00:00:11,100	We’ll call the uh September 10th, uh, planning zoning, uh Berurie County Planning zoning meeting to order. And the first order of business will be roll call, um, Marla. OK, Comm Bitner. Comm Connelly. Comm Jarrett. Comm Munsen. Comm Patrick. Here. Comm Rich. Here, Comm Streifel here. Comm Zuroff.

00:00:46,470	Here. and Chair Agnew. OK We have a forum Thank you Um, the next item on the agenda is the approval of the August 13 minutes. And I think you all have those before you. Any changes or Move is present. We approved is presented.

00:01:16,870	Moved by Comm Z Zorro, uh, to approve, seconded by um Comm Jarrett Any further discussion? Hearing none All in favor say aye. I oppose Nate Um, minister approved. Uh, the consent agenda, um we would, uh are you going to address that, Marla We have to pass it through or I can present it. What’s that? You can pass it through our, um, I can present it. OK.

00:01:46,170	The, on the consent agenda is the Hughes subdivision um which is uh in your packet and, uh, Fisher’s, uh, petitioning or they want the, he want, he wants to build in a horse arena without combining his watch.

00:02:13,700	So any discussion on that, any, uh, by the commissioners? Uh, commissioners are moved to call for a public hearing. Second, OK, been moved in the second of the call for public hearing. All those in favor. All right. Opposed? OK, they’ll move to a public hearing on our next, uh, be our October meeting, right? Marla? Yes. OK.

00:02:33,730	Uh, we have, uh, two items on the, uh, public hearing agenda. The first one is the K andesory dwelling. Marla, if you want to go through that with us? OK, this is, um the special use perman request from Ebert Kunons.

00:03:01,530	Um, he would like to put up an accessory dwelling unit, and, uh, we published the announcement in the paper on August 27th and September 3rd, surrounding property owners were notified August twenty-eighth and Burtley County website on August twenty-eighth. Um, after reviewing his design for his accessory dwelling unit.

00:03:28,270	We decided that we advised him that it would be better to pull this public hearing and go to have a preliminary plat and go through the platting process and divide it a lot so that his accessory dwelling unit is two bedrooms, two baths, and that’s not allowed. So, he’s going to divide his property and we are going to request canceling the public hearing. and that’s he’ll be back next month. OK.

00:03:49,000	Do we have a motion by, one of the commissioners? So moved. Second. Be moved by Comm Zuroff, seconded by Comm Munsen, that we pull out uh public hearing, postpone that, or, uh, pull it from the agenda? Pull it. Um, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

00:04:05,600	Aye. Who? OK. Next item on the uh public hearing agenda is the 41 win the LC. I think Mitch, you’re going to do that one, right? Good evening, Commissioners, uh, vice chair Patrick um, on your agenda in the packet is an application for a, uh, special use permit to place a met tower out in

00:04:45,170	Cannville Township, the Section 5 Northwest Corridor. Um, the project is 197.66 ft, um. it would be temporarily placed in place for 12 to 36 months. It’s uh. to be located on Muriel Rasmussen’s property at uh on 184urth Street Northeast. Property contains 197 159.7 acres.

00:05:18,800	in the area needed for this tower is about 1 acre. Uh, it’s basically a data gathering tower for to determine the wind lows and all. I’m not sure if, are you guys here? OK, the, uh, applicants are here. uh, in your packet is um.

00:05:44,100	most of the information and location and site location, though the only thing that I have concerns about, and I did talk to one of the applicants last week. Um it is about in their, in their application. they referenced the ANSI standard a 22222. uh, 2, yeah, and 222H and that’s a structural design basically for for these towers.

00:06:18,700	It, uh, references, uh, specifications, the design calculations, height and win 23 2nd gust idea. And, uh, for the antenna towers, including environmental loads such as ice and wind and snow. The pro the project contained um um a stamp copy of that, of their construction ready documents, but it was dated 2018. and um it’s also the engineer is not registered in the state of North Dakota, so.

00:06:46,900	those are my concerns from a building, uh, side standpoint. and they, they, I talk I wasn’t YouTube guys, there was somebody else I talked to. Bryson, yeah, he came in and said that. yeah, so that, yeah, so it’s, it might be on my desk this week. So. Any questions for me Iceer. Glaciers are off.

00:07:10,270	Only question I have is, so typically on these types of applications, the Petitioner slash developer, the landowners usually included in something like that. Did she, did the Rasmussen family or one of their representatives. signed the application as well. or do you have, or did they include like a copy of the lease with between them and the.

00:07:34,970	Either Marley, you might have a copy of it or maybe, maybe they have an Agreement. That, that was literally the only, that was literally the only Development Ag. On this whole application that jumped out of me. I mean. Right. Just making sure that everybody’s. They’re aware.

00:07:51,470	Everybody’s ducks are in a row because we got another win project coming, so potentially soul. Right. Maybe the applicant can answer that question. OK, um we’ll open the public hearing at this point, and, uh uh, as you approach the podium, would you please, uh, sign your name on the, uh, I think it’s on, yep, and then state your name for the

00:08:09,800	commissioners and I’ll finish this when I’m, when I’m done. Uh, Tim Ross, I’m a project developer with PRCWynd, and we’re developing the 41W Wind project.

00:08:27,170	Um, the Rasmusins do have a lease with us and we can provide it if, if you, if we pass through tonight, we can make sure that it gets provided before the county commission, um, makes a final determination. They’re on board. Um, we don’t have um a letter from them directly yet, but we’ll certainly get one.

00:08:50,070	and, and with the, uh, the stamped drawings, um, I know, Mitch, we had an email conversation a couple months ago prior to submitting the initial application and, uh, um, Mitch asked for updated drawings. I reached out to the company that’s, that will do the installation. They reached out to the company that manufactures the tower and their most recent drawings are the 2018 drawings.

00:09:10,000	So this past week, Bryson, who’s at a conference this week, uh, reached out to a couple of engineers here in town to see if we could get someone to take a look at those drawings, make sure that they still meet these antsy standards and, and stamp them, um, you know, with a local stamp more recently dated. So we’re still working on that.

00:09:27,630	Um, but, uh, you know, we, we would anticipate having, you know, if you want a copy of the lease, we can get that with the Rasmusins. No, I don’t think a copy of the lease is necessary.

00:09:46,170	It’s, I know it’s sometimes included with applicationermit stuff, but no, the only thing I, I that caught me is usually the Petitioner developer is the owner of the land and the company and I just saw and their report here that is just the company so I was kind of like, uh, all right.

00:09:59,700	Well, Well, we, we can provide a, uh, a statement from them just to attach to the packet, you know, just so that you have a little bit of extra sense of security and, you know, the decision that you make that they are on board, uh, and, and have that, you know, as part of the final packet that goes to the Board of Commissioners just so that, you know, we, we answer that concern for you.

00:10:14,700	So, so I understand that you’re going to have uh an engineer look at that and, and so the stamp is more current than the 2018 sta. That’s our intent, yeah. OK.

00:10:32,730	Um, that was a good point, Mitch, um, you know, is that something that when if we were to approve this, then we should state that that would be part of the requirement? That would be part of the militia. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’d make it part of your. OK. Yeah. Any other comments, uh, from anybody else? Are you finished? Yeah. Yeah, OK. That’s all I need to say. Any other comments from anybody else? questions.

00:10:53,630	Public hearing? Hearing none Second call, any other comments? Any or anybody else want to speak? No. All right, 3rd call We don’t have anybody come up, we’ll close the public hearing. Were you finished, Mitch Yeah. OK. I have questions for me. Any questions? OK, we’re going to close the public hearing. and any discussion from the Commission, Kelly, the Burleigh Planning Commission.

00:11:20,330	moved to approve the special use permit with the conditions that a copy of current construction readyy documents, Stamp Foundation, and structural drawings, construction plans. should be designed to the current and NC slash TIA-222H, Stan or equivalent, uh, site plans, permit application, and I will also include, uh, some sort of agreement from the landowner or acknowledgement from the landowner that this is going on.

00:11:47,870	Um yeah, that’s it OK You’ve heard the, the extensive motion. Is there a 2nd,,, 22 by Comm Munsen. Hey, Mitch and Marla made it easy. I literally just read off. Any further discussion? Options. Any further discussion He ain’t none Uh, we will, uh, call for a roll call vote, Marla. OK.

00:12:17,270	Um the motion is to approve the approved the special use permit on the condition that I’m just gonna paraphrase recent stamp drawing, current site plan, landowners, signature, and in North Dakota engineer Stan. and we’ll fill on Copy of Cur R construction documents, Cur to current standards, site plan from an application and uh approval from landowner. Yeah.

00:12:50,900	OK. Yes vote means you approve and no more means you do not. Comm Connelly Yes Comm Zuroff. Yes. Comm Streifel. Yes, Comm Jarrett, Comm Munsen. Yes. Comm Rich? Yes. Vice Chair Patrick. Yes. All approved Yeah We have a new item on the agenda that, uh, Mitch wanted to address to us tonight.

00:13:24,270	And so I said we’d bring that up afterwards. Um, as you may, maybe our Comm is Mr. Chair, uh, vice chair, um. the are the ETA discussions have been ongoing with the Burleigh County Commission and the City Commission.

00:14:20,630	and um we haven’t seen many of you there at the meetings, but, uh, it’s a big deal This is uh quite a bit of um of. transfer of land to Burleigh County and the responsibility of this county. And we’ve got a map up here on the, on the screen. Um this area here is, is where, let’s see.

00:14:55,330	I can’t get my cursor in there. This area here I’m in the northwest corner there. That’s where our jurisdiction ends now. It’s north of Burnt Creek. so all the areas that are hatched in red. will be uh, as part of their proposed uh growth development plan Uh, yep.

00:15:28,470	and so it from the city to the county and that’s what they’ll probably be presenting next week um and so it’s, it’s a it’s a big deal the gravy, curr City limits. Yeah, that’s, that is where they’re, uh, ETA is going to stay. Oh yeah, yeah, the city limits are much smaller than that, but the areas that you see that are hatched in red.

00:15:55,100	Those are the areas that they’ll they’ll be planning to uh cede to uh Burleigh County. if if we accept it or if they negotiate, I don’t know. I, that’s not up to me. I’m not, not pay grade, so.

00:16:18,730	uh, we’re just we’re looking at this is, uh, from what the most recent um map that uh Ben had or uh Daniel Nairn had provided us. This is not the map that he provided. This this is created by a, a GIS coordinator, uh, which defin more defines the area so so people could see what areas we’re talking about. Is there a time schedule for this to happen or? No, we don’t know.

00:16:37,270	That’s um, it was announced at our meeting and it was discussed at the county a little bit, but the 17th at 5:00 p.m. The Joint Commission, right. They moved it. It’s basically the Bismarck Burleigh, but they moved it to 5 o’clock, um, but it’s the agreed upon time.

00:16:59,170	Um, so there’s been discussions about both and essentially on the map, it would move 94% of all housing back to the county and 6% would remain in the city ETA and, uh, but a lot of the land remains in the ETA. So there’s a little bit more interpretation that we need to understand.

00:17:24,330	We were only showing a small part of it, and this is the most comprehensive that I’ve seen or that you’re presenting to us, so, but yeah, it’s an all hands on this is a conversation that’s been a lot of people have wanted for a couple of decades now and um getting us together um I think it’s an important And then the colon,

00:17:43,170	that would mean that the county will have to begin to do such things as building permits and some of that stuff. Well, on the map, you’ll see that almost over 60% of their flood plains will be in now Burley County. uh, along with the permitting and zoning.

00:17:59,530	Uh, it’ll increase our permitting just for building, probably around 50 to 60% but it’ll increase our flood plain regulations by probably 400%. So because it’s, I mean we had uh last count we had about 1100 properties in in floodplain area flood flood, uh, shaded e zones, that’s sort of.

00:18:29,970	So, obviously, there’s added expense on the county with taking this land over when it comes to things like permitting and road maintenance. all that type of stuff or Yeah. I mean, do, I’m assuming with receiving this land, we’re also receiving the tax roll. for it. Yeah, you do already. OK. Yeah.

00:18:58,800	So it, it’s, it is taxed, but um the city doesn’t receive the tax money for, I’m gonna say. road maintenance, all that stuff, the county currently does. The county currently does most of the road maintenance and the ETA already. OK. What we get is the fees for the notices and that to where that would transfer to the you need to. OK.

00:19:13,170	All right. I think the biggest part is going to be on Mitch’s staff staffing, um, with permitting and regulating within that area. So, you need, you need to hire three more Marlas. Uh, yeah. Yeah. her to transfer to our system from theirs.

00:19:41,470	Oh, sure Yeah Uh, in Casey was Burley County Highway Department. So a lot of the area out in the ETA, we do all the plowing, road maintenance, patching, everything, it’s, uh, the drainage issues we deal with a lot of those.

00:20:00,100	What we’ve done in drainage issues in the ETA is we work with the city because they’re the governing authority for storm water management plans. If it flips over and it’s not the city anymore, then we work with the Burleigh County Water Resource District on there that part of the meeting this morning.

00:20:16,100	they’re asking some questions and it was, it was, yes, there’s some issues, but these are a lot of those are known issues for many years. We know how a lot of that works, but the flood areas are the real challenge that goes through there, um, you also, if you have an MS4 violation, erosion control, that really changes because if there’s an erosion issue, we would call the City of Bismarck cause that was ETA that’s under their control.

00:20:39,800	They have the ability to go out and corrected and if it’s not being corrected, it’s fine going through their, uh, the county since the county does not have a public works department. We cannot do that.

00:20:57,270	So we call Department of Environmental Quality at the state and we work with them on any erosion issues, and they have the ability to regulate that and fine as as necessary going through there. Uh, so, a lot of the areas you can see like misty waters would come back in. Imperial Valley and a lot of this is preliminary discussions.

00:21:17,700	This is not been before the city commission and has not been for the Coycom Commission. They, they’re gonna have a lot of input and they, they’ll be 4 and against. We’ve had discussions on this, uh, first time I’ve seen this actual full map that Daniel had was Monday afternoon, and he had area s closer to the city that they called it orange, that’s the priority stuff, some

00:21:38,900	of it’s actually in the city, some’s right adjacent to the city that’s stuff that’s ready to be developed or annexed shortly. They had, I called it dark orange, they called it red, I don’t know, whatever.

00:21:54,530	That’s the 25 year plan going through there, then they had Grey, which is more 50 year, and we had talked back and forth a bit of you know, each area you say it’s for urban development and the cities’s current intent is if there’s ever develop, it would be annexed into the city, be developed as urban additions into the city and we’re well from a county perspective, what we look at is in 20 years,

00:22:20,630	boards changed. That’s just reality and how people choose to look at things is different.. 20 years ago was different than what it is today. And rural subdivisions were really big 20 years ago, but they’re big again in 20 years.

00:22:37,630	If the, in that area, if it it’s developed as a rural subdivision. and even though it’s in the urban service area, how, how do we do that? And how do we functionally just mechanics go through it.

00:22:54,430	Does it go through the full city process, everything gets built to the county requirements as we do today, and then does it turn over to the county 100%? Or does the city, and that it’s a question in some city staff was, well, we do it like now, we’d do the permitting and it was, now you’re in the ETA you’re gonna, you’re just creating the same problem we have, or does it just go over to the county 100% because it’s rural

00:23:13,530	residential, and does the county do all the building permitting and everything from the front on it and just go from there. Those are a lot of the discussion points. There’s no decisions that have been made.

00:23:29,070	It needs input from the elected officials, not just staff trying to work through the mechanical issues of how we try to uh just honestly and openly debate this and go, go through that. There’s, we’ve thrown out ideas. The city staff has, there’s ideas that each side hates and, and try to go through.

00:23:50,270	We’ve had parts where as we said, our last direction from public input and the last direction we got on the uh from Connie Bordes, especially because the testimony from people in the ETA is they wanted it eliminated, and it’s OK.

00:24:09,000	If it’s eliminated 100%, how does the city feel comfortable with what’s done as we move forward, because the city has put a lot of time and money and effort into things that are good, as in defining this is where the water means, the big ones need to go. This is where the s an it ary sewer mains need to go. This is the stormwater issues. Let’s not throw out all this data that we’ve had.

00:24:24,470	Do we need to develop new ones? Do we need to look at a whole new land use plan based off the existing land use plan, but that has input from city and county and asked to pass a city commission and the county commission to be able to do a combined land use

00:24:40,530	plan because the growth of the city of Bismarck is in the best interests of Burleigh County also. We don’t want to create problems. but, and we still need to have organized growth that makes sense and not just we’re out there going yeehaw and going wild and having fun on it cause we’re just going to

00:24:58,230	create more problems as we go down the road and our question to city staff has been if that happens, what does it take for the city to have that assurance that that’s not an issue and we’ve thrown out all sorts of ideas. It doesn’t, we don’t know if any of them will stick.

00:25:18,370	They might be, uh, we know some of the ideas nobody’s gonna like, but it’s because everybody’s why I want control of this area and it’s, it’s tough to give up control and it’s tough to have change. That’s just human that’s just human nature. And it’s, how do we have, instead of that emotional reaction.

00:25:39,170	how do we have reasoned, rational discussion. And let’s just have it openly and honestly and let’s try and find a way forward to make this be able to work cause I think the proposed takes 95%, 96%, whatever the number is out of the existing ETA that solves your short-term issue, and if you have the

00:25:58,000	urban service area, you have potential long term issues. And what are they? And are you just trading the right now for later and as the county, it’s, well, these are all the areas we don’t want to deal with in flood plain cause it’s very difficult.

00:26:16,530	It costs a lot of money, especially with the CRS program. Well, it’s OK, it’s getting put onto the county. There’s no guarantees we have the Mitch gets more staff to deal with such a thing like that, but all the stuff does come in and it’s how do you honestly just deal with this on a day to day basis. Miss Larich.

00:26:34,170	Um, Well, I was at the city county, um, original meeting and the county Comm made a really clear to us they wanted to eliminate the ETA or all but eliminate the ETA. Whatever we relinquish the city back to the county. That’s, that’s gonna be the counties.

00:26:52,470	It’s not gonna be the city making any decisions on it. It’ll be all yours I, yeah, I, I agree, but part of what we talked with city staff is what helps the city be comfortable, that it’s not just going to turn into into the wild, wild West, no, nobody wants that. And it was, do we granted, there’s some laws you really have to work through.

00:27:15,800	If the, say the city planning and zoning, what if we look at changing that and under law, it says, well, we have to have so many people from these different areas. Well, uh also under law and the lawyers have to look at it.

00:27:37,900	I’m, I’m not a lawyer, but is if we do a negotiated ETA boundary, maybe we can change how that looks under that negotiation of the boundary and saying, hey, it’s reduced, now we’re instead of potentially having the, all the ETA members and a county Comm on the city planning zoning. do we remove the ETA members because the ETA is gone.

00:28:00,170	That’s not needed, but we have two county commissioners on the city planning zoning because the city of Bismarck is still within Burleigh County, and Burleigh County has an interest in the positive healthy growth of the city of Bismarck.

00:28:18,370	And then for the county planning zoning, it’s OK, do we look at changing that then too, because the city has legitimate concerns of how it grows into Burleigh County and do we say there’ll be 4 people from the city of Bismarck.

00:28:36,500	There’d be two city of Bismarck Commissioners and two people from the city of Bismarck, then there’d be 5 from the county because the city of Bismarck has a vested interest in how this goes, and say there’s a development that happens adjacent to the city limits. We had, this is just ideas. Nobody’s saying this is happening, but one of the ideas was, OK, if it’s right next to the city limits, you’re going into the city of Bismarck, period.

00:28:55,730	You have to go through the entire process, you’re annexed into the city, that’s it. If you’re a little bit further out, you’re doing a development. We have that joint land use plan, whatever that might be, that’s been approved by both boards, and we follow that portion and and if we’re not following it, it has to go through the joint process.

00:29:15,330	going through there, which I remember the days when we had the joint boards going through everything and that I had hair when that started and by the end, that’s why we renegotiated the ETA boundary on there, but it’s, how do we do that in an organized manner.

00:29:35,600	Well, currently we have a method in the ETA City staff goes through it, but they contact county staff and we give our concurrence, saying, yes, we agree this meets and can go forward. If we don’t give our concurrence, we have to put that in staff recommendations to planning and zoning or city or county commissions that staff does not concur on this.

00:29:54,900	There are two different parts. Well, instead of the city part, it’s now where the county would have to be getting city concurrence and going through there, so that way there’s always that vested interest and communication, so it’s upfront communication and there’s ideas people have been OK, thank you, really wanna think about it.

00:30:16,730	I know when I got this the first time when I, I had it, I had to sit down and just kind of really think about, OK, what’s, what’s pros, what’s cons, what what’s good, what’s not, and some of the county ideas we’ve had and some of the city ideas are, are, they’re just different and it’s, they each

00:30:34,630	have good and bad to them and the, the city Comm, the county Comm are going to get the very difficult job of trying to get everything put together and what’s, what’s agreeable to move forward. So when is the meeting going to be? September 17th at 5 p.m. is the, the joint board meeting, yeah. Mr.

00:30:54,730	Rich, I just wanted to follow up. So, you’re suggesting if the city reduces the ETA and relinquishes some of this property back to the county. The city will still have some say on the development of stuff outside the ETA? I think it, it would have say. It doesn’t mean necessarily 100% control though.

00:31:14,900	Cause you would have input on the planning and zoning board, city staff would have to be consulted, talked to, and you know, say you’re 10 miles out, I ’ m sure the city staff would be not really our issue on there, but if it’s something closer, that’d be, hey, we have this water main study, which

00:31:33,600	and we’ve all agreed we’re gonna follow this or we’re gonna do these points and we want to do this in an organized manner that doesn’t just blow up the world. And if we need to do, uh, more stormwater studies that are further out.

00:31:50,330	We can certainly look at that and how it gets paid for, that’s the fun job commissioners get of how to work all that stuff out, but I, it’s I think we can all work together to find something positive moving forward, but it’s definite change that makes county staff feel uncomfortable and makes city staff feel uncomfortable, but it’s kind of, we gotta find a way forward on

00:32:08,430	this. Comm. Comm Risch, uh, Chair, Comm, and I’ll help you out a little bit, Casey is nothing’s been determined. Uh, nothing’s been, he’s not saying other people aren’t saying. It’s merely this is a discussion that citizens have been begging for for a couple of decades. Um, talking to, uh Senator Dever.

00:32:37,170	He heads that committee at the legislative session on the ETA discussions that are statewide, and he said out of over 1000 bills, it was the most difficult one because of these reoccurrent conversations, and it’s right at our doorstep too, every day, day in and day out.

00:32:58,000	So by having both commissions together, we’re just taking a swing at can we look at it differently in a way that benefits both the county and the city as we grow forward and maybe takes away some of the animosity and stuff that we have from some of the citizens because there’s a question of representation.

00:33:16,730	When we were at the joint meetings, it’s a big one. I asked that to be added on when the mayor, I was actually surprised at what they came to the table with when they presented this map and that was one that I didn’t see. It was, it was.

00:33:35,430	pretty awesome that they brought something new that hasn’t been part of the conversations in a long time, um, but nothing’s changed at this point. That’s going to be up to all 10 of us when we, uh, the 50 people at the county, 5 people at the city.

00:33:56,170	So, um, all ideas coming forward, but they’re actually putting some uh teeth into some of the avenues, and that’s what this map is, but there are some things that I mean, people have talked to me that I’ll share at that meeting. I’m not gonna do it here because this is a, I think the reason why Mitch brought it up and then I was going to bring it up during other business either way.

00:34:12,900	But, um, is uh inviting everybody from here or people that they talked to to that meeting, so we can have those honest discussions and hopefully we can vet out the bad and uh grow into the good. Mr. Chair. Oh, sorry. Yeah, Mr. Chair, uh, there, there is so much that’s attached to this, that people don’t understand.

00:34:33,600	We’re gonna, I mean, this, this has been zoned for the last 40 years to Burley Bismarck standards. We’re gonna have to adopt not just urban standards, but rural standards and a new comprehensive plan, land use plans, future land use plans, the whole thing is going to impact this, this board not, not to mention the amount of complaints and code enforcement that we’re going to have

00:34:55,600	because these subdivisions are already built out. The revenue permit revenue fee is gonna be nothing. It’s you’re gonna have one for a shed or anything, but it’s gonna be more complaints than anything. uh Go ahead. There one good example of that is Imperial Valley.

00:35:18,430	Imperial Valley under city zoning is R5 R10, county zoning that doesn’t exist and the lots are too small to me, are 2 doesn’t meet R1 uh on there so you’re having to address how, how do we just do that cause nobody’s saying all Imperial Valley, you got to rebuild. Nobody’s, nobody’s saying that.

00:35:39,270	It’s, you have your existing homes, we will make it work and get it figured out, but that’s part of the mechanical day to day discussions that we have of, OK, how do we get that to work then and how do we fairly and honestly address it while trying to get the city and county code.

00:36:02,730	so much closer cause this works for Bismarck and Burleigh County, but I also deal with City of Lincoln, Manokan, McKenzie, Driscoll, Sterling, Wilton, Arena, and they’re all different in their own rights on there. So, we, we always, you’re, you’re trying to find the best balance that you can. Mr. Zorro.

00:36:27,330	Probably question for the city commissioners and the county Comm here probably more than anything, and I’ll be the first to admit that I am neither a smart man nor had I attended any of these meetings up to this point, but it’s just a question because obviously this is a huge administration nightmare for both city and county staff.

00:36:47,600	uh, to get everything to gel, and there’s always gonna be regardless of the ETA is in existence or not, there’s always going to be these weird little gray areas that is right on the edge of the city, but there’s, or there’s gonna be a developer that wants to develop something too city standards, but they’re a mile outside of the city right now, well, you know, and

00:37:04,970	there’s always going to be those arguments, and my biggest question, and I, I’ll digress, but my biggest question is the argument that I’ve heard, because I agree I’ve been hearing the we need to eliminate the ETA argument for 15 years.

00:37:24,000	So ever since we moved back uh so I know, I know it’s been going on even longer because the biggest argument is taxation without representation, right? They don’t have representation even though they have, even though the city has jurisdictional control over these people that feel that they’re in the county, but they’re in the ETA and there’s always that argument, right? So instead of going through all of

00:37:42,330	this, has there ever been a discussion of just giving people the eat that live in the ETA voting rights on city issues. because that honestly to me seems like it’d be a heck of a lot easier than going through. whatever administrative nightmare this is turning into.

00:38:03,700	I want to follow that up. Currently, people in the ETAP school board taxes, right? I mean, they’ll pay, do, do they get to vote on the school board? Yes. Elections? Yes, yes. OK, all we have to do is, um, assess some city taxes, and they, they can vote. That’s a simple solution.

00:38:25,170	Yeah, but then, you’re, again, you’re getting in a jurisdictional control Comm Connelly has all the other stuff too. Go ahead, Casey. One thing if you assess city taxes, that would be considered is by law you have to provide city services. Somehow, and there’s many, many ways to do it on there, I think that’s the part where, um both sides have pros.

00:38:45,000	Both sides have cons, and there’s challenges either way and you’re gonna have an administration challenge no matter what. It is how we’ve looked at it and it’s so right now the city staff proposal is the people that are in the EA ETA, you’re out, we’re done.

00:39:07,370	Uh, and and, but they still want to reserve the urban service 25 year area in the urban service 50 year area and Daniel’s map has all the other colors and all that fun stuff to it. colony What taxes a pretty broad term.

00:39:28,270	There’s a lot of taxes and there’s a lot of taxes that county individuals pay in there, it comes down to a discussion of the ones that pay property tax versus the ones that don’t. They pay the fees to the city for permitting but they don’t get to vote for the people who make the permitting decisions. Correct. That’s some of the challenges.

00:39:48,630	So if you’re slicing and dicing it, we just, uh, the budget that was approved last night was over $400 million. The property tax version of it, I believe, was about 72 of that.

00:40:10,970	Everything outside of that 72 on some level, there’s a lot of Burleigh County citizens that pay some of that that aren’t grants, it’s water and sewer. Hm? Bismar Hm? resident. Yeah, but now, um, some of that property tax version because of the 310 sales tax.

00:40:35,530	There’s a lot of Burley County citizens that are going to help us build the new police station and they didn’t, yeah, so I mean, Bismarck residents pay 78% of the property tax for Burleigh County. Bismarck residents pay a lot of the sales tax under Burleig County sales tax. There’s all kinds of stuff out there. Yeah, I think. So, just walks us into a black hole is what I’m saying is is that I think it’s going to be quite a relief from Bismarck, not having to oversee all the CTA.

00:40:51,530	I think maybe at this point, maybe what we need to do is. Yeah. Is, is plan on getting to that meeting, uh, and discussing this there. This is really not the place to be discussing. Yeah, and we’re just, we’re just trying to show this is some of the information being discussed. Yeah.

00:41:07,530	That’s all and you can tell there’s passion on each side, on there, we, we’ve had it with city staff too but we’ve always been, OK, how do, what’s the rational reason response that we what’s the pros and cons? There, there’s no, if there’s a perfect silver bullet to this, we all would have done it

00:41:28,370	already. There, there’s gonna be compromise and I know we, we wrote some ideas and suggestion, and at the very end, we said, we know there’s parts that are just gonna flat out be hated by both sides on this, but there has to be true compromise on

00:41:42,800	both both sides to find a way forward to make this work and what that is, really open to debate on that. I think that’s really what we need to go, we need to be at that meeting, so we hear and understand what’s going on.

00:41:54,070	And that meeting is, you said on the 17th? 17th, 5:00 p.m. in this room. Uh, we’re at in this room? OK. OK. Mr. Chair. OK. Uh, a little respond to a comment you made about, uh, they don’t get to vote on who who hires their building official upstairs or their code enforcement, that

00:42:13,730	sort of thing. It’s not a political position anyway. It’s appointed by the commission. The idea is that we want to make it clear. A lot of people don’t understand the ETA, the purpose of it.

00:42:28,170	They’re con it’s confusing to a lot of people that don’t understand what, why is it even there why I thought I was in the county, blah blah, you know, and so. I mean they don’t understand organized land use either. but it’s, it’s where they’re at and so it’s a, it’s a problem that they foresee as whatever they don’t want to be in the city.

00:42:44,170	Well, the thing is they’re not gonna escape anything by going to the county. We still have building codes. We still have floodplain regulations. They’re not, it’s not going to be eating easier for them. Yeah, but that county building inspector’s a lot nicer than the city one. If, yeah, maybe if we have to do all this, he won’t be too happy.

00:43:04,470	But it, it, you know, it, it’s the idea is that it’s gonna be it’s gonna be the same. These floodplain regulations, those are federal law. We cannot ignore them, we cannot do all we think we do a little softer on this one, and, you know, a little easier on this Guy.

00:43:27,470	No, it’s going to be identical to what the city of Bismarckinors. and so it’s you know, there’s some, some education on this that needs to go talk to those people in the ETA because we haven’t, haven’t heard from a whole lot of people from the in these meetings.

00:43:44,530	We haven’t heard anything from these people, except for the ones who are complaining about the bill codes and the permitting, and the floodplain regulations. Those are the ones that I’ve, I’ve heard from. I mean, I’m getting calls right now from people who live in the ETA about building out there. So we need to go to the meeting. Yeah, OK, and, uh.

00:44:01,000	and then, and then we can bring our questions and concerns up there. Yeah, I don’t, uh, it’s public hearing. OK. Yeah. Thanks, Mitch. Yeah. OK. I’m like good enough. Right. Right. Because of Senate Bill 21 to 80. Got it. They’re, we’re required to have the public comment time, so there will be people talking.

00:44:20,330	Is there any other business? I have to make a decision at this, cause it’s not a hearing. They don’t have to make a decision. Right. It’s a. Do you have anything else? For each other? Motion Motion to Adjourned