argue that the problem isn’t the event permit, the problem is the current licensing policy with the Class D license. That problem is not going to go away, um, anytime there is another, you know, business or event or something that they think infringes on that license.

01:15:02,700	You will be back here having the same conversation over and over again. Um, I think that the city needs to reevaluate everything about the licensing policy, not just the event permit. Uh, instead of spending our time at meetings intentionally closing a small business like mine. We should be spending our time creating more ways for them to open and thrive.

01:15:23,630	regardless of the roadblocks put up to keep my event lounge closed. Um, I will find a way to overcome them, but I shouldn’t have to. I should be spending my time and energy creating instead. That’s what I’d rather be doing right now. Um, I know that 3 new D licenses were just put out.

01:15:39,730	I, it was made very clear there are a lot more than 3 people that are looking for them, so there are no guarantees that people get them. I also don’t think that they fit the bill for every single business that wants to open.

01:15:49,630	A Class D license doesn’t make sense for what I’m trying to do. Uh, I’m trying to be open 5 to 6 days a month. with varying themes and really low sales and small business. mindset, uh, hundreds of thousands of dollars dollar license doesn’t make sense for me. Um, I was also restricted with the special event permit.

01:16:04,730	I had to cater all the food and beverages from my other establishment each and every day. I had to apply for a permit each time explaining the event in detail, and I had a strict food and alcohol percentage split to meet.

01:16:18,500	So it was already restricted and very different from what a Class D license holder is doing with their business. Uh, every time this comes up, I believe that the city commission states that they don’t like this policy, but they can’t do anything about it. um it gets moved to the next group a few years later. I stood up here 6 years ago and said the same thing.

01:16:36,170	Um, and the next group says, well, this is the way it’s always been, we don’t like it, but we don’t know what to do about it. Uh, I’m asking you to do something about the greater issue. and I think that this discussion goes far beyond event permits. Thank you.

01:16:53,330	Any questions for Michelle Thank you. Oh yeah, I’m sorry. Uh, Michelle, just to echo kind of what I was asking of Rick as well. When we’re defining the host because it seems like that is something that needs to happen.

01:17:12,000	Does it make sense to you that like that that entity or person has to be different, like that you can’t rent to your same LLC or your same like that that’s a restriction, uh, like I, like I know you own multiple what whether they’re corporations or LLCs or what what have you, that like if the restriction is just that you can’t rent to your same entity that it needs to be.

01:17:31,170	either an individual if it’s a private party or like an a separate LLC or company. Does that, do you feel like that is already too restrictive of an ask, or does that, do you understand the reasoning behind that? I understand the reasoning behind it.

01:17:48,230	I’ll be dead honest, like, if that was the thing that you just can’t rent to the same LLC or the same business. I mean, I would find a way around it I think other people would too. Sure. I don’t know that that shuts it down the way that they want it shut down with you I just your own events at other, other sites and other locations.

01:18:02,100	And I know that you’re not the only entrepreneur out there. I know that Rick, who spoke up here uh is multiple entrepreneurs as well, uh, as are there a ton in Bismarck, so I just want to figure out if there’s a feasible way to to make it make sense without.

01:18:19,730	like punishing you for having more than one entity, if that makes sense. Yeah, I think that the meetings that we had among, you know, with the mayor and the other license holders made it clear that there, there will be no solution that everybody’s happy with here. Sure. OK. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

01:18:37,370	Again, Paul comment. Period is open. Anyone who wish to speak, please come forward. Second call 3rd and final call for public comment. Public comment period is now closed. Commissioners’ thoughts.

01:19:05,730	what are your wishes? I, I, I, the one thing I want to make sure is we do not put up so many barriers people can’t do business in Seoul. I gotta be honest, I’m not overly excited about defining host.

01:19:24,330	because that’s gonna create barriers, and then there’s gonna have to be regulation around that, and there’s got to be rules around it and policies, so, um, there are some things I think that, uh, Mr. Becker raised that we do need to clear because there’s some duplications, but some thoughts Comm Clery. Yeah, I guess I, I would agree with that. I mean, being a small business owner myself, having a lot of friends and acquaintances and citizens that are small business owners.

01:19:43,530	I don’t really want to be in the position where we’re making it more difficult for them. I, I do see the other side of it, the Class D liquor license has always been treated like an investment, and so, uh, they’re protecting their investment.

01:20:02,270	They, but I think that to what Michelle spoke about where, you know, you’re limited on the days you’re open, you’re still having to split food and alcohol sales up. You’re still expected to bring those things from the primary business.

01:20:23,630	I think that we are still creating enough I don’t call them barriers, but enough like restrictions where we’re not just allowing if you have a Class D license, you can open, you can use that Class D license in any establishment. Like that’s not what this is. I think that there’s enough restrictions within using it outside of your main establishment that I think that. that that’s enough.

01:20:40,730	I don’t wanna make it like more difficult for people who are trying to do that because at the end of the day, we want people to be opening small businesses. We want people to be utilizing spaces for events and making use of these permits because all of those attribute to the growth of of our, of our downtown, of our city uh of the

01:21:00,370	sex, uh, sales tax base, so, um, I guess. if we’re gonna define host it would be my preference that it be defined in a way where it’s not. limiting I understand that they shouldn’t be able to that like one LLC shouldn’t be able to like be the liquor license provider to that same LLC’s party that

01:21:26,600	maybe it has to be uh to a person or to a different corporation or a charity, but I’m going to tell you that we already will have that come up as a problem because I can think of uh fanatics. Sure, yeah. Um.

01:21:47,900	And so, again, I really, yep, I really don’t like, I don’t want to define host. I’m gonna be honest, that’s just where I’m at. I host is host and I just don’t know how we define it without causing problems for one group or the other, I mean there’s been enough restrictions put into the event permit.

01:22:07,700	that there’s an ability to say no, you can’t have a reoccurring event at the same space time and time again, which was what honestly was occurring and that’s part of the the issue that we’re trying to address here So, basically, at that point, if it’s in the same space using the same same group is using the same liquor license as their event permit,

01:22:26,900	the, the theme, the thing they’re celebrating, etc. does have to change. It can’t be consistent. It can’t be for longer than 7 days at a time. They’re still held to all the other restrictions that Michelle spoke to, so, OK.

01:22:48,730	I’m good with that Comm, any thoughts or other thoughts? So do we still need to change the G. Yeah. Makes it consistent? OK. That has to be removed out of get to the right page here on a uh page page 4, 6G should be gone.

01:23:24,000	just that small paragraph, right? Because the rest of that under, which would be under D6D is defining the percentage of sales and so forth. Am I reading that right So it would be Julie, please correct me if I’m wrong. Uh, on page 4, going into page 5, that whole section for G would be struck and then we would include the section of G on page 6. That’s correct.

01:23:45,900	Yeah, I, I was not following that all the way through. The other note, as I mentioned at the beginning, we need to include the language for the domestic distillery in Section 1. 1 as well 1.1 Oh, you told me that centric. Excuse me.

01:24:12,100	dash On page 1, Section 1 But does it need to be, does the domestic distillery have a specific section? 501-19. We, we either have a motion or it’s gonna die.

01:25:20,100	Um, I guess I will move to approve Ordnance 6623 with the addition to section 1 1 of the North Dakota Century Code 5-01-19 for domestic distilleries, and then the removal of section G for the class G liquor license located on page 4 continued on page 5. I’ll second it We were 1st and a 2nd.

01:25:55,630	What is the discussion? Comm Zinker, Mayor, Comm, so I will, I mean, I’ve said this more than one time that we’ve, with the, with the ordinance, the way the class D’s and E’s are written. The city is created, you know, kind of a I, I’m the loosely use the word monopoly for the guys who have it. and the terror, I shouldn’t say guys, but the businesses that have that.

01:26:13,470	and they based on some of the transactions that have taken place since I’ve been on this commission and banks financing that piece of paper because it has such a high value. without without detrimental changes to those businesses, I don’t see how we can change that unless they come to us with a solution on, on the Class D’s.. On the class D’s and E’s.

01:26:35,330	I’ll, I’ll throw the e’s in there lightly just because they seem to be a little bit more coveted as well. But I, and we have limitations on those and everything else. We don’t have a limitation on.

01:26:54,070	Whenever you put a restriction or a cap on something that and it deters businesses from happening, um, that’s, it’s a hindrance. So if the class D people that are out there come to us with a solution to, to not devalue or, or bankrupt you, basically. I’m willing to listen So I’ll throw that out there for discussion.

01:27:15,270	It it I mean, it, it is there and I don’t know how to go about I mean, it’s, it’s been a value that’s been created well before that uh we were here and um I, I, I’ve scratched my head over that too because I know there are other communities that do not have that same.

01:27:39,730	situation, but any other discussion carrying on we call role Comm Risch Yes, Comm Zenker. Yes, Comm Connelly, Yes, Comm Clery, yes, Mayor Schmitz, yes. Next item D. Public hearing ordinance 6635 and annexation of Part one, part of Lot 1, block 2 in Northern Sky Edition, first re plot. Ben, go ahead.

01:28:24,630	OK, thank you, Mayor and Commissioners Uh, Wamme Development LLC is requesting approval, uh, of the annexation of the eastern portion. of Lot 1, block 2 Northern Sky, 2nd edition, 1st replat. as outlined in ordinance 6635 in your packets.

01:28:50,730	Uh, the property is located in Northwest Bismarck, uh, northwest corner of North Washington Street, Nash Cooley Drive on the north side of Wilkerson Place, excuse me, Wilkinson please, uh, Project areas comprised of 46,101 square feet within one parcel in one block. Futureanies associated with the proposal is community mixed use and the existing zoning is CG Commercial. Planning and Zoning Commission. Oh, I’m sorry, the doesn’t seem like the slides are keeping pace here.

01:29:12,630	OK, um, regardless, I’ll, I’ll just continue on, but, uh, the planning and zoning Commission considered this request on June 25th, um, uh, meeting of of 2025 and recommended approval of an annexation of the eastern portion of Lot 1, block 2, Northern Sky, 2nd edition, 1st replat as outlined in Ordnance 6635.

01:29:32,370	Is there any questions that you have that I can answer? Any questions for Ben OK, this is a public hearing. Anyone who wished to speak to Ordnance 6635, please come forward. Thank you Mayor Lanon Naimmiller was Swinson Hagen Engineering, uh, representing Wilmot Development on this project. Uh, you’re just a slight change of plans that is happening.

01:29:53,370	Um, I’m sure everybody is aware that this area of the town is already slated for annexation. There’s a ticking clock on it already 10 years from now, I blew the entire parcel comes in regardless, um, but at this point, so the developer and one of the future buyers of the lot are still kind of finalizing some of the deals, uh, what

01:30:07,330	we’d ask at this time was that the annexation gets continued until the September 9th, uh com Commission meeting, which is the next meeting. Um, we just have some final details we’re trying to work out at this point.

01:30:25,230	OK Um, well since it’s going to be a continuation, we can just continue the whole public hearing until, till next meeting, correct? Julie, is that, can we just do that now and do we need, yeah. I think we’ll need a motion. OK. Yeah. I’ll make a motion to um, continue this public hearing at the next, uh, first meeting in September, you want.

01:30:43,000	Any discussion hearing no we call a roll Comm Zenker. Yes, Comm Connelly, Comm Cleary, Yes, Comm Risch, Mayor Schmitz. Yes. Next item is public hearing on ordinance 6637, a zoning map Amendment from a agricultural district to R 10 residential zoning District and major subdivision final plot titled Elk Ridge oth. Ben, thank you, Mayor and Commissioners.

01:31:12,730	I think I broke the, the presentation, so we’ll go without the visuals. Uh, the, the the, uh, project the mayor described, uh, is actually located in Northwest Bismarck between North Washington Street and River Road, east of Tyler Parkway and north of Frisco Way. The project area is comprised of 23.

01:31:37,800	65 acres and proposes 46 lots in 5 blocks. Future land use is, uh, urban, urban neighborhood in the existing zoning is currently a agricultural. Planning and Zoning Commission did hold a public hearing on this request, uh, at the July 23rd meeting of this year. No members of the general public provided any oral or written testimony on this project.

01:31:55,970	At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of a zoning map amendment from the A Agricultural zoning District to the R10 residential zoning District as outlined in Ordinance 6637 in your packets. uh, as well as the associated major subdivision final plat.

01:32:17,900	Any questions that you might have? Any questions for Ben? Thank you, Ben This is a public hearing. Anyone wish to speak to this ordinance, please come forward. Thank you again, Mayor. Um, yeah, just to add on a little bit of what, uh, Ben had presented there.

01:32:38,170	This is the next phase in the Oak Ridge developments, um, annexation request did not come with this one, but we did process that later on, so it will be coming. It’s actually on planning and zoning tomorrow night, so Platin and zoning right now, and then the annexation should be coming down the road a little bit in the future, but I can certainly answer any questions if you have them. Any questions Don’t look like it.

01:32:55,000	Thank you, sir. Again, this public hearing, anyone who wished to speak, please come forward. A second call for a public hearing A 3rd and final call for the public hearing. Seeing nor hearing one public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, what are your wishes? Move to approve is presented. Second.

01:33:21,370	Any discussion He no we call roll Mr. Connelly Yes. Comm Cleary, Yes, Comm Risch. Yes. Comm Zenor? Yes, Mayor Schmitz, yes. Next item, have consider request for resolution, receiving bids, ordering preparation of engineer’s statement and awarding a contract for solar improvement Districts, SE 581 and 585, excuse me, an SE 586 and water Improvement District 334 and Street Improvement District SI.

01:33:52,370	591 Go ahead, Gabe All right, Mayor and Commissioners. uh, this improvement or the, these improvement districts. Oh perfect. Uh, or the projects or the funding sources used for the extension of Vermont Avenue from Burlington Drive East.

01:34:19,700	Uh, we have 4 different districts, uh, relating to the 4 different types of improvements and different benefiting areas for each of those as well. Uh, we opened up Bidz yesterday, uh, and we had 3 bidders on this project with the low bid being Northern Improvement Company from Bismarck, uh, with a little bit of $764,179. Our recommendation is to award to Northern improvement. Take any questions you may have.

01:34:39,370	Do any questions Commissions, what are your wishes? Move to improve is presented. 2. Is there any discussion here in Ear roll. Comm Cleary? Yes, Comm Risch. Yes, Comm Zenker. Yes, Comm Connelly. Mayor Schmitz, yes. Next item G, uh, conceal a request for discussion.

01:35:04,630	uh regarding topics to be addressed at the next meeting of the Bismarck City Commission, Burleigh County Commission regarding ETA um, in addition to that, we, we do have a meeting scheduled for a week from today for the joint joint committee’s committee, which we would also be, will be brainstorming ideas for that, uh, as well, and that will have

01:35:28,500	opportunity for public comment as well. I think it’s at 5 o’clock if I remember right, uh, next Tuesday. we, I thought we were moving it to 5. so we could allow people to get, get to, uh, make public comment. Go ahead, Ben. Yes, thank you, Mayor, uh, and Commissioners.

01:35:46,800	So just, uh, there were a couple comments that were made at the beginning of the meeting related to, um, some items on the, the consent agenda. I, I think after talking with some of the gentleman, uh, the, the, the reference that was being made was actually in relation to uh our fees and charges or

01:36:05,900	community developments, fees and charges that are changing. These occur every year with the budget cycle. And actually the, the items that were being referenced were actually zoning map Amendment changes, so we break zoning map amendments up into 3 different categories, those less than 3 acres, those between 3 and 10 acres, and those greater than 10 acres.

01:36:25,630	essentially the more the theory is, the more area that’s involved, the more staff time is involved to deal with that. Um, for each of those three categories, we’re proposing to increase the cost by $100.

01:36:44,800	I would say the vast majority of zoning map amendments that we process are either in the city or are proposed to be annexed to become into the city to be to be uh urban, served by urban services, uh, as opposed to zoning map amendments. in the extraterritorial area that will retain or remain, I should say, rural in nature or rural residential in nature.

01:37:05,700	Uh, those are much fewer and far between than those zoning map amendments that occur, uh, to become part of the city. So, uh, if you have further questions on that, I can, I can answer that. Otherwise, um, I think from the last uh time that the full commission of the city and the full commission of the county. met, uh, in this room.

01:37:22,800	Uh, I think the request was to identify those areas we don’t think will ever be growing into, uh, those areas that we might be growing into in the next 25, 20 to 25 years, and, um, areas that we might be growing into in that 25 to 50 year time

01:37:40,370	frame. Um, we will have, I think we’re pretty confident, at least in some of those areas that we think we probably won’t likely ever be growing into in terms of those are the, the mature built out rural subdivisions.

01:37:59,270	Uh, we can certainly present those, uh, to you all that are, um, likely not to turn over that are likely to more expensive, difficult to provide services into around and through, um, I think where we would like to have a little bit more conversation with others, uh, is, is on those areas, uh, that sort of that next level into the, into the basically that 25

01:38:17,800	to 50 year time horizon that the city might grow into. So I, I think we’ll, we’ll, we’ll certainly have some information to present at that September 2nd meeting on those, those subdivisions that, uh, are, are kind of built out and are currently in the ETA and at least from a staff perspective.

01:38:34,330	we, we likely uh, probably wouldn’t recommend retaining, um, if that makes sense. So, but we’d also be open to any other suggestions or try to address in the next week items that you want addressed beyond that Are there other things that we should put on the go ahead, Comm, Mr.

01:38:55,700	Mayor, at the last meeting there were comments from the county side that we were financial burden on them. There were some watershed things that they spent $5 million on and um somebody made the comment, um, I think it was Mr. Field that’s here. He said, you know, he’s got a home in Bismarck and he pays county property taxes.

01:39:12,730	He’s wondering why in the world does he even pay county property taxes. I used to think that myself, but of course we had to pay for the county court system.

01:39:28,800	But now we have a sales tax that pays for the county court system, so we, the citizens of Bismarck are paying all this county property taxes and a good mayor mentioned we pay about 78% of what the county raises in revenue.

01:39:50,170	So I think we should focus on some of the things that they’re not paying for, including our parks, our golf courses, are, um are street lights, uh, of my utility bill, I pay $132 annually on street lights alone in these county residents come in and enjoy all this stuff without paying their, their fair share. Um and I, we just had a discussion yesterday at the airport.

01:40:04,430	One of my portfolios about the need to expand the airport, and it’s going to cost quite a bit of money and they’ll probably be a request to the city to pay for part of this expansion of the airport. We did it back in 2000 2000, I think when we built the last airport, the city actually contributed money, but people from the county use the airport. People from Lincoln use the airport.

01:40:20,630	People from Mandan used the airport, people from Morton County use the airport. But yet when we’re going to expand this airport, it’s just the citizens of Bismarck that are supposed to provide all the funding for this airport.

01:40:37,530	So there’s a lot of inequities between the city and the county where county residents get a lot of benefits, but the city residents have to pay the whole tab. Library is another one. each citizen of Bismarck pays $35 annually, roughly to the library. But if you’re a Burleigh County resident or ETA resident, you get a library card for free.

01:40:57,730	So it’s the burden is more on Bismarck residents than it is on the county res. It’s a one-way street, and the, the accusation at the last meeting was that we’re cau causing financial burdens on the county. I don’t buy it.

01:41:15,500	So I want to talk about them paying their fair share, trying to find a way path forward to get the county residents to pay their fair share of the services they receive from the city. Any other items because we can certainly add those things or add to the agenda. Go ahead, Comm Um, I have found we your reference Ben as far as the fees and things, and um this is a pretty long list.

01:41:41,230	It’s 39 pages and um, a lot of those are staying the same between 25 and 26. Are none of those other things taking additional staff time to where they don’t warrant an increase, but in these particular cases, these, cause I noticed like public health, airport, which um airports, Enterprise Fund, um, there’s not increases there are, there’s some increases there, but on all of our other fees

01:42:05,170	within town, they’re the same. is there any particular? I can’t speak to other, so the 39 pages Comm is every department that’s just not community development, so we have like maybe 2 or 3 of those 39 pages.

01:42:25,500	Um, I can’t speak to other departments, how, why if they’re changing, I don’t review that or look at that, but I can speak to how we assess our fees, um, generally about every 22 to 3 years, we evaluate what it, what it costs, the average amount of staff time.

01:42:46,230	it costs versus the average amount of uh hourly rate, a planner is in our department and, um, that, that’s how we kind of make those changes as periodically looking at those. We don’t want to wait 10 or 15 years before we make changes, cause then we’re talking about bigger jumps, so I’d say about every 2 to 3 years we’re kind of assessing.

01:43:01,730	those, those fees, um, for the, I don’t, don’t recall that any of our other, uh, I think actually we eliminated some of our fees this year in, in, uh, for planning activities, uh, anyways, but the vast majority of our other fees remained. stable, so, or the same. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Clery. Yes, just so Ben doesn’t have to speak for other departments.

01:43:20,970	Uh, we talk a lot about fees on the service side of public works because of street lights and landfill, etc. and every one of those departments has a little bit of a different method to, to the increases and decreases based on like with street lights, a lot of it isn’t necessarily

01:43:39,000	based some of it’s based on staff time, but a lot of it’s based on the like high level of inflation of the equipment ver s us you’re not seeing that as much in forestry. It’s more for staff time. So they just all of it varies like department to department, I would say, um, with public health, those are.

01:43:58,270	providing to citizens and a lot of that stuff we is always tried to run through insurance and all these other things, so public health is kind of it’s, it’s own beast, and they try to keep things as flat as possible, um, when they’re providing a service, um, so it, it just depends on the department, at

01:44:13,530	least with the ones that I work with, so. Comm, if the next meeting, say joint is on boundary. I think if we take on too many, we focus on one.

01:44:39,530	It’s appropriate, um, but at some point in time, we need to tackle the discussion that is most heightened in, and that’s the uh um hopes to better represent the citizens. that say only have limited representation in our planning and zoning. So that should be one of them too. We make sure that’s on. anything else.

01:45:02,970	The other item that uh I think there would be interest in identifying uh is potential the next time we get together, uh, Mayor, you referenced September 2nd will be the regular Burleig Bismarck, uh, committee meeting. uh, the, that won’t be both full boards, but, uh, the that I guess that is probably the next item of business that they’d be interested in trying to nail down a date for that next meeting at both the full commissions.

01:45:24,800	Um, Jason was kind enough to identify some dates uh that this room, the Tom Baker room is open, um, and so I don’t, uh, I don’t expect that all of you will have your calendars handy and and ready, but I’ll just list off some of those dates and perhaps offline, you can coordinate with, with Jason or admin on what would be

01:45:44,530	a common date for you all. So in September. the 16th 17th 29th and 30th This room would be available and this is like a 5 o’clock I assume it would be 5 o’clock. It would be 5 o’clock, and I guess I would actually like to simplify this and just have admin send us those dates by Email.

01:46:08,100	Oh, that’s fine. I was going to ask, what day are those dates? Yeah, I, it’ll just be easier for us to manage that, rather than us trying to respond today and to do a doodle or something.

01:46:21,430	And then because they then we also need to work with the county to get their you know, how it’s gonna mesh together and. That’s easier for me. So. Thanks, Ben. OK. Anything. No, so the, I guess the, I, I, uh, you all kind of talked about it and it sounds like uh I have the items for the agenda, so yeah.

01:46:39,530	Well, and there may be more that come after next Tuesday’s meeting, so. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Thanks. All right, uh, is there any other business before we enter into executive session. hearing none, uh, we’re ready for a motion to go to Executive session. I’ll make a motion to request going to executive session under an NDCC 44-04-19.

01:47:08,430	19 for contract negotiation negotiation strategy. Second, is our discussion Carryne will call role Comm Risch Yes, Comm Zenker. Yes, Comm Connelly, Yes, Comm Cleary, yes, Mayor Schmitz,