00:00:08,270	Afternoon, everybody. Uh, welcome to the, uh, March 1420 24 regularly scheduled meeting of the Bismarck Renaissance own authority so that we have a quorum present. We’ll get started.

00:00:24,500	I know that some of the city staff have meetings following this meeting, and so we’re gonna try and move right along to the one of the items has been pulled from the agenda. That’s Item five. We’ll get. We’ll get to items 123 and four In the meantime. And. Then. The Development plan will follow first item would be the consider The minutes of the February 8th meeting. Any changes. Corrections comments Madam guy, So, uh, I. I’d like us to change the words.

00:00:52,170	District, attorney to attorney general wherever they appear in the minutes there It says. I think that’s on the second page of the minutes. In the Right, and it would be a paragraph. This is North Dakota district attorney. It should be attorney general. Yeah, I mean, So I’m.

00:01:19,000	I’m not sure if it appears anywhere else, um, in the minutes, but just anywhere it does it change it. OK good one other corrections or changes Anything further. If Not Is there a motion to approve the minutes with the correction. So just Oops. Excuse me, Kirsten. Um There’s no further discussion. Everybody it’s in favor of that. Just CIA.

00:01:40,370	I oppose him saying that motion carries. Thank you. Well under the regular agenda in the first item would be the Fleck House Project amendment, and I Think Isaac is gonna Walk us through that, such as it is. Yes. Thank you, chair Christensen and authority members, So. This is an amendment to a Project. I’ll. Just put that there.

00:02:00,100	I don’t have anything to present for this one in particular, but for future reference in the next ones Anyway. This is an amendment to a project that the authority considered last July. I believe July of 2023 and for a partial demolition, partial renovation of the current budget in site, the authority approved that design review.

00:02:21,970	They. Uh, just a design review. At that time they have since come back and want to demolish the entire, uh, budget inside. All the buildings present there. So, that is a substantial enough difference from what they had previously proposed that we are requiring another design review here today.

00:02:41,600	Um, there are a couple of notes that staff want to make sure you are aware, but they are, of course outlined in the staff report as well. That There are two conditions for approval of this design review.

00:03:01,930	The first one being that any demolition must conform with the various ordinances that are relevant for demolitions, including if the law is to remain vacant for more than 60 days, it must be landscaped or seated in some way to minimize impacts on neighboring properties.

00:03:21,470	The applicant at this time, does not have updated renderings or visuals to, uh, be considered, but they have stated their intent to move forward with development at some point They just don’t have an exact timeline necessarily, but they decided to do the full demolition rather than the partial after, Uh further environmental and structural reviews of the site. Um so then the second condition is that when they come back, uh with updated renderings, they will have to be approved by the design review board again.

00:03:43,730	So, uh, All of the findings in the staff report Staff recommend approval of this design review with the two stated conditions that demolitions of existing buildings must be consistent with all relevant provisions of the Bismarck City Code of ordinances and the applicant must provide new or updated renderings of any proposed development of the site for downtown design Review approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

00:04:04,970	Thank you Isaac Questions of staff. Any questions on this item questions anything from Folks over in technical support. Joji or something. Clarifying it. Maybe just Jeff. If. You could say you’re the the reasons for the demolitions Precisely. There’s a representative. The owner present. Would You like to come up. Identify yourself. Yeah. Good afternoon.

00:04:27,870	My name is Jeff Hubel with Hubel design group and I’m, representing the lander group today. The the reason for the demolition is is, uh, as we continue to do investigation on the existing structure. In. Other words we are able to dig into it more. We found that there were a couple of different issues.

00:04:45,570	One was an environmental issue, and the second one was a structural issue, which was more significant. Uh, the building had been Dilapidated for several years, including the roof, and so the roof has been leaking into several aspects of the building and what we found as we were able to start to dismantle part of the building is that the structure itself

00:05:04,800	has been had been compromised The concrete roof and the concrete floor had softened and the rebar had had essentially wasted away And. So although we went through the process of investigating what we could do to salvage the building by the time we got to the point of having anything left there, really Anything so it just

00:05:23,070	wasn’t practical to keep it anymore. Can’t you just replace the rebar. That’s what we do with the parking around. Yeah. I know. I know you do that all the time. Yeah? Yeah, which is completely inexpensive, right? So. Other questions of, uh, Jeff while we have him. If not thank you, Jeff.

00:05:37,570	What are your wishes? I would to approve a staff recommendation in a second motion in a second further discussion. Sorry, was that joe or Nancy moved and joe second To approve with the staff recommendation condition Hearing and seeing, uh, I. Guess. We’re not there yet. Where are there no further. Call the roll, please. Comm. Zanker. Think the Yes Gavrilo.

00:06:08,870	Yes guy? Yes Monton? Yes Chair Christensen? Yes motion carries. Thanks. We’ll move on to Item three under regular business, The Sanford Bismarck endoscopy expansion. Isaac. Yeah, so chair Christensen and authority members are next regular agenda item comes to us from Sanford Bismarck, who are requesting downtown design review approval of an expansion of their existing endoscopy clinic at

00:06:31,200	the corner of South Oops. At, the the 715 East Broadway Avenue. So, the corner of Main Avenue and seventh, uh, Street. It’s the whole whole parcel there the whole big, uh, block and lot there and the project is Sort of two main parts.

00:06:55,000	There is a 17,000 ft Square foot addition to the existing building as well as a reconstruction of the parking lot as shown on the screens before you as well as in the staff report. The, uh, addition will have some renderings later also included in the staff report and the parking lot itself is a, uh, reduction of the parking spaces but includes perimeter landscaping as well

00:07:15,570	as street trees, which are generally consistent with the streetscape. With one note that, uh, as you get further east along, uh, Main Avenue there, The sidewalk does narrow a little bit. So, the applicant noted some difficulty meeting the, uh, street trees per linear foot of streetscape there.

00:07:37,730	Um, they do have, of course, other perimeter landscaping around the parking lot as well as some interior landscaping, and they have expressed an intent to put, uh, some type of decorative fence or railing along the southern property boundary of the parking lot as well, which is also generally With streetscape standards.

00:07:56,070	Uh, The lighting on on this might not be able to tell very clearly but there is also lighting pedestrian lighting along Main Avenue that the applicant has addressed. The staff reports attachments before you have some other interior renderings or floor plans that are generally is not considered for downtown design Review.

00:08:17,930	We generally just look at the exterior of buildings, so I have not included that in this presentation here, but they are in your staff report. Uh, materials for the exterior of the building will include various colors of brick, as well as metal paneling and some stone as well along the base of the building. And.

00:08:44,000	Uh, a few examples of possible designs or materials for the fencing along the southern boundary of Main Avenue there. Staff notes that this is generally consistent with ordinance as well as the downtown design guidelines and downtown streetscape standards and based off of the above findings in the staff report, Uh, staff recommends approval of the proposed design for 715 East Broadway Avenue, as presented in all submitted documents and materials, with the standard condition that any

00:09:08,530	substantive revisions to the approved design must be reconsidered by the Downtown Design Review Committee prior to implementation. Thanks any questions of Isaac? Of a couple but Nancy Isaac. Why is the fencing only going on the south side of that parking lot.

00:09:34,970	In, the downtown authority member, Uh, guy and authority members at large, the downtown street tape standards typically call for a fencing of this kind along, Uh, signature streets. Uh, as opposed to a secondary, uh, streets, which is how the streetscape standards classify Seventh Street versus Main Avenue, so there is a stronger preference for it along Main Avenue than along Seventh Street. Interesting. So.

00:09:59,470	It’s primarily decorative and not, um Doesn’t have a safety aspect or anything to it. Correct. Questions first. And. Maybe. This is more for discussion. But when you say seventh and main streets a pretty won’t seem like arterials, though. Especially that intersection.

00:10:32,030	Is that a condition we can attach if we so Choose to to clarify a condition of having said railing along along seventh as well or can we do it if that is your prerogative that you would be able to make that condition? Other questions. Oh, I’m sorry, david. Um, yeah, My.

00:10:51,670	My question relates to the, um The entrance to the building is is there a main entrance on this part of the building or is the main entrance? Still all? Along, Um Broadway, Broadway. If Broadway. So the the door that’s at the corner there that has some of the architectural features associated with it. Um, what is the use of that door? They have use for the parking lot. So Cust.

00:11:18,870	So any any customers would not use that door, but that door would be used by the staff. Um, And is that the use of The likely used Users of the parking lot as well. Um, I do have some design comments. Where that those those are my questions. I guess so, Eric. Anything at. Sorry. Could. I have a name of the gentleman answering.

00:11:42,730	Please identify yourself. No. OK? Other questions at the table. Um You mentioned lighting. Is and we don’t have any examples that is it consistent with the lighting That’s downtown. The applicants did request the specifications of lighting that it would be consistent with other areas in the downtown and staff did provide that to them.

00:12:10,800	Um, the location is, uh, highlighted here. I believe the coloring is perhaps a little easier to see. In. The staff report attachment Or perhaps not, but Some of those details could also be determined in the site Plan review process.

00:12:33,670	And, then, uh, how many parking spaces will be lost? I believe it went from 96 down to 68 Let me double check that to confirm. Yes 96 down to 68 by by staff serving on the parking authority, But for those two or three people watching at home. The, Uh, site is within the parking district downtown. Correct. I would have to double check that to confirm. I’m sure it is. I think it is.

00:13:02,630	I should know that, uh, 30 member Christiansen 30 members was so now um all D CD, F and H, Uh, district is exempt from parking, so that’s correct. No parking is required. That was my question. Thank you for clarifying that? OK? Other questions. And this might be for for staff.

00:13:26,500	So like we we’ve gotten the questions a few times about Sanford having using the Renaissance own. Uh, they’re not the owner of the building. They would the LLC would be the owner of the building. They would be seeing the benefit. They are not exempt from taxation to begin with Correct. I would invite representative from Sanford to answer that question.

00:13:49,030	That’s the whole reason who owns the property. That’s what I thought. It’s not owned by a separate LLC, a for profit entity. OK? To answer your question, Joe. Yep. OK? All right? Anything else for the Go to the order. What are your What are your wishes? Are, you You’re pretty much ready to get going.

00:14:12,930	Some of the weather and everything being great. Oh. I’m Sorry, david. Go ahead. Yeah. So. Um yeah, just a few things to to just bring to your attention for a consideration on this, Um, generally in downtown environments, you try to avoid putting a parking lot between the public right of way and the and the certainly the main building entrance.

00:14:43,030	Um Uh, in this case, the the main entrance is is on the other side of the building. Um, and in this case, the design guidelines as they’re written, um, do not require the building to be at the public right of way it the the the way it’s written in the guidelines is that The building should align with, um, adjacent buildings.

00:15:04,770	So in that sense, um This seems to fit with with those guidelines. Um, the, uh but it does I just from the best practice perspective. It really kind of flies in the face of a downtown environment to have the parking lot between Main Street and the building.

00:15:28,370	Um, and so I just wanted to, um suggest maybe some some con. Considerations towards that end and at least the potential to, um provide pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the What appears to be the main entrance of the building, at least, um So that you’re not You know that’s a little bit more obvious and direct than what is currently on the Site plan much

00:15:51,870	in the same way. The, Um the parking lot was designed for the depot building. I don’t know if you recall some of the design features of that parking lot, but there was some deliberate consideration for how a pedestrian would arrive to the front door of that building.

00:16:12,000	And, you might consider, um, that perspective on this design as well. The, with the applicant scared to address Those questions or concerns. I mean we? We all understand. There’s a parking lot between the Sidewalk in the building now, and we’re actually making that area smaller by doing this, but Correctly.

00:16:39,130	This has been Procedure and stuff that we have to share services with the existing building. Having a separate building. Right, understand? Possible. I mean the systems may gasses. Those things. To be sure that the What about what about the access to the coroner entrance by the patients. And does that make any sense or we want to discourage that We don’t want the patients. Into that corner. You speak into the microphone.

00:17:11,800	Thanks. So the way that we’re planning on using this building is we’re gonna gate the South side. The Southeast. Parking lot approach there and we may potentially gate the Northwest approach as well not not approached, but into the the new parking lot so all Patients will be directed to the main entrance that we’re currently

00:17:41,900	using the throughput of the building is From north to south and then back out. Where the, um The patient pickup is currently is So I can Maybe so. Patients are going to enter this parking lot, and we’ll have monuments and other signs up here directing you to this patient up here. So.

00:18:08,930	The flow will be from this direction. Through the services and then this is the patient pick up here. So, they’ll be able to go on. So we’re really distributing the patients. Here.

00:18:32,400	So that’ll actually be gated for employee cards to get in and out there at least So, so employees who are arriving on foot can only go through that gate into the parking lot. They can’t Get into the parking lot from another side of the parking lot. I think that’s the question. Well. They’ll go, They’ll be, they’ll Should be able to do. They do what they want. You. Be for the car. Yeah, just an arm.

00:18:59,070	Yes, Just just a OK? And, also a sidewalk on the There’s this is a sidewalk in the whole. The OK? This one. OK? Um, What about the concept of extending the fence, at least around the corner, partially up to say the new The. You know the the line of the new building where it meets the old building. So. To be completely honest.

00:19:21,600	Um, we were proposing an advocating to not have offense due to snow removal debris and things like that, if it didn’t provide a security Type feature. Um We didn’t really want We Have to meet requirements. Sir. But ultimately One. So absent offense.

00:19:55,130	You’re just gonna have basic landscaping elements, rocks and shrubs and bushes and flowers and correct Right, uh Comm. or chair Christensen. There’s elevation change there between the sidewalk isn’t there. I mean so there would be a and you’re not gonna without having the full civil plan. You’re not cutting that Down to the sidewalk level.

00:20:10,770	Correct or are you gonna leave it elevated a little bit or No? There’s a whole new civil plan for this for that regrade that whole, there’s a whole redo there. So you’re gonna are you gonna cut that, then to make it the same level as the sidewalk is, there is jamie on this call. We. We had our architects and civil engineer that we’re gonna Different. WebEx. Yeah.

00:20:28,500	Uh, they were provided, uh, the link that they do not appear to be on the call, OK? Um, we have This. We have submitted those civil engineering documents to the city. For those changes that so this is gonna work right? They take care of that we take So. So. So right now we’re currently is there’s a huge right there.

00:20:47,570	That’s all being cut back because The city asked us to Right when they just off the line on the back. And then, um Addressing the traffic flow and all that stuff. There’s actually some Great. That’s gonna be done Do so. With, my engineer. Autonomous call so you can answer it a little bit.

00:21:17,330	Clearly, but I anticipate that not having Other questions We have the gentleman at the podium. You think So. I’m thinking the fence requirement on the south side. Thank you if it’s for no other reason than ornamentation is kind of Goofy. I mean it seems to be to me unnecessary. If Comm..

00:21:42,400	I would I would agree with that? Because I mean It’s like putting up. Putting up a of a 11 wall. Wall. I mean why would you? Why would you do that? If? It’s not aesthetically gonna gonna go back to the north or if they’re not able to use it for security purposes, Um It does seem To be Um, unnecessary.

00:22:02,900	I mean and on the bright side of this, This is a very good solution. That corner has been ever since they took the Bank of North Dakota down. It’s. It’s kind of been an eyesore and they’re coming here to clean it up. So II. I applaud them for that.

00:22:19,930	Yes, we we We also anticipate, um, damage to any sort of fence in that area due to snow removal, heavy winters, stuff like that, So. That’s a big concern of ours of putting something up and then potentially damaging it with Snow removal equipment as well. So to be clear is the fence.

00:22:35,930	In or out of the plan that we’re being asked to approve on the South side. I Authority chair Christensen and authority members. I will add one clarification before I answer that question, and I conveyed this to their engineer consultants as well.

00:22:59,500	The, the design guidelines and streetscape standards are not necessarily requirements in the same way that ordinance is, but they do try outline a a series of preferences to try maintain consistency amongst projects such as, uh, The decorative fence or railing would help provide a similar street edge feeling as if there was a building built to the property line there to call it a requirement is perhaps not an accurate framing I.

00:23:26,070	I was under the impression that this included that but again, not necessarily a strict requirement. OK? The only comment that I would make it I. I would rather see it consistent between the two faces than inconsistent so either it’s offense or it’s no fence. It would be my suggestion. Either solution seems apparently personally, I feel that the fence as some aesthetics to the to the site.

00:23:49,470	But it only if you wrap the corner with it, so But. I don’t know if we can impose that condition on So Property next to it on the East probably doesn’t have anything like that. Along the Treated so, but they’re not before us. No.

00:24:13,230	They aren’t but I’m just saying you were talking about consistency and there’s nothing over there that we need to be consistent with. And there’s No other Even like this, except for when you get to Fifth of Maine, right? The security. Well, the new depot will be similar.

00:24:37,230	It’s not like Authority Authority members if I may add, there is at least one other example on the south side of Maine, uh, across from, um The clay in that general area. There is one there as well. The designs can can vary, of course, but again, not necessarily a requirement. Strictly speaking. OK? So. We can express our preference, but Can impose it, I guess so. Other questions or comments. Wishes. Action.

00:25:11,200	Move to approve of the staff recommendations. Second Without F. Yeah. What. I was Yeah, without fans. Glad we strong armed into that? No I. I thought that the the consensus after Isaac’s statements was that we can’t make them put the fence there so Anyway. So. Essentially, that’s correct without Yeah.

00:25:47,170	I moved to approve a staff recommendations without any request for offense there on the South side. You can always ask requirement. Seconded by I Still second that second seconded by Comm. Zinker any further discussion. On. Call the roll, please. Sandra Comm. fink. Dvorak. Yes Gavrilo. Yes guy? Yes Monson Zinker Christensen? Yes. That motion carries Item four on the agenda.

00:26:17,530	Thank you guys. Um Thank you for your continued investment in downtown Bismarck. We appreciate it. Our coal gas station repair. Isaac is going to bring us up to speed on that.

00:26:51,070	OK chair Christensen Authority members are final Regular agenda item is a downtown design review approval request from, uh, Parkland USA Corporation at 406 North Sixth Street. This is a Little more unique one in the sense that, uh, This.

00:27:13,430	Perhaps some who, uh, work or have been around this particular gas station are aware that this gas station was hit by a car? Uh, recently And so this request is to repair some damage to the gas station as shown on the screen before you as well as an attachment to your staff report. The reason it is coming for design Review is strictly because when When discussed.

00:27:38,170	It is, of course in the downtown zoning district, and when discussed how they would handle the repair to the exterior structure if they were going to replace the Exterior with the pre-existing white brick facade, much like the rest of the building. We would not require downtown design review because it would not be considered an alteration to the exterior facade. The applicant did express a desire to use the proposed, uh, nicha architectural block. Gray as shown on the screen and staff reports.

00:28:04,200	The owner had expressed an intent to at some point in the future, re redo and alter the entire exterior of the gas station as they are trying to do that with some various gas stations they own around town, and they believed it was prudent or at least made more sense to not repair the damage to the old brick, knowing that perhaps A year or

00:28:24,130	two years from now, they would then take that away, much with all the rest of the brick and then Put on the new siding, so they thought it made the most sense to put in the new sighting in this particular spot, but not the rest of the building, and because that is considered an alteration.

00:28:39,870	That is why it is before you today for downtown design review. Um, staff upon reviewing ordinances and design guidelines find that it is generally consistent with these in terms of the the color and materials being proposed, and based on the above findings staff recommends approval of the proposed design for 406 North Sixth Street as presented

00:29:04,030	in all submitted documents and materials with the regular condition that any substantive revisions to the approved design must be reconsidered by Downtown Design Review Committee Prior to implementation. Thank you. Questions of staff on this particular item. Any architectural comments or questions. Or Yes E. The the existing material is a brick, he said. I believe so. Yes.

00:29:28,100	I just architecturally, I think Considering How that new Nietzsche H panel interfaces with the brick at that outside corner is kind of important. If it’s just a A material change at an outside corner. It’s gonna look a little odd. So I. There’s there’s maybe ways to address that. Perhaps.

00:29:45,130	They could wrap it around the corner a little bit to create a change of plane. Um, but it I guess it’ll look a little odd until they finish wrapping the whole building with with the new material that sounds like what is what they’re planning to do so OK, good.

00:30:02,230	I was gonna say, are they Going to wrap it up now or are they gonna do it like six months or a year from now? Do. We have a timeline when they’re gonna finish that out. So a 30 member. Devo can authority members at large. They have not specified an exact timeline of when they anticipate, um the alteration to the rest of the building.

00:30:21,630	They just They weren’t necessarily planning on doing this portion of the building now, but because it was damaged, they thought it would make more sense to put in the new material on this section rather than go to the old material and then take that away and put in the new material when they decided they were ready to do

00:30:36,870	the whole building. If. That makes sense. I think they’d want to get it going if the plywood down But yeah, but it I think it’s gonna look a little funny. And how long are they gonna have this half done Building. It look like but Other questions.

00:30:58,200	Is the mansard stay, as is The port, The lettering is and the chair Christensen and authority members know Proposed changes have been Re relevant to the mansard and the Other questions. Staff recommends approval. I’m sorry I would move approval with, uh, staff recommendations. Second Further discussion. I Y.

00:31:24,930	To address our our consultants concerns about the wrapping, I think is is worthwhile without a time frame of knowing when this Rest of the building will be addressed. Uh, I think it’s worthwhile to at least have our consultants work with them to to find some accommodation around wrapping that around the corner and ensuring that that corner is not just a harsh change.

00:31:43,530	Um, if this lasts any number of years, it will be a It’ll be an eyesore. If you want to include that in your motion original motion and the 2nd 2nd who seconded it. Yep. Yeah. I agree to that. Authority members. Can. We get a clarification as to what exactly the wording of this, uh to find.

00:32:08,130	I mean the The applicant will will, uh, consult with our technical advisors to find a an accountable solution to the corner. Technical advisers and staff. There you go. OK, thank you. Clear as mud, Sandra. Sure Good. No further discussion. Call the roll, please. Comm. DeVore. Yes. Gavrilo. Yes guy? Yes munson. Yes zenker. Yes. Think yes Chair Christiansen.

00:32:41,000	Yes. That motion carries. So there being no further business. Huh? I turned the mic on. We’ll move on to other business, which includes review of Renaissance Zone development plan, bylaws and ordinance, and we’ll start with daniel with the development plan. Good evening Chair Christensen Authority members.

00:33:02,700	So last month, all of you reviewed an outline of changes that need to be made to your I. Guess. I’ll say, um, authoritative documents for the Renaissance Authority, Uh, we received some feedback from that meeting. Uh and now we have some language that has been proposed to you and submitted in the packet from last week. Uh, what I’ll do.

00:33:21,330	I’ll maybe just describe the process for these and then I won’t go through line by line like we did last time, but I’ll maybe highlight some of the content that you might want to pay attention to. So all three of these documents the Renaissance on development plan. The Ordinance.

00:33:39,400	The Ordinance, Uh, in particular, Um, Title seven and the bylaws all have a different procedure, so we’ll probably wanna make sure they go hand in hand. However, we’ll follow a different pathway. Uh, the the development plan will have a public hearing with you. And then once You are able to approve this, so we’ll go to the city Commission. And.

00:33:57,530	Then from there, Uh, the Devone plan itself establishes that that process the by laws you can change at will. You can do that today if you wanted to, Although. We may recommend waiting and doing them together. The. Uh, you You have full authority over the bylaws yourself, Uh, the City Ordinance.

00:34:15,900	Of Course City Commission makes that decision You do not need to hold a public hearing for that, Uh, we’re bringing it to you, Uh, for your guidance and your, uh Foundation, and then we we could present that to the City Commission for two readings. Uh and then, uh, potentially their final approval, So. That’s how they would all move forward.

00:34:33,470	So today. Um, this is your first look at the language. Uh, I know we already have some revision suggested by authority member fink, who is provided them to me, um in advance, And, So. I have those changes.

00:34:49,600	Uh, if there are any other changes, you could either communicate those today or, um, get them to be in some other way. And. Uh, once you are ready, and you I feel like it’s um It’s set a position where you can move forward. We can call the public hearing, uh, with with this body. So. That’s. That’s the process.

00:35:08,600	Uh, for these, maybe I’ll stop if there’s any questions related to the process, questions about the process continue, Please OK so with the development plan, I think the sections you may want to note more. Clearly. It’s page if you turn to page 27 through 29 of the new development plan, uh, the This is a new section related to the project benefits.

00:35:31,600	Uh, and this section is intended to With the request of the burly county and the letter of intent issued by the city Commission, uh, along with some discussion that Occurred at this this body last meeting. So. This outlines the income tax exemption. Uh, and the property tax exemption and how that property tax exemption in particular would be calculated. And So.

00:35:55,600	Basically, the baseline would be determined at the time of application. However. There is some language in here that gives you the ability to alter that based on demolitions that may occur, uh, with the project now there is also some language in here related to the historic character.

00:36:15,870	Uh, that was Issue that came up during the last meeting, and I believe there is a maybe some hesitancy to be incentivizing. A demolition of an historic um, building, so there’s some language in here that allows you to essentially not count the demolition as a part of, um, a as adjusting the baseline if they are demolishing in historic building as defined in in the plan. So.

00:36:38,870	It gives the discretion to this body and, of course, also the City Commission, which you are making recommendations to, uh now, but on on average, you would on the average project. It would be the assessed value at the time of application that would be used. And. Then the improved value would be determined at the time of improvement.

00:36:57,130	We don’t know exactly what that will be. The. Assessing department determines that when they come back in after the project is completed, however, staff would give an estimate to you, uh and and then to carry on to the city commission. So.

00:37:14,530	You do have some idea of what? That, Uh, increment value will be and in turn what the exemption value would be. So. That’s How the baseline and the increment would be determined and then we’ve left two options for you to consider, Uh, for the determination of the actual exemption. Uh, the option one follows to the letter.

00:37:35,600	Uh, the way the letter of intent was written and requested by Bria County, which is simply, uh, only the increment would be exempted. The Baseline would not, Uh, option two allows each taxing entity to vary the proportion of the baseline of The taxation. Uh, And of course, we don’t know what those proportions would be, Um, we know that burly counties would be zero and that is their request.

00:37:55,800	Um, the others We don’t and so I should note the state of North. Dakota is also a beneficiary of this property tax exemption two. So. That’s a question, maybe to to deal with with that as well. So those those are the two options before you and perhaps I’ll stop at that one before we’re getting on to another.

00:38:12,930	I think that’s a good stopping off point discussion? I. I’ve got a couple items, uh, on the demolition. Is there a reason that you’re only, uh, looking at this three year look back for historic I. I would prefer it to apply to all properties. So Authority member Galileo. The, UM It could apply to all Certainly We.

00:38:35,770	We were taking cues from, I guess the hesitancy to be incentivizing demolition of historic buildings, but I suppose if they were to demolish a non historic building, uh, that could be exempted from the baseline in order to allow that to be exempted, for example, uh, the budget in maybe could be a good example.

00:38:58,670	Um, if they were to demolish that they would essentially be starting from zero Assessment. Oh May may Maybe I’m understanding language backwards then because I thought that this was saying that if it’s been demolished in the last three years, then the demolition wouldn’t Be excluded from the exemption three member GR so the way the intention at

00:39:21,600	least I should say is that that would apply only if you were deeming this an historic building in order to refrain from incentivizing that but a non historic building would be valued at the time. Of the demolition. Prior to the demolition or after the demolition.

00:39:46,230	But doesn’t that incentivize the demolition? Yeah? So? We if we wanna avoid that, then, shouldn’t we look at if there’s been a demolition and maybe the exemption should be, you know if the structure was destroyed by fire, then you know the demolition really isn’t demolition, but, uh, You know, I.

00:40:03,830	I think that it is an issue because you don’t want You know there to be an incentive in in the the rules for Perfectly good buildings. We knocked down just to start over. Uh, so is there. I mean if if there would be interest at the table to word this in such a way that The The demolition does not count. If.

00:40:28,630	It’s been done in the last three years so you can’t knock it down and then come back a month later and ask for an exemption based on the new value. If that’s the wishes of authority. I’ll write it that way. Chair if I can please and if we go back to the budget in conversation its current market value, according to the tax records is a million $353,000.

00:40:49,730	So if they tear it down. What’s the value? In this process. Zero improvements or no, it would be the land value the land value only because it’s no exemption anyway, so that’s the biggest concern. Be the county is going to have is that value should baseline at million three, not at zero. Yeah.

00:41:14,230	But in this particular instance, which we just heard earlier. We can’t force them to keep a building that is shot. Correct, Correct, I think the right That’s where the value is coming from the improvements. So if the improvements are gone Uh, it seems common sense that we’re going to deal with the land value. Me. Yeah.

00:41:32,930	I think that the county might have a problem with the spirit of that because The Then we are in. We are putting ourselves in the position of determining whether there is value there.

00:41:57,000	When, if if if there’s no value there, why is it being assessed a million dollars? Correct? So, you know, are we assessing properties that are worthless and charging people taxes for them that That’s a separate issue, but, uh, you know, and and Maybe. There needs to be some sort of Process in there, but if they haven’t gotten a previous abatement to declare that the property is essentially worthless. Before. They demo it then.

00:42:20,100	They are the then the baseline should remain where it is prior to demo. Is. Is there a Way to do that elegantly that Would allow for if there is If. They have come in for an abatement to declare that the property is worthless prior to demolition. Then maybe that is the exemption.

00:42:43,530	But if they have not sought for the tax situation to change, then they themselves have not acknowledged that it’s worthless prior to the demolition. In this particular instance. I think they just came. They just recently discovered some of the details, but to use your prior example if there’s a fire, and it’s almost entirely destroyed building Because you still hold their hold their no.

00:43:02,100	What’s the difference between fire damage and water damage. It’s an unusable. I, architecturally determining engineering determined to not be order of operations, I think would be the best answer to that. And and I the If. The issue is is To address the counties situation of their losing revenue due to the exemption. Then. The loss of revenue is not due to the exemption.

00:43:29,400	It’s due to the demo, and and then if we have a policy in here that That incentivizes the demo to get the exemption that we’re kind of. It’s kind of a, you know, circular situation, but I think that there there There’s.

00:43:51,530	There’s gotta be AAA better solution to remedy that to eliminate the incentive without punishing The owner. But. I would I would agree with chair Christensen’s Comment if it’s damaged due to fire For damage to the water. You know that value was gone. My. My County Comm. are are gonna look at this tax statement and say, you know value is a million dollars.

00:44:17,530	You know the tax? Uh do is $24,000. So At. What point does the building owner now that they found the issues? Have this reassessed at what point does common sense? Enter the discussions? What? I wanna know? Um well, one question, Mr Miss for Mr munson. Of that 24,000 how much of that goes to burly county? $2787 Dog. No.

00:44:44,330	That’s all I got. I remember having a conversation over 2000 bucks? I understand it. It’s a policy and I’m here representing OK. Thank you but that’s 11 property. There might be another situation that has higher numbers involved in the future. So That’s why you have policies.

00:45:08,600	Authority members if I may the one factor we have considered, is we We want the applicants to come to us as soon as we possible in their decision making process in order to make the program is more as effective as possible, so they know they’re getting this and then they decide to do the project. We.

00:45:26,870	There could be a potential if we require the demolition to occur first before they apply for the Renaissance zone. Uh, they may end up Moving forward and then coming to us after the demolition has already been done, and now the property is worthless.

00:45:43,900	And, then they can get their innocence on exemption from from zero so it it could incentivize people to wait. Hold on to a property longer and then move forward. Yeah. I mean Either way you’re gonna lose tax revenue because it’s a game to play. And if we put a three year time frame on demolishing a building to get a 0% tax exemption, that’s what they’re going to do.

00:45:59,600	At least someone is going to make that decision eventually. Can there not be a provision for a building that is damaged beyond repair, reasonably repairable that that makes the most sense. I mean, I.

00:46:18,130	Don’t think we’re gonna have a A rash of projects rushing in and say we want to tear down our building so that we bring the the the, uh The taxable value known to zero or to the land value only. But. I. Guess. I would for my chair. I would I would find it difficult as a policy to justify That it must be Due to fire or water or some some some if they wanna do it, it’s their building. Well.

00:46:45,270	I think what we’re talking about is buildings that are beyond repair. Or it makes financial sense to knock it down versus It’s not beyond repair, but financially for me in the way a project comes together.

00:47:04,630	I don’t want to use those materials in my project, and it makes more sense for me to to raise this site and start new but but it wasn’t damaged beyond repair now. OK? As long as it’s not historical. That’s a separate. That’s A separate issue. Yeah, it would I mean for for me personally historic. Would be a problem to begin with. Correct? Yeah.

00:47:27,100	But we also need to get into the definition of Historic Because all the downtown Bismarck is a historic district. Yeah. He he defines this work. It is defined anything contributing to capitalize individually listed in the National Register. So So. Do we think that there is a problem with The incentive issue of of demo or not. Because I. I mean I.

00:47:56,870	I’ve heard that from Multiple people that there might be an incentive to demo when it wouldn’t necessarily be the best route, so either there is a Incentive to address or there’s not My my my my view on it would be that if we put a look back period on demolition, there will be an incentive to de to demo. There’s No.

00:48:21,330	There’s no doubt in my mind that that’s that that’s going to happen. It’s still there’s still business people and they’re still gonna have to make a financial decision on whether it makes sense to demolish versus Get a lower tax exemption, but I’d like for the I’d like for the best possible product left over at the end of it, then I. Guess I’m.

00:48:40,930	I’m less worried about it. How. Much discretion. Does this body have Project by Project. Ah 30 if they come to us and say we want to demolish it. We have three years have passed. Whatever I’d say as much as is written in here and all the taxing needs are willing to accept from the state level.

00:49:02,470	I think you have words at the discretion of the authority, Mr Chair. One of the suggestions I made to Daniel was was to fully remove the three year requirement and simply say if it’s if it’s I’m gonna get the wording of probably a little bit incorrectly.

00:49:20,730	But if it’s of consequence, as per the authority, like if we think that demolition is as a is of consequence, or this thing was knocked down three years ago, and it’s been sold twice, and it’s like it’s gonna be is that of consequence or it’s knock down a year ago, and now we have someone that wants to move forward with.

00:49:36,670	It was that of consequence, or was it the same owner that was looking at getting a tax exemption and wanted to wait three years? That’s a consequence to me? But. It technically meets the three year requirement so that it doesn’t matter if we get rid of the three year and we can look at these on a case by case basis like it is of the

00:49:51,530	discretion of the authority of if that is of consequence, then we can worry about it. The other language that I pushed for on this would be that it is whether there’s an exact whether there’s it’s not mandatory. If. You. Wanna knock down a historic building. We have the option of doing this of of of maintaining that value.

00:50:10,100	But. You’re not forced to, uh, take that demolition into consideration. And when it comes to the value, so it gives more authority to this authority in making those decisions on a case by case basis. I think, quantifying it as a number of years or a specific period of time would be the wrong route to go.

00:50:33,270	Simply because they will play that game. Yeah someone will. Absolutely so so we would instruct staff to craft some language that makes it clear that it is ultimately at the discretion of this authority, whether they use consequential or some other synonym far as dustin is concerned on if it’s only the historic buildings or

00:50:53,000	not, Uh, if that makes or breaks the difference, Uh, between Get an approval from the other taxing districts. We need to worry about then then it’s of concern to me.

00:51:12,530	But if it is giving us the authority or the ability to care about non historic I, I is just fine with me, Uh, one way or the other. I. I think that the only time that that comes into play is if it is outside of the historic district and is something else and this was just something that was brought up by several people said even that that the the county meeting and you know it made sense that it might be an issue,

00:51:30,400	so that was my contention, and maybe it’s a dollar threshold or something that rather than three years if it impacts You know the county reduces it by a certain level, then maybe it has to meet a certain higher scrutiny at the discretion, right? I think that at discretion of the authority makes the most sense.

00:51:52,200	Gives us broad Remote control. Thank you Understood. And hopefully, there’s still some common sense out there. Project like the one we saw earlier. Yeah, hopefully even the ones that don’t have any common sense can have some common sense when it comes to a building that’s got to be torn down. And and, uh, chair Christensen.

00:52:12,470	I mean that could be one of the things that we require to right if they’re bringing something and saying, Hey, we need to demolish this. I mean Mr El came up and gave his professional his professional opinion and they’ve done that.

00:52:28,370	They’ve done the R and D on it, and they can provide that report, too, it says, Say it’s beyond structural, you know, at that time, so we as a as a board can make that decision that Pretty. Good point have to prove it. Yeah. Yeah! All. Right. Moving right along. Yep.

00:52:44,830	Thank you, Uh So one other thing I want to highlight on page 30 related to the Constitution of this board Now, the way the board is Made up is actually in the development plan. The Ordinance just establishes the authority to create a board but actually how it’s constituted in here. Uh, we’ve discussed a lot of this, and I think there’s already been a consensus on on who would be invited to be members of this this board.

00:53:02,730	The only thing added here is that if the if any case in any case, the county school board or Park board choose not to appoint a member, uh they would have the option to do that. We don’t know that the school Board and Park board would like to to have a member.

00:53:20,570	Uh, the city commission would appoint in their stead an at large for three years member and in each three years, they’d have the option to exercise there. Their ability to have a board member on on this authority. Uh, so that’s the only thing we we added, Um, to make sure we’re covering that contingency.

00:53:36,470	But other than that, I think it’s Daniel. Can. I interject there. So, uh, Bored and daniel. So with that when you when you pick out the burly county commission, public schools and stuff like that, and then you say, a a three year term, my only concern there is that Typically, um, on those election cycles.

00:54:00,400	That’s when portfolios get kind of dispersed amongst those entities, So if you have somebody in there that has that three year term, and then that board has whatever person wants to do something and be part of the the RZ board. Then. How. Do. We handle that. So, Yeah, I think it’s a good point. Comm.

00:54:16,630	has anchor um, board so so the intent here is and I I can make try to make sure it’s clear if it’s not. Is that that through your term only applies to the Five at large members that the appointees of the different commissions would be there for life, I suppose for the remainder of their term with that commission or or at the

00:54:34,670	wishes of that commission that portfolio holder correct Yeah. Good. Yeah. So are you gonna Daniel, is there you clear that up and here? I. I was obviously I read it and was confused, But. I’m not the smartest person at the table so Do. We just wanna We’ll do that.

00:54:55,900	I have one very quick question on this, Uh, when it comes to quorum. Uh, Can. We do that in. Can. We fix it in the bylaws so that it’s present rather than a pointed or or to make sure make sure that that doesn’t become a problem if you have more members just not showing up. A quorum of those present.

00:55:17,200	I mean so three people show out of Fif 15 or whatever. What is the number we’re gonna end up, potentially, it would be 999. I’m pretty sure you have to have five. Mhm. OK, I City attorney left, but I’m pretty sure I could see an issue there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

00:55:40,370	Other questions or comments on that section. The only do I know you have these already, but just for the other board, the other clarification I made on this one was that it would to not force the city commission’s hand to have to appoint someone should one of the boards not wanna have someone on there.

00:55:57,800	Um, I’ve I’ve kind of gone back and forth about this a couple of times. But but The fact that the that the mayor simply doesn’t reserve a, uh, a position for someone that the boards Put forward at an at large appointment just to seems backwards to me and why we wouldn’t just say we’re gonna keep the board membership and and And.

00:56:19,870	If you appoint someone from the board? He does If. He doesn’t he doesn’t, uh They’re still going to recommend who goes there, and they’re gonna be able to resign their position any time they need to. Uh, but I understand the approach. Yeah. Thank you 30 member pink.

00:56:36,070	I’ve I’ve noted that and and obviously they can decide what they would like to do anyway. So I think it’s better to reflect that. OK? Other questions or comments. Moving right along, Danielle. OK, the only other, uh major change would be to the hunt Page 34, we’ve added in an amended section to the development plan, which actually wasn’t in there at all before.

00:56:58,830	It was just done by public hearing. Um, but that wasn’t really ever specified anywhere. Uh, so this um I believe this reflects pretty much the discussion that we had last month without really any Controversy.

00:57:20,600	I believe the just maybe outline the way it would work as soon as this body, Uh, recommends approval in a public hearing of any amendment to development plan that includes boundary adjustments, textual amendments. Um anything Uh, it goes to the City commission. First. The way This works is the City commission If. They say no, it stops there.

00:57:41,030	Um if they approve the amendment, and it does go to the other three taxing Entities County Schools Park board and then among those three it would need a majority support. So any any two out of three would need to support it by votes of their own boards for it to be then submitted to the state and then the state would be the one to make the final decision. That’s how this is written.

00:57:56,930	We we hadn’t had that hashed out exactly last, Uh, last meeting. Um, but that’s our proposal. We can make any changes as you wish. Comments on that item. I can see a problem there. Mr chair If.

00:58:23,630	I could the the I guess the only comment? Well, the com from it, I’ll start with start off making would be We need the county. And the school board. To approve the plan. If, either of those two Don’t prove the plan on a renewal basis We’re done. Park doesn’t get a say. This They get a say, because the city says they want to have a say from parks. Uh I. I don’t think it’s worthwhile.

00:58:46,670	I think I think you you walk a fine line if if Parks can override something the county and or the school board doesn’t wanna do. You know I.

00:59:05,300	I would be fearful of that, and I think we need to keep the focus on making sure that the county Uh and the schools are satisfied with the plan. Um if we want to continue to go to the park board, great, uh, but really, as an authority member, I only care about two of those But hypothetically. What if the Parks board Voted not to support the renewal. It doesn’t matter to the state.

00:59:26,170	But con concurrence of the county and schools with input from the parks. I think that that’s the only way to fix that problem. I’m fine with that we we’ve always included them. They don’t have a veto. But they’ve never said no either. Why. Do. You keep looking at me. OK? So Because are we is daniel clear on how we want that.

00:59:52,730	I am clear. I can make the changes. Um other Comments, questions We are up against the five o’clock hour the witching hour, but we’ve got more to cover and I know Daniel is still So. There is one more. I’d like to go back and just look at those Daniel mentioned do an option one option two.

01:00:15,670	I was in my only comment at this point is, is that I? Would? I would suggest Option two allowing the city to make its own decision on making its own program as effective as possible, and we have schools and Park board and the state of North Dakota, which really doesn’t get a say, but, uh, that agree 100% of the

01:00:36,600	baseline should be exempted. With the county saying No. It shouldn’t be, uh, so allowing the program to be as effective as possible. Is, probably the in the best interest for the program.

01:00:56,370	The city runs uh and I, so that’s why I encourage us to go that route with 100% attributed to All of them except the county. From a standpoint, daniel, is that workable? So, I. I’ve had a conversation with our, uh Al V Meyer, uh, who would be the one implementing this the burly county? Um, and this is the Bernard County, so just to be clear, the city assesses the properties and assigns evaluation in the county

01:01:15,470	collects the taxes So the proportionality would be the responsibility of the county to collect at that proportion. Um, my understanding is that would not be easy to do. You have to create separate taxing districts just for the Renaissance own program to allocate them out of proportional basis.

01:01:34,000	Um, we may have heard some different we may have had some different conversations, so I think we’ll need to clarify that with, um Alvi Meyer. However. My understanding is that this would be a challenge for burly county to implement in a practical manner. And when I spoke with him, he didn’t give any sort of indication that it would be a problem at all.

01:01:52,300	So that I I encourage Daniel let let’s have that conversation again and just make sure we’re clear what we’re intending. And and I. I think that treating all the political subdivisions equally would be the path of least resistance. So So.

01:02:11,130	We either invite Mr Beat Meyer to our next meeting and continue this or Decide to kill that snake right now. So? So. You’re saying we should go with option one. No, no. I Mhm. And. My. My rationale is is option one is is easier. There’s no doubt about that, but it makes the program I think for the letter. Someone drafted for this about 21% less effective. And it’s the city’s Project. Like.

01:02:43,230	The, the amount of of I forget. I think it was 23? Yeah. By the way let’s go with whatever the letter says. 30 member. I just maybe reference that I did include that in the packet. I haven’t highlighted it for you, but that was a request of of me.

01:03:01,300	So over the last 10 years if you look at all the projects on average 23% of a project would be the baseline and the remainder would be in the incremental value. So throw. Remember fink is correct if if we were to move to this direction, it would make the program 23% less effective overall. Move in which direction option one option one.

01:03:23,530	It also Opposition. Or 100% percentage just work. But I. I understand where you’re coming from? Yeah. I think we need more information on option two. We’ll continue the discussion before we make a decision. Okay? We’re probably not gonna get this all done today.

01:03:57,270	Rome wasn’t built in a day as Bruce used to say yes and Them to point out, Um If. You go to page 23 of the plan. The Section II. I the lowercase I We talk about current True and full valuation and then down below on that table. It’s percent of the assessed value. I think we’re talking about the same thing.

01:04:27,470	Then back in the definitions we define it with, um Current taxable value. I mean That’s the term that we define in the definition so we should call it current taxable value all the way through or change the word that we’re defining in the definitions one or the other. Thank you as member guys.

01:04:49,030	That may be something that caught already, but we’ll make sure make sure of that. That’s All I Had. I have a bunch of typos that I can just email to daniel. We don’t have to. Yeah, that’s good through one by one, please. And that stands for everyone. Um, if you get something to me, I’ll, make sure they get some good.

01:05:08,330	I’ve never known Daniel to make but must have been his staff. Um Again. I know you have to be elsewhere. I’m supposed to be elsewhere, and probably others are too So. Can we, uh, move the bylaws discussion to the next meeting agenda as well and the ordinance as well.

01:05:31,870	Everybody OK with that, OK? Do you have? Do they involve golf, either one of them. So, So. No report from the That’s no report from the downtowner today duly noted. Um, I’d have made on the ejection on the ejection. The election. Yes Item eight on the agenda is election of officers. Do. We do this annually dan or every other I? I.

01:06:01,470	Honestly, don’t remember. I thought we just did it, too, But. This is done annually. It was on the agenda last month, but we never actually did it so all the time. OK? Um Who are the current officers. I know who the chair is? Who’s the vice chair, vice chair. That’s it for officers.

01:06:24,670	I’ll make a motion to leave the current officers in place sounds like a railroad job to me, joe, you get to do continue doing all the work. Should. We be asking if they’re willing That’s not how this works. That’s not how that’s not how railroad works. It’s concert. Tu. Are there any further nominations, We’ll close the nominations and call the roll.

01:06:50,800	Please Comm. Gavrilo. Yes guy. Munson. Zenker. Dvorak. Yes, Chair. I was going to vote. No if you voted. No, No, We’re only two beginning somebody should vote. Is that a Yes Chair Christensen? Yes. If. There is no further business in hearing and seeing none of that There’s no objection.

01:07:15,870	We stand adjourned until It’s a date on the next one here April 11th. Thanks everybody for your participation in all your