It is Thursday, November 13th.

We are in the Tom Baker room of the city county building.

This will be the Board of City Commissioners regular meeting.

But before we start, if Chaplain Chafey would be so kind as to lead us in prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you for your service.

It's an honor to get to pray to the gate to pray today.

So we all stand or pray.

So deal.

Okay.

Let's pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank you, and we come to you in faith.

And we are grateful for your goodness and your faithfulness to us.

We repent of our sin, known and unknown.

Forgive us because of the price Jesus paid for us.

Thank you for your freedom that you have given us.

We ask for your Holy Spirit to cast out evil and bring your presence of health and wholeness.

We ask for your supernatural provision, protection, favor, and health for our leaders as they steward your blessings and courage to follow your desire for us as a city and state and nation.

Guide and direct us, give dreams and visions for the days and years ahead so that we may be all that you created us to be.

May we work to serve you and one another in joy and peace, and may your kingdom come in growing measure on earth as it is in heaven.

And we ask this in your son's name, Jesus.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Before we have public comment, I want to note a couple of uh changes to the agenda on item on the regular agenda.

Items 3F and 3G have been pulled because we needed to get better notice out or proper notice if missed the deadline.

So those items will not be heard today.

And then just for information purposes only, we're gonna flip items A and B around in order on the regular agenda.

With that noted, this is our opportunity for public comment.

Public comment is for the consent agenda, or anything on the regular agenda that is not a public hearing, or anything from the prior meeting.

So anyone who would wish to speak, please come forward, uh sign in, state your name, and let us know what the topic is.

Oh sorry, forgot that.

Apologize.

We need to call roll first.

Nobody caught me.

We're so excited to be here on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday.

We're just off a little bit.

Sorry, can we call roll, please?

Commissioner Rish.

Here.

Commissioner Zanker?

Here.

Commissioner Cleary?

Here.

Mayor Smith.

Here.

Now we'll go to public comment, so we're official.

Evening.

Evening.

Trying to forgot your pen.

Oh, there it goes.

I have a handout if I can approach drop it off.

Certainly.

Finish filling this.

Can you for your the record just state your name?

Sir, I will.

Make sure I keep a copy for myself.

There's only nine.

For the record, my name is Carl Young.

I'm a citizen of the city of Bismarck.

I've appeared before the commission before.

Uh day line November 13th, 2025.

Mayor Schmidt's commissioners and city staff.

I do see that Commissioner Connolly is absent.

Thank you for so which which topic is.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, this is in relation to the strategic plan and city sales tax.

Okay.

Okay.

Um just a minute.

Is there a sales tax?

There hasn't been a sales tax discussion.

No, just it is.

Uh, what in the last agenda or this agenda?

The last agenda is what I was told.

Just a minute.

I mean the strategic plan is on tonight, so talk about it at the re in regards to the strategic plan.

If you'd like me to delay, I can.

But I would like to enter something into the record.

Okay.

I want to make sure we're yes, I understand, sir.

I I don't recall it, so that's my understanding is it was on the previous uh agenda, but I do know that you're talking about strategic plan.

We are talking strategic plan later tonight.

Yes.

Jason.

Mayor and Commissioners, uh, a quick check of the last couple of agendas, uh, the two in October.

Uh just doing a brief search for the word tax.

Um we had a tax topic related to the CBB lodging tax.

That was at the uh October 14th Commission meeting.

Uh but there was nothing related to half cent sales tax on or either agenda in October tax, other than the lodging tax.

Correct.

Okay.

Then I was misinformed.

Okay.

Can I speak regarding the topic for tonight?

Or do I need to wait?

You can speak to the strategic plan.

Yes.

But but not, I mean, we don't have sales tax on our agenda.

Okay, but I can speak to this strategic plan, which mentions I can't have a picture of part of it here.

Um evaluate and implement the infrastructure fee or uh approve home rule charter amendment ballot language.

It's part of the strategic plan.

Sure.

Okay.

Uh let's start over.

Mayor Schmidt's commissioners and city staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh our committee, a number representative of a committee who has brought forth uh uh initiated measure proposal to circulate for signatures to get it on our on the ballot in June.

Uh we're here to request one thing, and that is approval of the wording of our initiated measure so we may begin circulation of the petition under Article 5 of the Bismarck Home Rule Charter.

We're not asking for an endorsement.

We're not asking you to support our idea.

We're simply asking the city to follow the process Article 5 requires.

We first submitted our measure on May 23rd, and since then we've met with city staff, the city administrator, Commissioner Zenker and Connolly, the city engineer, and we have appeared before this commission.

We have adjusted our wording and formatting many times in good faith.

And throughout this process, we've been told different things at different times.

We asked for a formatting template, we were told the city doesn't have one.

We were told to follow the state state template.

So we went to the Secretary of State's office and asked them.

They told us the city has its own requirements.

And then today, we're told the template is simply the existing charter itself.

Each template, each copy of the petition that we've introduced to the city attorney has been based on the uh measure that we initiated in 2023 and was voted on in 2024.

So we understand that the current city attorney is new and did not participate in that process through 2024.

But for the citizens, the legal standard has not changed.

Last year, with the public safety and transit measure, none of these formatting obstacles were applied.

The commission approved the wording and allowed circulation exactly as Article 5 prescribes.

Our submissions thus far have been modeled after the formatting we use for the 2024 initiated measure.

Article 5 guarantees Bismarck voters the right to initiate ordinances and charter amendments.

It requires only two things.

Submit the full text and receive approval for the wording so circulation may begin.

That approval is simply a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.

The city may oppose the measure on its merits, but it may not block the circulation.

Under North Dakota Century Code 32-34-01, a writ of mandemus applies when a public body has clear legal duty and citizens have no other adequate remedy.

Both conditions exist here.

Without approval our wording of our wording, we cannot circulate petitions without circulation.

We cannot reach the required signatures without signatures.

The measure never reaches the voters.

This is precisely the type of governmental obstruction writ of mandamus is designed to prevent.

We want to avoid litigation.

We want cooperation and not conflict.

But we will also protect the rights of Bismarck voters to use the legal process allowed to them.

So tonight we respectfully ask that you approve the wording of our initiated measures so we may begin circulating the petition and allow citizens, not the commission, not the staff, and not process barriers to decide this question at the ballot box.

So to be clear and transparent.

If our wording is not approved for circulation by the next city commission meeting, our committee will file a writ of mandamus in district court to compel the city to perform its legal duty under Article 5.

We hope that that will not be necessary.

We hope that the city will follow the same lawful process it used in 2024, despite changes in the personnel.

We believe strongly in the role of citizens in shaping Bismarck's future, and we hope that you'll let the people exercise their right to participate in that process.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I'm going just because I want clarification at the moment, I'm going to ask city attorney.

Actually, I understand they could file the petition.

Right?

The city commission doesn't have to approve this.

Correct.

But we're asking the city commission.

The city commission does not have to approve it, and likely because of what we have planned.

I would I would have a hard time approving as long as they as long as law is followed.

So we're asking to follow the law.

That's all we're asking.

And Mayor and Commissioners, so I have met with Mr.

Young and I have looked at his petition several times, and I have been emailing with him just today.

And again, I don't look at the substantive aspect of his petition.

I just look at the formatting.

The formatting has been incorrect.

And I even met with him and told him to use the state legislative manual, the guide that the state puts out, because we follow that as well.

So there's really just indentation errors.

There's tax that needs to be underlined because it's new tax within the body of the petition.

Some tax needs to be stricken.

And the most recent one, there was, for example, a subsection D that didn't match anything that we had in our ordinance currently in the Home Rule Charter, and it wasn't underlined, and I specifically mentioned that to Mr.

Young in an email today, and there was a new subsection three that was completely underlined, but I don't know where it goes because the formatting is off.

And so I suggested to him that he follow the formatting that we have in home rule charter now with there's a letter or a number, a letter, and then an indent, so you can follow along and then following the state manual and general legislative drafting guidelines.

We have to overstrike and underline old text and new text.

And I'm not arguing that.

So then just work to get, I mean, I think she's trying to help you get your compliance in place.

So I'm, you know, the city commission can't say yes or no to this.

But we've asked her, we'll we can ask staff to comply, which I believe she's attempting to.

And I appreciate that.

Uh we did meet with Erica White from the Secretary State's office, and she gave me what they had and said the city's formatting is different.

That's all she said.

That's all she could help me with.

So uh I do appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Yep.

This is public comment.

Podium is open.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And uh commissioners.

My name is Wayne Martinison.

I live northeast of Bismarck, and I got uh land in this section 27 of Burncrick Township.

The east half of the east half, which is 106 acres.

And I've been here before and asked you for your help to get that ETA removed off my property.

Uh when that was put on, nobody ever asked me about that.

I wasn't notified by anybody that they just stuck it on there.

And it's time that comes off.

So I'm requesting that you guys remove it.

I would appreciate it.

I'll sign your deal here.

Any questions?

I'll be glad to ask them.

Any questions, anyone?

Commissioner Rich.

Mr.

Mayor Wayne, uh, we do have on our website you can plug in your location, it'll tell you whether or not you're inside or outside of the new ETA map.

I haven't seen the new map yet.

He he's, I believe, I know the parcel, and Daniel has already spoken with them and is our he's right on the edge of the ETA for the new map.

And there's a railroad splits my property.

I got some on each side of the railroad track.

So I sure appreciate it if you guys could remove that.

And if that doesn't work, I got some other neighbors out there that fall into the same category in Section 27.

They were like their land removed from that ETA too.

So we'll uh see what we can do, and hopefully you guys can get that changed, otherwise you'll see me again.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The podium is open.

Anyone else who wish to speak, please come forward.

A second call.

A third and final call.

Seeing no one and hearing no one, the public comment period is now closed.

Commissioners, what are your wishes with regard to the consent agenda?

Move to approve is presented.

Second.

Any discussion.

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Vish?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Moving to the regular agenda.

Um, will you go to again item B first?

It's considerate consider a recommendation from the Vision Fund Committee to support a local match for flex pace for interest buy down for New Freedom Center.

Um, you you get to step up to the podium.

How's that?

All good.

Mr.

Mayor and Commissioners, uh, before you in your packet, you have an application from New Freedom Family Center.

Uh it's for a BND at Flexpace Local Match from the Vision Fund.

That was approved back on October 23rd by the Vision Fund.

It's for a purchase of 1405, I think, skyline on the old best western uh hotel, and it's to be used as a substance abuse treatment center.

Um it's in the form of a loan payback after the buy down period is over, which is 20 months.

Um for a total term of 80 months.

So I will let the project introduce themselves, and if you have any questions for them, you can ask them.

If you have any questions for me, bring me back up.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Hello, uh, good evening.

Um, my name is Joshua Olsen, and my wife is NUS uh Swindler.

Uh thank you for the uh consideration of the uh um uh of the recommendation of the vision fund uh that was uh approved uh I think last month um uh for the buy down for new freedom center incorporated.

Uh just a real quick uh history and then I don't want to speak uh take up too much time.

Uh uh just like to answer some questions.

But New Freedom Center, uh, we've been around for 40 years, and this year we expanded to New Freedom Family Center, and that um focuses on a different dynamic, uh complete uh way different dynamic.

Uh they pregnant and parenting uh women and uh um uh we opened our doors in August, took it slow for a little while, and now we are we are full.

It uh it's uh we got um it's consists of the the motel setting with a little polish on it.

Each of the uh women in there have uh their own individual rooms uh uh join most of them uh joining uh to allow for uh the uh the parenting woman who can bring their their their dependents with them, their child.

Um and uh I'm uh very proud of this project.

Uh uh uh it's uh we are actually full right now, on our on our way to being full, and uh the building is uh uh beautiful, beautiful fit.

And uh other than that, um uh I would like to uh answer any questions.

I'm very proud of the project.

Sure.

And I'll just follow up because I heard the presentation at Vision Fund.

This is for the permanent financing, you're kind of under temporary financing as you bought the building and got it fit up, correct?

So now we're moving to the permanent financing, so the buy down is on the permanent financing for this facility, which is a needed facility in the community.

Any qu anybody else have questions?

Commissioner Rush?

Um Mr.

Mayor, Joshua.

Hey, thanks for doing this.

This is great.

But it's a big expensive project.

How are you able to fund it all?

Do you get donations?

Do you get um uh as far as the donations uh uh the cash donations we we haven't really uh made a big campaign for that?

We we do get the donations as far as clothing and and and toys and in games, and that's very much needed, and that's helps helped out a lot.

Um a good part of the uh of the funding has come from our own personal finances.

Uh it's um if I if I were to tell you why uh um uh it would take the rest of the night.

Uh I'm uh real quickly, uh about six years ago.

I I uh uh I was in I was very sick person, and uh now I'm on borrowed time.

Um this is uh way to give back, I guess.

Sorry.

Oh good, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I thank you for bringing it forward.

Um to approve is presented.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing then we'll call rolling Commissioner Cleary?

Yes, Commissioner Vis?

Yes, Commissioner Zenker?

Yes, Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Now we'll go to what was item A consider request to receive presentation from health management associates regarding the community triage center planning project.

Renee.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Um I'm happy to uh share that um we have community um triage center on the agenda.

If you recall several months ago, um city opioid uh dollars were utilized to put forth an effort to work with health management associates and uh community partners.

Uh we have a steering committee, several of members of which are here tonight.

So thank you to those that have uh shown up to support um the effort.

I just want to take the opportunity to introduce Paul Fleisner from Health Management Associates, who will be doing a presentation and then um having some um opportunity to ask questions and then discussion if needed.

Okay.

Thank you, Renee.

Um nice to meet you, Mayor Schmitz and Commissioners.

Paul Fleisner with Health Management Associates.

Uh been working in Health and Human Services for about 40 years.

Um most recently um I'm working for Health Management Associates, uh, which is a national um health and human services and housing uh consulting firm.

I'm based out of the Minnesota office and the managing principal for our Minnesota um work and in the region and started talking with Renee after getting connected, and um it was really clear that some of the work that was needed in Bismarck is similar to work I've done in my own community.

Um my background is uh social work and accounting.

I was a uh director of health and human services in a county in Minnesota homestead.

And uh we created a triage center as well.

It was a little different.

Um and I do this work all over the country the last four years.

Um the thing that's really struck me since I got here is um you have some really strong building blocks in Bismarck and the community members and the community service agencies have done some really good work to position yourself.

So want to walk through what that means.

Um you're probably not familiar with health management associates, but uh we have about 20 some offices around the country, and we really focus on uh the most vulnerable populations and how to serve them.

So what we talked about doing for Bismarck was an environmental scan and data review.

Uh we looked at things like your pit counts, which is um your homeless numbers and a variety of other things.

And we've been also looking at things like federal opportunities.

There's a lot of changing things going on, and there's some really timely opportunities as we look at it uh for filling some of the gaps you have in your community.

And we'll talk about that in more depth.

Stakeholder engagement, we've been talking with all the key stakeholders in your community.

We will talk about governance recommendations for your consideration, some financial considerations as you think about how you might fund what we're recommending, an implementation roadmap, and eventually a final report to this board.

So we set up a steering committee and a core group.

Your core group is uh well, we'll show you that in a second, and we'll talk a little bit about the project approach, our key findings related to community needs, related to model development, and implementation and operational funding, because funding is the tricky part in all these projects, as you know.

And one of the things I know, having worked for a uh Board of Commissioners for 28 years, is that levy is the most precious funding.

And so I think we have some ideas for you that um really help support this idea in your community that are not necessarily tied to levy as well.

So here's our core team has been your city leaders, and they've been really helpful guideposts, and they've introduced us to really keep people in the community, and then uh a steering committee of all some amazing organizations across your community.

And uh one of the things that strikes uh struck us is they have some really shared experiences with a population that you're struggling to serve that you see on your streets that law enforcement is trying to work with, but basically because you have some gaps in your service removing the problem around Bismarck.

And so we'll get into that in a minute.

So one of the first things we did is we asked all these experts in your community to model out what are the people look like that are really falling through the gaps.

And we do this in a lot of communities.

I've never had such consistency in any community I've ever.

So it's really clear who you're struggling with in your community, and this is the target population.

33 to 65 years old.

They're either on Medicaid or have no insurance.

Homeless brought by law enforcement or walk-in.

They have moderate to severe substance use issues or co-occurring mental health needs.

Um their main uh mental health issues were depression, anxiety, or PTSD, chronic pain or ongoing unsolved medical issues.

And the service needs were immediate shelter, housing, case management and follow-up, and medical detox.

So, as we thought about the model going forward, there's several things going on in your state, nationally that that said there's some things in the works that probably will cover uh the challenges that you've got in terms of uh building out an ecosystem of services that makes sense.

For starters, you've had some really um strong leadership, uh a group called Mosaic, um, some clinicians that want to build the first medical detox in your state that's based in the community.

Um there's not a single one.

Um there's a funding source out there that we'll talk more in a minute called the Rural Health Transformation Project that this funding fits for.

In fact, we met with some state leaders who they put that particular service in as a priority for that particular funding, and we'll get into that funding.

Another piece that really can help solve some of the challenges you've got in your community is the evolution of your mental health center, Dakota, Dakota Western Human Service Center, uh, West Central Human Service, excuse me.

Um because your state is moving to the certified community behavioral health clinic model, and I know that's a mouthful, and it's an acronym that doesn't mean a lot to you.

We're going to show you a one-minute video to explain it.

But the the wonderful thing about that model, it's integrated behavioral health with case management, um, all your substance use, and it's also married with physical health.

So for example, I'll give you an example, because we built one of these in the community I come from about six, seven years ago.

And it was it was a game changer.

Um that particular mental health center was about to go out of business, and because in Minnesota counties are the behavioral health authority, I thought our agency was going to have to take it over.

It converted to a C C B H C and it's not just about the money, it's about that integrated service that's paid for by Medicaid.

Um in the last seven years, they've doubled their staff, they've got reserves in the bank, and Medicaid has a nice robust payment model for this integrated care.

And it's a piece that's missing in a lot of communities, but it's an opportunity because your state is moving forward with this.

The first four are already been designated.

The first four, but I think it's an area that you might want to lobby for being the second four because it's a gap in your community.

And we'll talk more about the models, so you'll see why.

The area that you're missing, and the re where you really need a new partner is around low barrier shelter.

And there's some opportunities there.

That also aligns with the rural health transformation program.

So there are ways for you to potentially uh get some funding for that kind of service.

And I'm going to talk about some other funding options as well as we get deeper into these models.

So I'm gonna share with you a brief video.

Hopefully it works.

CCBHCs provide comprehensive, high quality community-based behavioral health care for children, teens, adults, and seniors, getting people into care quickly with the services they need when they are needed, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay.

CCBHCs also provide 24-7 crisis intervention services for people experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis.

CCBHCs meet people where they are with a range of services and supports, providing access to care and transforming behavioral health systems, one community at a time.

To learn more, visit samsa.gov forward slash CCBHC.

What is a I don't want to do that again.

So there are over 500 of these around the country, and one of the beautiful things is it's supported, uh it has bipartisan support.

Now it's been in Medicaid for uh probably about a decade.

Um now there's bipartisan support to make it Medicare billable uh for that 65 and older population.

So um it becomes a very, very uh robust funding and service model that is coming to your community.

Um so the reason I bring this up is it's not something you have to build, it's not something you have to recreate.

It's uh it's coming, and how do you fit it into what you already have and what you need and what gaps it will fill.

One of the biggest is that care coordination case management.

You have a lot of great services, but they're sort of disconnected, and how do we weave them together?

This is gonna be one of the pieces for that.

Just to give you a little information specific to North Dakota, they started implementing this in 2023, um, and it takes some time, and there's been a couple of um bills behind it, and that's why the first four are funded.

They're gonna they're planning another group after that.

Um, and they're building some policy and the uh funding opportunities around it, but um I've already given you those pieces, so it's um it's I think gonna be a transformational kind of thing for your community.

So the gap you have is around the shelter.

And right now, for a low barrier shelter, you don't have necessarily a lead agency.

And that's what really um from our recommendations you have to think about.

And as we thought about the governance options, there's really three key options, and there are different uh hybrids of this, but for example, city-county ownership, sometimes cities or counties have property or properties that they can use and then a provider can come and provide this kind of service.

That's something you want to assess.

Um sometimes it's just one of your nonprofits.

Right now, there's not a nonprofit that's saying pick me.

Um, or you might want to try to find a private entity outside ownership that uh is used to weaving together funding and building these kind of shelters.

We introduced the steering committee and core group to uh one agency like that.

So you might want to consider um there from another state, but um, you may want to consider a request for proposal to bring in a partner to be that backbone agency.

Funding sources, and no, I'm not gonna read all that text to you.

Um there's a all kinds of ways to weave this together for shelter kinds of services.

Uh hospitals right now, if folks are um using uh EDs as their primary care, or if folks are stuck in hospital beds, that is costing those hospitals money.

Plus, hospitals have to do community needs assessments, as I understand it, some of the um community needs assessments for this community highlighted some of these issues, and so there's a there's a right partnership there.

As I understand it, some of the community needs assessments for this community highlighted some of these issues.

And so there's a there's a right partnership there.

In addition, you have health plans here that they're paying for those ED visits.

They're paying for so in some communities, and I'll give you an example.

When we created our crisis stabilization center in our in my community, Rochester, Minnesota, we had two health systems, four health plans, and ten counties all contribute contribute to it because they wanted a different front door than the ED or a police squad as the front door for your behavioral health system and your homeless system.

And so payers are definitely an option to be a partner in this, not take it all on.

But as you weave this together get together, that's how you get a sustainable solution.

Foundations and public grants are obviously part of it, but those are usually one-time pots of money.

They can help, but they're not the solution.

Impact investing, I'm not going to go into details, but health plans have things like regulated capital, where in other communities, and I can give you, we can give you examples.

And it helps that health plan because they've contributed that usually positions them well with the state to get Medicaid contracts, and they've impacted the clients that are high cost in their plan.

So there's some projects out there like that.

So there's a wide way of variety of ways to fund these kind of unique partnerships.

I don't I don't think I need to go too much more into details.

What I did want to do is there's also some opportunities in the housing world right now.

For example, HUD is changing their priorities.

And so, as I've told the steering committee and the core group, um getting your continuum of care organization, your HRA housing authority, um, engaged around that next notice of funding opportunity with the feds around this idea of a low barrier shelter fits really well with federal priorities right now.

Um and this and your shelter also fits with that rural health transformation program.

So you've got a couple of pretty robust funding streams potentially if your community can come together and take what we're suggesting and create an implementation strategy.

And there's funding to be had, which you folks don't always hear.

So I don't know how much you folks know about the rural health transfer transformation program, but it's a big deal.

Um North Dakota submitted its application on November 5th.

They're expected to receive a hundred million dollars plus in baseline funding, then they can go for some more.

Um there this is a this is and it's a pretty flexible pot of money focused on rural needs, which your state obviously qualifies for.

Um process, though.

So your community can't wait.

A lot of communities are gonna get in line for service dollars and and system kinds of development.

So as I suggested to the steering committee today, um, you know, shared letters of support, some lobbying around what you think are your community needs related to rural health are really important.

This might not be the only one, but this is a biggie.

So really encourage you to take a close look at that funding.

Next steps in the planning process, um, we have a community stakeholder meeting tomorrow.

Um we'll continue.

Uh we're suggesting that Renee continue the multi-sector collaboration, complete some deeper data analysis.

What I would suggest is you uh your community team work closely with hospitals and your health plans to more clearly to identify the populations at the highest risk, highest cost.

Um, and then uh outline a phased implement implementation plan.

We we have developed a roadmap for you folks, and uh we suggest you uh take a hard look at that as a board or commission, excuse me.

And with that, um we ask that you receive our presentation as an informal update on our progress for the community triage center and uh support continued stakeholder engagement and planning led by your public health director, support exploration of things like city owned parcels and vacant facilities and review zoning considerations for potential location, support the statewide transition of to the CCBHC model and support access to that rural health transformation program I mentioned.

Thank you very much.

Questions, Commissioner Rish.

Thank you, Mayor Paul.

So the triage center, do you envision it to be one relatively large building with places for people to stay and uh offices to help them with their addictions and whatever cases of health related needs?

You know, I I originally envisioned a very um multi-service kind of um center when I first talked to Renee, but you've got some of those services already in your community, and you've got the C C B H C coming.

So what I what we've been talking about now is mainly a shelter, a low barrier shelter, you would connect people to those services you're mentioning, and then that case management from the C C B H C we talked about.

So what I think one of the things that needs to be refined is what size of the shelter.

Um based on Ministry of the Margins, it could be around 60 beds, but um I think we need to refine that a little bit.

But it mainly be a shelter connecting to other services.

Okay, other questions.

Renee, did you have anything you want to add?

I did I did.

So um just to kind of add a little bit on um the the meaning of tonight's presentation is to provide you with some information to start thinking about, let you know where we're at in the process.

Obviously, there's a lot of uh moving parts and a lot of uncertainties around funding.

Um we're looking at the real health transformation grant, some C C B H C funding with the state, um, also some homelessness funding um actually presenting to the legislative committee next week on our project um and the work that's going on in Bismarck because there's some opportunities um there as well.

And so um for your guys' uh consideration and thought tonight is to kind of think about this information.

Um there will be a final report that um HMA is going to be putting together.

They wanted to come here, present to you, also meet with our stakeholder group, um, the behavioral health coalition and the homeless coalition um meeting will be tomorrow to have the opportunity to hear uh from Paul and the work that we're doing, provide any feedback, and they will be compiling a report for us with some implementation and recommendations.

I do want to say um I would like to come back in January and we may have some more asks for you at that point.

Um one of the things to potentially think about would be the governance structure.

Um I know that um the the slide that um Paul hadn't shown, there were three options a city cone city county ownership, a 501c3 um potential uh ownership or a private entity and outside ownership.

And so um that might be something that we would come back to seek direction.

Um what are your thoughts, unless you have comments tonight and you'd like to share.

Do you want it to be any one of the above, or is there one you want to completely X off?

And that would help our our planning um to continue to uh streamline some of the recommendations that get brought forward back to you in January.

So just some things to maybe think about and then the opportunity to ask questions if you have anything.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yeah, I don't think there's anything right now that I would I'm gonna answer your last question first because it's easier.

Um I don't think there's anything right now.

I think that we would I I wouldn't like to see stricken because we don't know, have all the details.

Okay.

And in my mind, it's it's still a it's a working document, so to speak, and and we don't know what the final players are gonna be to there is one thing that I would I would ask is and to go back to the presentation where the center that you talked about earlier, sir, where you had multiple jurisdictions.

Is there a chance we could because if we if we get this done right, if it moves forward and it happens, I'm sure there's gonna be other communities around us, other counties around us that are gonna want to be part of that.

Um so does it is it a good idea now to reach out to those surrounding areas to because it's the biggest thing is gonna come down to is five people at the stable to make a decision how we're gonna fund this thing.

Yes, right.

And we have some limitations with 1176 and those types of things, you know, how to get that done.

Right.

And I think um mayor and commissioners, Commissioner Zanker.

Um, Paul and I actually had a conversation about this um earlier today, and just talking about uh plans for Bismarck and looking at us as the region, uh the regional hub, um Bismarck and Mandan.

Obviously, there's a lot of people that are coming from Mandan to Bismarck for services because this is where the services are.

Um, and so there would be uh potentially opportunity for that um where I could certainly see um right now I know it's Bismarck because we're taking the lead.

I appreciate the leadership to be able to kind of move something forward, um, but certainly would um see that as an opportunity.

I don't know about maybe even regional, like we have regional region seven, we're in different regions, we're in region seven in Bismarck.

Um so it's Kitter County and the surrounding areas that would be um in our area.

So our our regional human service centers are also an opportunity.

If we do the C C B H C um model, and every region or regional human service center becomes a certified behavioral health clinic, um, there would be those regional centers, like you said, and that would be the opportunity then um whether rather than Fargo sending individuals here, um they have their own center, they're actually one of the four.

It was my not Dickinson, Fargo, um, and Williston that got the first pilot um funding.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

It's just to expand on that.

I it it's a fabulous idea because right, our police we do the same thing, our fire we do the same thing, so it'd be a consistent um anchor point, so to s so to speak for South Central North Dakota.

I think it's fabulous.

Great.

Commissioner Cleary.

I just to kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Zenker already said.

I think that like creating, I mean, I know we have a great stakeholder group, but it's very, very like local centric, and I think that as we see in other areas of what we do, Bismarck tends to be where people come for services.

It and we are happy to provide them, but I think like communicating with that bigger region is a good idea, not only for the sake of building it, but I think also for the sake of funding it when we're looking at those state dollars and we're making those asks.

I think the state always looks at you know what's reaching the most people, where's the biggest value?

And I think we really can like show them how important this is for the region, not just for Bismarck, because we do service such a big area.

Um I know that Renee and I have talked about governance types.

Um I feel like the city of Bismarck as a whole really leans on our 501c3s a lot in this like area when you look at the list of partners that attend these meetings that are in these coalitions, they're almost all 501c3s.

Um whether there's somebody that's I think that now is a great opportunity to look at what we've figured out and where we're gonna be at in January when this is wrapping up, and is there a 501c3 locally that wants to build on something that wants to collaborate with another 501c3?

I think there's a lot of opportunities with that.

When you talk about land or buildings, um a lot of like local entities are more willing to you know give those up or donate or sell to 501c3s.

Um so I think there's a lot of value in that, but I don't think that we've really even looked that much into like the concept of a third-party entity or bringing somebody in that's already doing it really well somewhere else.

So I mean I guess I would like to hear more about that too.

So I think we're at a good place.

We've made a lot of progress, and it's nice to see this progress.

Renee and I've been talking about this for three years.

So um it's exciting, but hopefully we can just keep going.

Um are you wanting a motion from us to continue?

So we have I put a suggestion most to help you out with the language, but um you don't have to read it verbatim.

I'm kind of looking for my yes, I'm looking to uh get some direction to move forward.

All right.

Well, I would motion that Renee uh in coordination with the Health Management Association and cooperation with stakeholder feedback into the final report and return with recommendations for the city commission consideration in early 2026, and then I would just add that we um do that kind of regional outreach before you come back as well, just to kind of see where that gets us to.

Wonderful.

Okay, my only comment is is there are three governance models there, but I would suggest that don't be afraid to maybe think of outside the box and maybe there's some combination because it could easily be that the governmental body does one piece of it and the service providers does the operational piece.

Sure.

Yeah.

As an example, okay, wonderful.

Yeah, I would agree.

Any other discussion?

Call roll.

Commissioner Cleary.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Thank you for the work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item C's.

Get in closer.

Item C public hearing on application for a class F1 alcohol license by the Hall Family Enterprises doing businesses, golf, et cetera, at uh 511 Airport Road.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone who wish to speak to this topic, please come forward.

A second call for public comment.

A third and final call for public comment.

Hearing or seeing anyone, a public comment period is closed.

Commissioners, what are your wishes?

Move to approve is presented.

Second.

Any discussion.

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Item D is public hearing on ordinance 6644 annexation of lots 11 and 12 block two, lots 14 to 19, block 3, lots 1-2, block 4, and lots 1 and 1 to 2 and 35 to 38, block 5 of Silver Ranch 5th Edition, and the adjoining rights away for Davies Drive.

Go ahead, Daniel.

Good evening, Mayor Commissioners.

So this is a request from Invest Corps Incorporated for the annexation of this area within Silver Ranch 5th edition.

The plat of Silver Ranch Fifth Edition was approved by by you on July 8th of 2025.

This annexation uh includes about 16 lots.

Uh there was a previous annexation that you had approved in Silver Ranch Fifth Edition, uh, which would be needed to be recorded for this one to become contiguous.

Um you can see the map right here.

This is in the northeastern portion of our community.

Uh it would be extending the boundaries of the city limit further to the northeast.

Uh so it looks like it's floating out there a little bit from the map right now, but um the previous annexation is shown in the uh lighter blue color that you had already approved.

And so that one would be recorded first, and then this one second uh to uh extend the city limits in that direction.

So the Planning Zoning Commission did consider this annexation uh at their September 24th meeting, uh and based on the findings contained in our staff report uh recommended approval uh with the condition that that previous approved annexation is recorded first that I'd mentioned that would be ordinance 6626.

Uh so for the record, and you had already read this, but I'll repeat it.

Um the annexation would be for lots 11 through 12, la block two, lots 14 through 19, block three, lots one to two, block four, and lots one and two and thirty-five to thirty-eight block five of Silver Ranch Fifth Edition, and adjacent rights of way of Davies Drive and Hoverson Avenue extension.

Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners Land and Nine Little Swinsen A Engineering representing Invest Corps.

Uh yeah, just a little bit uh to add what Daniel presented.

We had already previously asked for an annexation, those first 12 lots, one of which is a stormwater lot, uh, was approved.

This is just an expansion of that first phase that we're trying to get in.

Uh still this fall doing some work out there right now, and then hopefully in the spring we can wrap it up.

Uh this gets us one step closer to be able to get that second access point back into Silver Ranch third, which is where the bulk of the lots are.

Um but I can certainly answer any questions if you have them.

Any questions?

No, thanks, Lonnie.

Thank you.

Public hearing, anyone who wish to speak, please come forward.

A second call for public comment.

A third and final call for public comment.

Seeing or hearing no one, public comment periods now closed.

Commissioners, what are your wishes?

Um we move we approve ordinance 6644 and an annexation of parts of blocks two through five, silver ranch fifth edition.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing on will call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary, yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes, Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Moving to item E.

Public hearing on ordinance 6646 and annexation and ordinance 6647, a zoning map amendment from A agricultural to conditional RM 10 and residential, RM 10 residential, R5 residential, and P public in the William Black Blackstone edition.

Daniel.

Good evening again, Mayor Commissioners.

So Michael Ward is requesting approval of the zoning map amendments, major subdivision final plat and annexation of William Blackstone edition.

Uh there's a few other components and conditions of this request that I will get into as well as I go through this.

Uh the area of this subdivision is in it's northwest of the city of Bismarck, uh along the west side of Tyler Parkway, north of 57th Avenue northwest northwest.

It's part of the southeast quarter of section 7 of Hake Creek Township.

This would be an urban residential development with a 118 lots and nine blocks.

I think about 110 of those are developable.

The rest are various undevelopable lots.

The majority of this area would be dedicated for single-family homes and would be zoned R5 or R10.

The R10 zoning district allows a little bit greater lot coverage, which is the reason for that request in that area.

The conditions on this lot would be that it could not exceed 40 40 feet in height.

None of the buildings could exceed 40 feet in height, and the density would be limited to 10 dwelling units per acre.

So you can think of townhomes or such in in a configuration to fit that multifamily lot.

This would be dedicated as a neighborhood park.

The Bismarck Parks and Recreation District and Developer have signed a park development agreement for this site, which is included in your packet as well for your your own consideration.

I believe the park will be called Vanderwall Park.

And the adult the development agreement also includes a trail, a shared use trail, that would be extending through the northern lot.

You can see on that site it would be lot 20 block one.

About a half mile of shared use trail that would align with the city's active mobility plan through with trails through Coolies.

So there is a separate development agreement as well.

That would be for your consideration that was given in the packet.

And this would govern a temporary access that is provided to Tyler Parkway through lot 12 block 9 in William Blackstone edition.

And what this would do is it would give emergency access, that secondary emergency access that we need for this number of lots in a temporary nature.

Ultimately, there will be a separate access point to the south that would connect to an extension of 57th Avenue Northwest.

However, in lieu of that being there at this time, one of those lots would be used for temporary access.

Spells out the terms and conditions, how long that will last, uh what um the physical condition of that access will be.

Uh and so you could you could see that the it would be removed as soon as that additional access is added, and then the home on lot nine and the two adjaining adjacent adjacent homes on the lots to the north and south could be built at that time as well.

Um so this particular development has been in the pipeline for a couple of years.

Um the applicant has worked through issues with wetland mitigation with the Army Corps of Engineers and other technical issues over this time.

Um staff have been have been working with them on this process, staff from the both the city and and the county as well.

Um so we're here today.

Uh the planning zoning commission originally tentatively approved the preliminary plat back in January of 2024.

Um and so it's been sitting in this um process for for for between that time and uh August of 2025 when it went to a public hearing with the planning zoning commission.

Uh they continued the hearing initially, um, and then it was continued to September 24th that of 2025, and the planning zoning commission at that meeting recommended approval of uh William Blackson edition and all of the other components of that I've mentioned.

Um there are two technical conditions that staff um and the plan and the planning zoning commission are recommending to be included.

One is the inclusion of temporary turnaround easements at the end of the right of ways.

Uh you can see obviously this is a first phase of a multi-phase development.

Um until those other phases come in, uh the engineering department needs to see a means for uh turning around emergency vehicles at the ends of those roads, roadways.

So that's our standard process, having those dedicated separate easements outside of the plat, and then they could be released when the um when the subdivision continues in the future phase.

So that's one condition, and the other condition would be an easement or a right of way dedicated from uh the subdivision to the 57th Avenue Northwest for utilities to go through the west side of Tyler Parkway.

Those could be done uh by time of recordation.

That's when we would recommend this be completed.

So I will read the full uh recommendation that was made by the Planning Zoning Commission based on the conditions and the findings of the staff report.

That is the approval of the zoning map amendment from the A agricultural zoning district to the conditional RM10 residential, R 10 residential, R5 residential, and P public zoning districts, the major subdivision final plat titled William Blackstone Edition, the annexation of all of the proposed plat and all of Tyler Parkway from 57th Avenue Northwest to the northern boundary of the plat, including the granting of a waiver to reduce lot widths with buildings at uh um I'm sorry, lot widths at building lines outlined in the attached waiver request, approval of the neighborhood park agreement, and approval of the development agreement regarding temporary access on lot twelve block nine uh with two conditions.

Now the first condition being that temporary turnaround easements at the term I of Holberg Drive, Burning Lane, and James Wright Avenue are provided prior to plat recreation, and that a separate dedicated right-of-way or separate easement to the City of Bismarck for all municipal services from 57th Avenue Northwest to the southern boundary of the Platte is provided prior to plat recreation.

I know the applicant is here as well, so you don't have to repeat that motion whenever you make it.

You could just refer to it.

So the applicant is here if you have any specific questions about their development.

Thank you, Daniel.

Any questions for him?

Thank you.

Again, this public hearing, so we'll open up the public hearing and the applicant can speak.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Commissioners.

My name is Bob Martin.

I'm uh an attorney representing the Ward family.

I'm also an in-law, the developer questers, my father-in-law.

Um this is sort of a family affair.

Uh I am I don't know if maybe I'll just give you a little bit of background on this.

We originally started this process uh.

The Ward family had been basically selling raw land for a number of years to several different developers in the Bismarck area.

Uh at one of the last approaches by a developer, um, my partner, Michael Ward is my partner, as well as my father-in-law, had requested uh to provide legal services essentially for the development procedure, and we were told that wasn't going to be possible, and that got him thinking, well, you know, I'm pushing 80 at that point.

He was pushing 80, now he's 83.

Um, what are we going to do with all this land?

I know we can keep trying to do raw land sales, but uh the kids, the kids being 50 58, 40 and two twins of 41, so not really kids, but that's why we calls them, um, looking to look to the future, what's going to happen with these holdings.

Um, not everybody wants to be a farmer forever in the land, and there's a lot of property involved.

There's actually the overall proposed development right now, or section seven is in front of you for the first phase, but we intend to go to Section 7 to Section 12, to the remainder of Section 11, and then south along uh Burnt Creek Road.

The Ward family also owns three quarters in Section 13.

So it's quite an extensive project that will eventually join up with Misty Waters subdivision.

They own the land right up to that, and then south along uh Burnt Creek Road.

We intend to develop that entire area, maintain the farming operation on three sections of land that they hold up in by wing in uh lean and uh Richmond Townships.

So we it's sort of a generational plan.

Uh my part in its been to try to get this first phase through the various commissions and committees and working with the different governmental agencies.

It's been a learning process, and I wanted to personally thank Daniel and the planning and zoning staff.

They've been incredibly helpful.

I mean, when we started this, we had no idea how complicated it was going to be and how much time it was going to take.

We actually uh I was looking at some notes.

We we had our initial approval to start the project uh back in April 5th of 2023.

So we've actually been at this as of tonight, about uh two years and seven months in trying to get the annexation through.

And there were a number of delays.

Uh uh the Army Corps of Engineers was mentioned, that was a significant part of it.

Um the stormwater waste management plan had to be updated.

Uh and also I should thank on the record Houston Engineering for the excellent services they've provided us in in Shepherding, Sherpain us through this process.

There are sort of our Sherpas.

Um the overall project is going to provide, as was mentioned, approximately 113 additional lots to the City of Bismarck's tax base.

Uh there's also going to be extensive infrastructure required uh part part of it, uh the the way the land splits, we can't rely on a gravity sewer, so we're going to have to have a forced lift main.

So, but altogether, the estimate at the time that we started this project was 10 million dollars in infrastructure that will be donated to the city of Bismarck as well.

And then each lot, of course, will have the capital charge connection fee as the road improvement plan falls into place.

So there's a significant financial advantage to the city to its tax base and to the dollars coming in.

Um there will be uh at least the first stretch of uh 11 lots to the north side of Vanderwall Park.

We intend to spec house, and we're going to have uh what we call cottage homes.

The lot's a little smaller, but each will have a front porch fronting on Vanderwall Park.

It'll be an extraordinary view.

And we're we've retained the services of uh JLG architects as landscape architects as well as Houston Engineering.

We've always said that it's not just a matter of slapping some lots together and putting a trailer home on it.

We want this to look good.

We want this to be a beautiful part of the city of Bismarck, and that's why we've been so concerned about the aesthetics.

We do have the agreement in place with the park board for Van Wall Park.

Uh you probably notice uh a number of names on the various streets, and the name William Blackstone itself is an honor of the English jurist.

Every street that we have been allowed to name is named after a district judge that I've had the privilege of working with, or Michael Ward has had the privilege of working with.

And of course, Vanderwall Park is for Chief Jerry.

I mean, he's been an institution as long as I've been practicing law.

Um in fact, out of the 68 appearances I've had at the North Dakota Supreme Court, 67 were before him.

So it's been a long-term relationship, and it's a great privilege to me to be able to honor him, you know, in his twilight years with the naming of a park in a street after him.

And he was excited about it too.

I I couldn't use Vanderwall Drive because it's already been taken.

And Jerry Drive had sound X issues, and they thought Chief Drive was too confusing.

So we had to settle on Chief Jerry Drive.

But uh I like it.

It works well with the Vanderwald Park area.

Um we have there has been some pushback.

Uh it hasn't been uh smooth sailing all the way through.

Uh neighbors across the street were concerned because originally the the lot to the northeast that was designated originally as RM 30, they were concerned about the possibility of a multifamily dwelling uh distorting their view of that type of nature.

So we voluntarily agreed to the condition to reduce that to the RM 10 zoning, which has been described to you with the restriction of no more than 40 feet in height.

So we've tried to accommodate them to that extent.

And uh I I can understand you don't want to have anything that's going to potentially adversely affect your property values, even if it is across the street.

So we've tried to accommodate that.

Uh but there as I said, there has been pushback, and we've tried to address that as it's come up, and we've tried to work with uh the the commit uh well, the planning and zoning staff and the commissions in addressing that.

And I think it has been successfully addressed, but I'm sure there will be more comments given to you tonight.

I've every one of these hearings I've been at um both before uh the planning and zoning commission.

Uh there's uh when it came to the point of public comment, there's been pushback and sometimes vehement or vocal pushback.

And it's uh I'm not a stranger to conflict, I'm a trial lawyer.

It's just you know, we all we all handle that differ differently.

My training and such was to uh counterattack, if you will, to uh try to push back hard.

I'm giving up on that one.

It's uh it's a zero-sum game at this point.

Um we've complied entirely with all of the laws and regulations and codes.

We've complied entirely with every thing that the planning and zoning staff has requested.

Um I know that I think, Mr.

Mayor, you had mentioned at one point you were concerned about the proposed development being so far to the northwest.

But uh under the statutes and rules and codices of governing this type of thing, the the proposal is actually 22 percent contiguous to the city of Bismarck, which means it's un unambiguously contiguous is the the wording used, and that's been acknowledged by the P and Z staff as well.

So, and I would say that your concern about it being an outlier is temporary given what the family's plan is with the rest of the acreage.

I can address that later if we need to discuss it.

It will probably wasn't as much directed at your development as the developments that are out there were outliers.

Oh, yeah, uh yeah.

There's there's been some, there's a lot of uh one that are going to eventually have to be backfilled in to the north, and I mean along 83, especially when you drive down, you can see a lot of the different county ones that are out there.

But Bismarck's is good Bismarck is going to grow.

That was what prompted us to get involved with this in the first place was the uh the 2045 plan.

Uh need of uh 1.9% per annum growth for the next 20 years.

And we want to be a part of that.

But I just like I said, we just don't want to put up block housing.

I want this to look good.

I I worked in Bismarck for 11 years.

I had a law practice here.

Um I was with the State's attorney's office for three years after my closed my private practice.

And I've always been very proud of Bismarck, how well the city maintains its properties, how much pride people have in their properties.

And one thing I was glad to hear about is the idea of the homeless uh this is a tangent.

I'm sorry, I should stay more focused, but just quickly.

It hurts me to see homeless people in Bismarck.

Uh you drive down, you park by the courthouse, and you see people with their the shopping carts and their beds set up on the provenant building uh terraces and uh gentlemen in a wheelchair with no leg who is outside of um the block just north of uh of uh the blarning stone in that area.

It hurts me to see that.

That isn't the Bismarck I remember.

That's not the Bismarck where my oldest daughter was born.

Uh so I'm glad that something is being done about that.

But we want to add to the aesthetic of the city.

We don't want to be part of the problem.

We want to be part of the solution.

Um, this is uh for my my firm, this has been a five-year project.

We've did a quiet title action starting in November of 2020 that was just wrapped up this spring as part of the process, and then again the the initial annexation was approved back, or the initial plat, the movement was improved in in April 5th of 2023.

My clients, my in-laws have invested over 200,000 dollars in getting to this point.

So it's with all of that, I'm just going to say if do you have any questions for me on any aspect of this?

Any questions?

I would ask your vote in the affirmative on the annexation of the William Blackstone addition to the city of Bismarck.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone else wish to speak, please come forward?

A second call for public comment.

A third and final call for public comment here, nor seeing anyone.

Public comment periods closed.

Commissioners, what are your wishes?

Commissioner Zinker.

Mayor Commissioners, um maybe you can come up and just explain the temporary access, just so it's on the record.

I mean, it's in our document, but I think just for anybody watching or the people at home that everybody understands what the word temporary end is and not a permanent temporary solution.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Zenker.

I'd be happy for that opportunity, right?

Because it'll be it'll be a public information item, so people need to be aware of it.

The um if we can see the screen again, can I get a screen on?

Okay, great.

So it'll be lot twelve.

Um see if I can zoom in.

Here it's a little bit a little bit zoomed in.

It'll be lot twelve.

Uh you can see the little hand there.

So this will be allowed as a emergency services only access to the development for uh because we do require anything over 30 units.

Uh yeah, it does require two points of access.

Uh so if there's a blockage at any other point, our vehicles need to be able to get through.

So that's the purpose of that access.

Uh as this whole area develops and builds out and eventually connects to the south, that will go away.

Um so that will only be there temporarily, and then that lot can be built on with a home.

And the lots to the north and south are also restricted until that removes is removed, they would be too close to that roadway otherwise.

Um so that that's where that temporary access will be until uh it is no longer needed.

Okay, and we don't have a timeline or term on that.

It's it's one of the development to the south comes so we get the secondary access, right?

That's correct.

It's triggered by the development, not a time.

Okay.

Further questions.

Commissioners, what are your wishes?

Can I ask one question?

Absolutely.

Real quick since we don't know the timeline.

Um could we get an approximate timeline?

I mean, we've done a lot of things where we've helped developers with you know 10 years for assess uh annex sitting those types of things.

We've been they've been very gracious and and live to those.

So do you have an anticipation of what that addition is?

Are you gonna maybe you're not even going south?

Are you going north?

We're actually intending to go north at the request of Bismarck Public Schools.

They we were originally going to go south to 57th Avenue, Northwest, and further to the west.

We have uh potential commercial that we were looking at including as part of the annexation, but BPS requested that we go north so they could incorporate the possibility of a public school, uh, elementary school.

So it our spirit of this has always been trying to work within the different actors involved rather than in opposition.

And you know, this I mean to be completely frank, the uh public school is a big draw as well for people who have purchased lots around that area.

It's again part of the aesthetics.

It's going to be like a 13.4 acre green space on top of the building.

So it's also going to be I'm very proud about the trail system that we've negotiated with the park board because that's going to connect to the public school as well as to Dandewal Park and the other two planned major area parks.

So like I said, aesthetics.

It's important to us that this looks good, that this fits well and not simply be a matter of converting it into block houses.

Too.

I'm not trying to avoid your question, Commissioner.

I'm sorry, I should have been more direct.

But um our next phase is to the north is the best that I can do with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

No problem.

Any other questions from me before I sit back down?

I could use the exercise gain up and down anyway.

Other maybe I can ask Daniel this question.

Maybe he can't answer it.

I don't know.

If there if there becomes a secondary access to the north as a result of going north.

Could we make that be a secondary commission?

The engineer behind you is shaking his head yes.

Okay, good.

Well, one of them is one of them is the consulting engineer is, but that doesn't mean anything.

Unsorgia when he gave's consent to that.

I'm just trying to find those.

I I get where you're coming from.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Mayor and Commissioners regarding the secondary access.

I think the the concept of it being uh it'll be gate controlled and so only fire can have access to it.

So it won't be used by the general public.

So really our uh risk as far as the city is concerned of having that out there for a longer period of time is pretty minimal.

It really doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot.

I think the agreement, if I'm not mistaken, um, is is silent on where the secondary access comes from as soon as that secondary access need is met uh according to fire and whatever that regulation might look like, what our fire code might look like in the future as well is when this could just be removed and reclaimed and turned into to houses.

So date uncertain, but really the risk is is minimal because it is gated and only be used for emergency personnel.

Okay.

That that probably helps us.

Thanks, Gabe.

Okay.

Commissioners, were your thoughts.

Mayor Commissioners, I'll make a motion to move as approved as presented.

I'm not reading that whole thing.

I'm I don't blame you.

Second as well, too.

Any anything.

That's what everybody's hesitation was.

Who's gonna read the you don't read the whole paragraph right now?

I'll second it.

Uh okay.

I think we have a first and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Harry None will call roll.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Moving to item H, consider request to discuss the 2026 joint powers agreement with public health.

And actually, it's not truly a joint powers agreement.

It's a contract for services.

So but uh Renee, you want to sure.

So um I have Mayor and Commissioners, I have this item on the agenda tonight for discussion.

Um usually we have the contract um that goes into um over to Burley County um after they've approved the budget amount, and I um wanted to have the opportunity to have some discussion on that before uh we do anything with it for 2026.

So Commissioner Cleary.

I promised Renee that I would um at least attempt to take the reins on some of this for her.

So um because her and I have discussed this a lot.

I think every budget cycle, we kind of go back and forth with the county as to who's going to pay, what percentage, what the joint powers agreement is going to look at like.

And I feel like this year within our discussions, we've taken a lot more of an opportunity or time to really look at like the legality of what the GPA looks like and what it means for the department and for Bismarck.

And within our discussions, it's kind of come to the point or realization that the Joint Powers Agreement, like you said, is not truly a joint powers agreement because with the joint powers agreement, it should have its own Board of Health, which pre at previous years um Renee and I have attempted to establish, and it just has always come back to that we were going to continue to do the do it the way that we had been doing it, which is the City of Commission acts as a Board of Health, and then the Burley County acts as a board of health.

But when you read the century code, that's really not how a joint powers agreement is structured.

So with the way that it's currently set up and our joint powers agreement is really more of a contract for services.

And the city of Bismarck, the com city commission is technically and by law the Board of Health.

And I think just with our discussions and then listening to the county's discussions every year when they talk budget and dollar amount and what they're wanting to see for services for public health.

I think that my preference at this point is that the city of Bismarck operates as its own public health and could still contract for services to Burley County as for what they might need individually or act in any way that we can, and it can be more of a line item by line item thing that they need as they're building their own public health unit.

I think when we look at things that we do collaboratively with the county, we are always looking to make sure that we're being fiscally responsible and we're collaborating to save citizens money.

Um because of how the tax breaks out.

Um and then also I think that between what the public or public health does in Bismarck versus what the county commissioners are wanting for public health, I think there's a big difference in level of services there.

And I don't want to see our level of service go down with what the citizens have expected, just because we're trying to cut things to appease to the county when they're only paying 25% of the budget.

So I guess the conversation that Renee and I have been having, and the mayor has participated in some of is do we just not do the GPA anymore?

And because they the county has talked about having their own, and I think maybe we're at the point where we just let them go do that.

And if they need to contract for specific services for us in the meantime, or we need to be month to month with some services, we can have that conversation.

But I guess I would like to see the appetite um from the rest of you as far as just not doing the status quo with the GPA for 2026.

Well, I'd like to change the term, it's not a joint powers agreement.

Correct, yes.

It's a contract for services.

They're contracting with us for their for our services to cover their public health needs.

And state requirements.

And state requirements.

So regardless of that, but uh, you know, the county commission made it, I think quite clear in their budget hearings this fall that their intention was ultimately to not utilize the services of the current public health unit that resides in Bismarck and is called Bismarck Burley public health.

And so when that timeline is, I think their intention was by 2027, likely.

Um this might just be the opportunity to give them okay.

If you want to stand it up, you can we'll provide services on a month-to-month basis or or on a line item basis.

Um Renee has done a fair amount of work to look at the budget and how it may or may not have an impact to our budget.

And uh knowing what she's done, the whatever shortfall there might be would be temporary, because there are some actions that will result going forward, probably within the next six to twelve months that alleviate that change in funding need.

Plus, we'd probably be able to retain most of the grant money because we're providing the the service to this population of the city of Bismarck.

So did I state that?

Correctly.

Yeah.

Yep.

So it's it's really what is our desire.

What I don't want to do is I don't want to leave anybody out.

So like there's individuals in the county who are getting home health services.

I want to make sure that we can still at least make sure that's offered to be provided to them.

No matter what, at least until they have some resolution at the county.

Go ahead.

Um yes, just to kind of add, um, and as far as the like financial impacts and stuff, Renee has has broken everything down for me multiple times.

I think this is the most recent copy.

So I we can certainly get this to all of them, I think, too.

Um, but uh she's done a lot of work in that regard.

And then yeah, to your point, I think that in their budget discussions, it sounded like they they want to be done with the sharing of services, um, but that they maybe don't feel like they're prepared to do that in 2026, that they're they're trying to figure out what that looks like for the county.

I guess my preference would be that maybe we use 2026 as like a like buffer year where we don't have the full embodiment of an agreement and that we just are contract for services like the home health, I think is a very easy thing that we could go month to month with.

Um it can be literally budgeted, you know, charged by the hour or by the patient, et cetera.

The other big ones would be um like the sheriffs um like health and physicals that we do for them.

That's something that we could you know charge for the service instead of it just being built in and then the rural schools uh if they want us to continue to do the rural school nursing, that's something that we could just, you know, budget out individually.

It doesn't have to be a part of a larger agreement, um, and then it could be month to month.

And Renee and I were even talking if if like the county as a whole doesn't want us to do rural schools, but there's a specific school that wants us to do it.

It's like obviously we can offer that service to schools too.

We used to offer it to Bismarck Public Schools before they ended up having their own entire process too.

So I mean, I think that there would be like kind of almost like a grace period where we still offer whatever would needs to be offered in the rural areas, but it would just the the budgeting breakdown.

And they have the $600,000 in their budget, which is the 25% that they would pay for the GPA.

So it's not that they couldn't use some of that funding to contract for services for us, and then other parts of that funding can go towards building their own health unit.

So I think it's almost like a like a buffer year instead of just doing the same thing that we did last year.

Commissioner.

Mr.

Mayor, maybe clearly your Commissioner Kierley or Renee.

There's the $600,000 is in this proposed agreement.

But you just said that they might use some of that for uh contract services, or or do you think they'll just pay the $600,000 in this transition phase?

Basically, my suggestion would be that we don't sign the G GPA as it stands.

That that much that money is still in their budget, they can use it to build their own public health unit, but also while they're doing that, because that's not something that they're gonna be able to do like January 1 and like have it done and ready to go, that they can use some of that set aside funding in their budget to still utilize our services as needed.

And I think Renee's team is very comfortable with like going month to month with that as yeah, as the code.

I'm just gonna add on to that.

I know that um we had talked about this, obviously, like Mayor has said that this has been brought up that they want to do this on their own.

Um so thinking about how that would impact us as a local public health department, um, keeping our services at the city uh limits and so um not going out into the county um would be eventually this the service area, um, the home health clients that we have now.

There would be like um Commissioner Cleary said, uh transition period if they would be willing to contract us to continue to provide those services in the county, we could continue providing care for home health so they're not completely left without any care because a lot of the public health nurses are their source of a once-a-week visit to not have to go to long-term care facilities.

Um so there would be um some of those types of things.

Um I also uh maybe wanted to mention just for clarification, um, the joint powers agreement.

So fargo, Grand Forks, and public health um are the three city entities that have city departments and um operate as a uh city department and their contracts um with the county.

Um the difference between us, we are the only public health unit in the state that operates with the city commission as the board of health.

Uh Fargo and Grand Forks actually followed the joint powers agreement um as it is in the um century code that they have that separate board of health that has the health advisory.

There is a city commissioner from the county and the city commissioner or county commissioner on their board, but there's also um kind of an advisory capacity uh that serves as their board of health um and then the governing bodies uh make the final policy decisions.

And so that is the difference.

If if anybody gets questions um about that, um I want people to know that.

Um Commissioner Cleary and I did try to bring that to the county commission on I think twice, and it got denied um before with Commissioner Matthews and then um with Commissioner Munson as well as my portfolio holder on the county side.

And so um we do have it as a city entity in a city department have the ability to operate as a city health department because that's how we are operating now.

It would just change our some of our operations internally and the and the services um who we provide um the services to.

Um so a lot of uh things to think about.

Um the one thing I also wanted to mention is a lot of people think that you're you work for the county.

I want to make that a statement that I am a city employee from the city of Bismarck.

Jason Temonik is my supervisor and reports to the city commission.

Because I think that sometimes I get pulled between the city and the county as far as direction goes.

But so that people are aware I am a city.

We are a city department that contracts with the county.

So there's not the action tonight, but it needs to be at least go ahead, Commissioner Zaker.

So I'll throw something out there that it since it's it came up tonight.

And we talked about that tree art center, we want to be regional, right?

I think it's and it's very critical for us to acknowledge that the Burley County Sheriff's Department and the detention center is part of that core group that's that's helping.

So trust me, completely understand where everybody's coming from, but we're going to need the county and that commission to be a partner with all of us when we do when we do this triage center that's going to be a regional, right?

So I mean, if I think I think we need to put the onus on them as to what they want to do.

They've said it more than once at a public meeting, so I completely understand where you're coming from.

Um but I think they need to give us their plan so we know how to react instead of speculating as to what their plan is.

Um if they want to if we want to use the the 2026 as that buffer thing, I think personally we should just we should tell them or ask them to tell us what they want so we can plan for 27 and and just keep this thing status quo for this year because we need that they're going to whoever the five people are on that board after the 26 election and those types of things could change.

Um we need their partnership to get that regional triage center accomplished.

We have to have it.

Because if they if they for some reason would tell and God forbid they do this, they tell the the sheriff's department and the county detention not to be part of the core group for the triage, that's a critical piece to that to that system.

We and I think they want it, right?

And I I think we need to snowplow through this thing and figure out a way that that we can make all of this work.

Um if we wouldn't have the presentation on the triage center earlier today, I I would be right with you.

But I'm I'm a little skeptical.

Well, and Lord knows if I need to yell at somebody, I will, but right.

So and I think you know, the purpose is we just want to have this conversation so we have the conversation, not that a direction one way, or more so that we can let the county know.

Like we we've heard you, we want to, and maybe the right way as you said, Commissioner Zinker, is hey, we've heard you, we need to know where you're going.

Let's have it as a con.

I mean, it let's continue the contract.

I think we need to change the phraseology because whatever that's but right because so that you know, here's the contract, we'll continue to provide services.

If you tell us you don't want to, then we'll figure it out.

Yeah, react.

I think we need to ask them what they want so they can or you know put it in writing, black and white.

I don't want to read it in minutes, our minutes or their minutes or who's ever minutes.

I want it formally done so there's no finger pointing at the end.

Does that make sense?

Yep.

Okay.

No, I think that's great comments.

And so I if I could add, because I definitely get what you're saying.

Obviously, we want to still be cooperative and maybe down in the line, like down in the future when they feel like they're at the point where they have their own public health unit and they're comfortable doing that on their own, then we'll have the ability to actually be collaborative that with them as like two separate units in the hopes that we would also be collaborative with Morton County and Mandan, you know, in that same capacity.

I don't want it to be like we're forcing them.

So if that means that we still have a contract, but it is a contract for services.

I think that that like the the big sticking point for me when Renee and I were going through all of this is that it's referred to as a joint powers agreement, and it really isn't one.

And I think that if they want to still continue to call it a joint powers agreement, and they want to be part of like the bigger picture decision making as to what we offer within public health, then it needs to be a joint powers agreement.

We need a real board of health, we need to like move, we can move that way.

I'm fine with that.

I I've asked for it in the past.

But if they don't want to do that, they don't want the board of health, they don't want it to be a true joint powers agreement, then I think it should go to be a contract for services.

It can be uh just like the joint powers agreement, you can get out of it, you just have to give notice.

Um that sort of thing, uh, because then they can use that as a way to figure out because I think that they've been asking the question for years, what how do we do this by ourselves?

Uh because they aren't happy with not getting to make more of the decisions as to what public health looks like.

But like Renee said, in the current structure that we're in, the city makes those decisions because it's a city department.

So I mean, I think that if we give them the option of we can continue with a contract, but it's a contract for services, unless you want to create a board of health and have a true joint powers agreement.

We can give them that option.

Um then if they don't want that and they want to contract for just services until they're up and running.

I I mean I think that we would be fine that way too.

Like I said, Renee has already run all the numbers we can figure it out if we're not getting that six hundred thousand from the county.

There's other ways that we um shift and make things work within our department.

So um I am fine if we want to be reactive instead of telling them what we're doing.

I think that's totally fine.

Uh because I do still want to be a good partner with them, even if this ends up with two totally separate public health units.

I think that we can still be a great partner.

So go ahead, Commissioner.

Yeah, and I think I think that's fine.

I we just need to ask them because there's a still a couple thorns in the side about didn't ask about the public health building and those types of things.

So I think I don't know if we make the motion to formally ask them at this at this scenario, or if we set it up for um our next meeting that we talk about it, uh however you want to do it, but we need to send a formal ask to the county commission as to what their intentions are for 2027.

I think with it being November time is of the essence too.

Um Commissioner Munson does have public health as an agenda item on their agenda for Monday.

So if we want to be the decision to be denied, that Renee and I go there and kind of explain to them what like what we need to hear from them.

Um but I don't know where they're at.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I mean, I think we could send so so A, we're still in 2025, so we're still operating.

Yep.

The the the thought would be we're gonna be basically status quo going into 26.

It's just that you know, a I think we as we could go approach it something as Commissioner Zenker, I think has already said.

Hey, we know you've expressed a desire to have potentially a change to how public health is handled in your in the county.

We need to have it in writing, what your plan is, and here's a contract to continue the services as they have been and for 2026 as they were in 25.

It's a contract.

If they read the if they read the agreement, it clearly says contract in the agreement.

It doesn't reference joint powers agreement.

The one that I'm looking at joint powers agreement.

At the title, the title does, but not the contract.

Yeah, the title does not the tax.

So I would be inclined to say let's send them an actual letter.

Because I also agree with Commissioner Zinker.

We need it in writing back.

I a hundred percent.

We need to have formal communication back and forth.

Because it's not good, right?

We could all sit down and try to hammer it out, all ten of us.

Fine if we could do that in a couple hours, but I don't think we can because there's always something that comes up, right?

So let's just let's ask them formally what their intentions are.

So that way, you know, because they got to put it on their radar too.

Yeah, right.

We don't we don't want to get to budget time of next year and say, well, you said last year you're going out, right?

You know how that other stuff works.

So this is exactly what you said.

Here's your contract, here's a formal ask of what you're gonna do.

We're good for 26, let's move forward.

Tell us what we're tell us what you're going to do for 27 so we can make decisions.

And we should probably put a date in there of like February 28th or March 15th.

So it's ahead of our budgeting season.

Yeah.

I would probably January to be honest.

Well, I'm I'm okay with that too.

Well, Renee, you'll be at the meeting on Monday because it's on the agenda, right?

Public health, we should have this discussion.

No, it's not necessarily because I don't think they've requested that she be there.

I think that it's just on their agenda because their portfolio holder wants to have a conversation about public health.

So maybe they'll be making decisions at that.

I'm not sure.

Well, and I don't I don't think so.

If it's on there right with all the public comment, we go up at the beginning of the meeting, the two of you, you make public comment.

They're really not prepared for what you're going to say.

So I don't I think from a pref professional courtesy standpoint, we just give them the in writing, it'll happen at their their next December meeting or whatever, and we can have the communication going back and forth instead of quote unquote kind of throwing.

No, I think that makes sense.

Right.

So I think that makes sense.

Okay.

So do you have direction?

Um do you want a motion?

Tell me again.

Call me on something.

Who's doing the letter?

And what will what's the letter not coming from me?

No.

I mean, I think it probably needs to come from the city.

So administration admin.

Yep.

So as you stated earlier, Jason Tabonic is your direct report.

So Jason probably can write that.

You're welcome, Jason.

Jason, do you have you know what we need?

Mayor and commissioners, yes.

I think we've got a uh plan moving forward and we will put something together for their uh probably their first meeting in December.

Well, or yeah, I mean it would be prior to get to them, their agenda is set.

But so do you need a motion on this contract or not?

No, I think that if we are send the one that you that you have a draft, so do not send that one is my direction.

Because what I would do is bring it to you.

It's been on the consent agenda, and then it goes over to them.

So at this point, we're not sending them the the draft.

Correct.

Correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Until we get a response from the correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Item I consider request to receive an update on South Bismarck Flood Control Project.

Gabe's impatiently waiting.

All right, Mayor and Commissioners, I'm here to talk to you, give you an update on our South Bismarck flood control project.

I haven't had an update here in the last uh probably since session was completed uh this last year.

Um so with that, we'll get right into it.

A little bit of a uh rehash of some of the of where we've been so that we can talk about where we're going.

Uh this is our 2024 FEMA adopted or city of Bismarck adopted FEMA floodplain mapping that we added some properties uh in South Bismarck to the floodplain.

Uh approximately a thousand structures uh in South Bismarck according to the FEMA's mapping product, includes schools, uh the other things listed here on our map.

So we've been diligently working on trying to fix this and try to find ways for us to remove those properties from the floodplain.

Uh the first option that we had was a improvement that would put uh some infrastructure in the South of Bismarck drainage ditch, uh including primarily improving the highlighter gallon.

Laser pointer.

Uh there we go.

South Washington Street gate structure and a pump station here, as well as that improvements along the ditch and then improvements on South 12th Street and a pond on what was his airport property uh that would then allow us to have a smaller uh South Washington Street pump station.

As we further developed that concept, uh we were able to look at that and and remove many of the properties from the floodplain if this was constructed.

We have received a $50 million grant from FEMA through its flood mitigation assistance program uh that would be put towards the construction and design of said improvements.

But as we continued working uh with the airport and FA in particular, uh we we've uncovered additional risks associated with that option, including uh bird strikes uh for having that property or the the pond on airport property.

So there's risk associated with continuing with that alternative because in the end uh FAA could say that that's not consistent with what that property was purchased for, and therefore they would not approve the land use change.

We'd be kind of stuck with with the design that we can't implement.

So at that point in time we moved to the the graphic on the right within a same similar concept of moving um water uh from the South Bismarck drainage ditch.

In this example, it would create it would have created a new uh Bismarck expressway conduit for that water to be routed, eventually making its way to turn this next slide here, uh making its way to uh Clem Kelly Ballfield and then a new outfall into the Missouri River.

This concept still would have had a pump station and uh gate closure structure on South Washington Street, but you can see many of the other improvements that were planned along the ditch uh would not have been needed because uh we were intercepting the water and uh discharging that to the river through a different conduit.

As we further identified this uh option, uh we had conversations with Bismarck Parks and Recreation Department or district.

Uh and obviously they were uh not surprised less than enthusiastic about us taking uh some of their park land and turning it into ball or turning bar ball fields into a stormwater pond.

So we came back with options that would uh reduce the or eliminate the size of the the ponds, but in doing so we have to increase the size of the pump and increase the size of the infrastructure uh in order to do so.

So we're seeing a net increase in costs associated with that change, but it was in an effort to minimize the cost to the adjacent landowners.

As we then worked into other coordination, DOT is a stakeholder if we build an improvement on Bismarck Expressway, as that's their highway through our community.

As we worked with them on what this flood uh you know conduit would look like, a large series of reinforced concrete box culverts, uh, they had requirements that we would have to follow that would meet state cross uh stream crossing standards as part of the North Dakota administrative code.

So what we would have liked is be a conduit to take flood water, they also needed that conduit to uh appropriately address stormwater events up to the tenure event in this particular instance.

Uh for us to do that.

Once again, we we can it just increase the costs associated with that improvement, increase the box culvert size, put additional inlets, etc.

That increase the overall cost of what this project would would look like uh to construct.

Uh the last item I'll have is some of the stakeholder engagement we had with some landowners in addition to trying to minimize uh I guess the cost increases on the DOT rights of way.

We also looked at just disturbance to traffic in general, and so can we put some of this infrastructure on private property?

Uh so we have very good conversations with Kirkwood Mall representatives as well as ID Ford on the next slide.

Uh but obviously if there's uh improvements on someone else's property that might come with a likely comes with an expectation for compensation and and mitigation for whatever those impacts are.

So if you're seeing a common thread, it's that I'm telling you bad news over and over again in terms of things that cost more money and things that we're we're still evaluating and trying to find ourselves a solution that will still work uh to address the floodplain mapping.

Uh as we work our way into then kind of this whole concept uh to construct this entire package of the uh improvements on South Washington Street, uh some improvements on the South Bismarck uh channel uh to improve conveyance, and then the South uh or the Bismarck Expressway uh interceptor line.

Uh we got to a tone of 172 million dollars to it was all in price to do that, and that was before we added the additional mitigation components on uh parks and rec property, and before we accommodated the DOT's request for additional um storm sewer sizing uh for their infrastructure.

So this project, while we might say 172 million, it was definitely trending further north than that into upwards of 180, 190 million dollars is what our most recent estimates were.

What we have then is our project funding.

Uh on this graph, it shows our FEMA partner showing uh the first 50 million dollars in blue there.

We were successful in this last legislative uh session to secure some dollars through a house bill appropriation, a Senate bill or house bill uh excuse me, 1020.

Uh we'll see that 17 million dollars for for that.

What we ran into during legislative session was uh I guess concerns with the amount of pipes and conduits and storm sewer related infrastructure, while technically required for FEMA's uh addressing the residual floodplain that's gonna be behind this wall or behind this dike or behind this levee, so it's not uncommon to every other flood protection project.

In our situation, we have a very small line of defense of just uh a gate structure, and the rest of it's the residual floodplain that we have to address.

You'll go to other communities that are addressing flood control uh and they might see a whole series of levees that are constructed with a very minor component that is the storm sewer infrastructure that might be behind there in a pump station.

So from staff's perspective at the Department of Water Resources, it it looked a lot like a storm sewer project, and that gave them reservations, so that uh influenced uh the the dollar amount that was then recommended through uh their appropriations bill uh through and so we ended up with 17 million dollars of construction, and if nothing changed, we would go back to them and ask for uh another allotment in the 2027 uh session that and something to the tune of 50 million dollars.

There's also the 49 million dollars that would be our local cost, once again, still working off this 172 million dollar estimate, which we know is is going further north than than what we would like.

Uh we'll note that the FEMA dollar is capped, that is five 50 million dollars, that is the maximum amount that that program can award.

So, even if the project increases costs, that FEMA dollar does not increase um at all.

So this leads us to what else could we do?

So we really kind of took a step back uh come this summer just to reanalyze some of the options that we made might have discarded, some of the options that we've thought were were not as effective as as others, and really kind of dusted off everything again and re-looked at everything that we possibly could with a fine-tooth comb.

And where where we landed is that we we believe we can still do an option here that would limit the uh improvement area to the South Washington Street uh closure structure as before, but uh as it was originally intended when the South Bismarck drainage ditch was constructed, it's a right-of-way that's wider than the ditch itself.

So there's areas uh if you if you're down there, there's the trail, there's a kind of a lot of flat space, open space before you get down into the ditch uh itself.

So this concept here would be looking at the available real estate that the city already owns and then maximize what we can for storage within that conveyance area.

This option would also remove the box culvert, the triple box culverts that we have on Third Street and at Walker Avenue and replace them with bridges.

And when we replace those box culverts with bridges, this entire ditch section really becomes a large storage pond.

And so that storage pond would act similarly to what we were trying to see from the conduit uh that would have been on Bismarck Expressway, or that we were proposing on the airport property of just storing the water in a manner that we can minimize the size of the pump station.

Now, granted, still a larger pump station here than what would have been previously programmed or thought through, but our the concept here is going through and removing as much of that uh material as we can to increase the storage capacity of the South Bismarck drainage ditch.

Our goal is to still get to something like this, where we're we have our floodplain existing on the left side and we're trying to get to something on the right.

Um, just notice or just just to note this shows up in our post-product project floodplain because this was the graphic that we submitted to FEMA for a grant application that had that airport pond.

So under this new situation, we would not have obviously a uh a hole dug on that area.

So it'd be more similar to something like this.

So as we work through our elevations, uh our goal is to get that uh uh somewhere between 33.5 and 34 is kind of what we're shooting for.

If we can get to that, we'll find our map in our inundation would be somewhere around here.

Try to remove as many structures as we can.

Uh, but as you can see, there will still be uh rain events, still be uh should say um flood risk associated with a river event.

Um, according to FEMA's methodology that would still be in this this area.

But as we work our way up into elevations, this is just a half foot increment.

As we get to 34.5 on the left and then eventually 35 on the right, uh, you'll see that just increases that that bathtub just fills up with water.

The current uh floodplain elevation is 36, so that would get you to if we did nothing, that's what the 36 map looks like.

So to reduce it but only reduce it a foot uh doesn't really meet the project goals of trying to remove as much of this property as we can from the floodplain.

So we're trying to find that right little Goldilocks location that is still uh engineeringly efficient, but removes as many properties as we reasonably can from that floodplain.

So this slide is to address the FAA regulations because we will still have water in the the uh drainage ditch.

We our goal is to have a drawdown period within 48 hours from the when the rain event is completed to have that area uh removed.

If I circle everybody, we'll look on the next slide.

What we propose is not really moving the bottom of the channel, the bottom of the channel will stay where it is, so no really changes will happen there.

What we're trying to do is add more capacity to uh the rest of the channel.

So it will still have a low flow sort of uh elevation that's represented by that 1627 line.

So you'll see that within that drawdown period, uh the existing conditions and proposed conditions are pretty similar.

So obviously, if it rains, there's there's that drip ditch will fill in, but then it will get below that the tip the current channel.

Uh and so the although we might be adding storage, that storage would only be utilized uh initially and then would not be utilized and would not be in our opinion uh an FAA wildlife attractant uh because it's no worse than what it is uh today.

Uh we as I noted before, because this is the city's property, uh, most of this uh we'd have limited adjacent property impacts.

We would still need to secure uh permission from Bismarck public schools uh for the construction of the pump station on their property in this vicinity.

We've had conversations with schools and schools is willing to continue to entertain that discussion.

We haven't formalized anything with a purchase agreement or anything along those lines until we settle up on our our concepts.

The last item that I want to touch on is some of the downstream impacts.

Uh, one of the requirements uh for abstaining or obtaining our construction permit from the Department of Water Resources is looking at what the downstream impacts are for your project.

We don't want to take our flood problem and move it somewhere else.

Uh if those during their uh reoccurrence intervals or the frequencies, uh if the impacts are less than a tenth of a foot during that event, uh there's there's no notification that's required, and really no mitigation that's required either.

If there's something between a tenth of a foot, and I believe, I don't know if it's on that sheet or not.

I think it's uh half a foot.

Yeah, here we go.

Mandatory mitigation um up to a half a foot.

So if we, as part of the project impacted and raise the water surface elevation downstream by half a foot, we would have to do mitigation in that scenarios to mitigate whatever that impact would be.

So the areas that we have listed in green on the right map here show the increase that is greater than a tenth of a foot.

Uh thankfully, most of that property is ours.

It's the water treatment, excuse me, it's the wastewater treatment plant, it's uh the open area that's that is the channel as it makes its way down to Tavis Road and out to the river eventually.

I do want to highlight a couple and just kind of give some perspective.

Anything in blue is our existing hundred-year inundation, and anything in red is that proposed hundred-year innovation inundation.

So while we may be raising it a tenth of a foot, uh in most of that area, it is just the bank or the the in slope of the ditch currently.

And so, yes, this property is flagged or would be flagged if this moved forward, but it's really hard to even find where that red line is.

But we recognize that there is an impact, so we'd have to provide notification to to those landowners.

Uh might want a little bit more than notification potentially for any landowners where you can actually see some of that impact.

Um, but those are still things that we're still working through, and we're we'll try to get that to be underneath a tenth of a foot, so that really that impact is is marginal and really below even the notification thresholds.

So, with all said and done, we think that this revised project uh would cost something around 100 million dollars instead of the 172 plus.

So that's kind of that's the good news.

So it said gave you a lot of bad news.

And then I said, hey, we got a different project.

And now the good news is we can still address the floodplain issues uh that we have in our map.

Uh we can do it at a more reasonable cost.

Uh we would still use the same 50 million dollars that FEMA authorized the the state authorization for uh through House Bill 1020.

We would go back to the state still in the 27 legislative session to ask for an additional uh request.

But both that request as well as our local cost share, as you can see, is drastically uh reduced with this option.

Now, granted, that means that it probably doesn't do a lot outside of that system.

So we we have looked at some of the benefits outside of uh the flood protection, and while uh the the drainage ditch might still uh get to the same peak elevation, and that drainage ditch elevation then propagates throughout the system.

We will definitely find under if this was constructed the duration of that peak to be less.

So instead of flooding that intersection for two hours during that rain event, maybe it's only flooded for an hour, but it's still to the same elevation.

So a lot of our floodplain maps won't show uh a change in in elevations, but it will be flooding for less time, which is also a benefit that's harder to quantify.

Uh, but it's not uh as if we're putting this infrastructure and it's not doing anything, it's just maybe not showing itself in the same way that an improvement on expressway or South 12th Street would have otherwise.

So my last slide here is kind of our next steps.

My ask for you today is to approve this concept.

Really, we're to the point that we got to start designing something.

Our grant with FEMA is to conf to finish the design phase of a project.

They didn't I've interested to say they didn't care.

They were okay with whatever project we wanted to do as long as we followed their steps, and so they're more than willing to work with us on which options and alternatives we want to evaluate.

But we do have a timestamp of uh by February of excuse me, July of 2027 is when our grant expires, and we want to make sure that we have fulfilled that grant with performing uh enough design work and uh modeling to get our uh cloma or conditional letter of map revision so that we can finalize that piece with FEMA, and that would put us in a good spot to then request our construction share from the state for to authorize the the dollars that were already authorized in the the 25-27 biannium, as well as put us in a spot to ask for additional dollars in the upcoming legislative session.

So, with that, looking for any questions you may have, looking for a confirmation that you're okay with proceeding this direction.

I'd anticipate if so, we'd have a scope uh modification with our consultant team to kind of put us to get to that Clomar level and potentially even a couple steps past there with the with the design package pursuing the South Bismarck drainage ditch centric improvement.

Okay, Commissioner Rush.

Um Mr.

Mayor, um Gabe.

So the plan is to essentially expand, widen the drainage ditch and but not make it any deeper.

Are you gonna make the banks on the sides of the drainage ditch taller?

And and I've got a question about that big purple spot up at the top there next to University Drive.

So zoomed in here.

Uh obviously the text is a little wonky there, but that dashed line, Commissioner Rish, uh Mayor, uh, commissioners is the existing stormwater ditch that's there, this existing stormwater channel.

We would reshape the bottom, make sure that it's it's flowing the way it should, but uh eventually we evidently would not change the elevations dramatically of the bottom.

Not raise the sides of it at all?

No, so it'd just be cutting out the the embankment material that's there.

So our proposed line, if I get this one here.

You'll make it a little wider.

Correct.

That's that's really the extent of what we'd be doing is making a lot wider.

Well, I was down there last summer when we had a pretty significant rain event in right off University Avenue.

The the big culverts of water was almost coming over the road when I went by.

And I think one of the current issues is it's silted in so bad and there's cattails and you know, reduces the amount ability for the water to go through there.

So Mayor and Commissioners, Commissioner Rish, usually when uh and I can let Michael Mart speak to this the maintenance schedule, but in our in our history of of that ditch, uh really the amount of cattails or the vegetation that's there or silt when we get those big gushers, a lot of that evacuates out of the system.

So it's not that there's a a growing material that's that's somehow impeding the ability for the water to get out.

A lot of those reads uh just kind of flip over and the whole thing flows when it's at full strength or at full flow.

Um so it is a common, I guess, misconception, but uh really the the growth that's in there really isn't impeding the ability for stormwater to go through because of the the amount of volume of stormwater that's trying to get through there.

Uh a couple of cattails really isn't gonna be able to slow that down.

Commissioner Zenker.

Mayor Commissioner, just to expand on that a little bit.

The biggest problem is that it's flat.

It's only two percent grade from from where it comes out of the drainage ditch at at uh Walkter by there until it goes to Tavis Road.

I mean it's just super flat, it doesn't flow.

When you look at it when it's full full, you can just see that water barely trickling across.

It should be more of a gusher, so to speak, when it's full.

But that's the that's one of the major reasons it takes so long for that.

Is that okay?

Yeah, and Mayor Commissioner, I would note that too, the the Red River that goes through Fargo has more slope to it than this drainage ditch.

So when you think of a slow moving meandering channel, that's what we have here.

It just doesn't meander a whole heck of a lot.

But then to further when we when we do have the flood event from the river, that the gate structure, that's also why the big pump system is in to help evacuate that water more quickly than just you couldn't move it through anyway.

And correct.

Yeah, that that's Mayor and Commissioners.

That is the exact purpose of that South Washington gate structure is to when the gates are closed and the river is high, we still will get a storm event in Bismarck, and we need a way to pump that water out from our system so we don't flood ourselves because we're trying to protect ourselves from the river, and then we end up getting flooded by a storm event.

So other questions.

I guess Mr.

Mayor, where would the 20 million dollars come from?

Would that be special assessed or Mayor and Commissioners, Commissioner Rish at this point in time we have not identified the where the 20 million dollars would come from.

We we don't anticipate a budget ask in 26 to really dip into that construction component.

That will be though the question that we'll ask in our 27 budget, because by that point of time we will have to identify what that source is.

Uh at this point in time, it will be easier to decide what that number is once or where that number is funded from once we know what that number is.

So I think right now if it's a $50 million ask, it might be a bunch of funding sources.

Sales tax could be property tax, could be uh utility uh stormwater revenue.

Uh the lower that that number gets from terms of local matches concerned, the more likely we could just utilize maybe one of those sources.

So I'm not going to say it's not going to be special assessments, but that definitely could be one of the sources.

Uh that was how we funded other flood improvement projects uh when we did flood protection projects in about 20 after the 2011 flood was through a special assessment boundary for all the water that drained to the really the South Bismarck drainage ditch.

So those would be decisions that don't have to be made tonight and would likely be made during the 27 budget proceedings.

Commissioner Zenker.

Mayor Commissioner uh we can always ask the state to put in the 60 percent of the project since we already got 50 million from the from the feds.

Well, I think that's we will have a bigger, we'll have a ask that's probably more than what's shown here.

Absolutely.

For more things than just this, by the way.

So I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Thank you, Gabe.

Second.

Any further discussion?

I also want to thank Gabe.

I know Gabe was able to bring both Commissioners, well, Commissioner Zenker even more so, but shared with me, so I knew where this was headed.

But uh thanks for the work on this.

Um I'll call roll.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Item J consider request to pursue North Dakota Department of Transportation Urban Road and Urban Regional Road Programs projects.

Okay, Mayor Commissioners, uh I'll have an item here that is the DOT solicitation for their urban program.

So we have the urban road program and the urban regional urban roads is for our functionally classified roads that I would consider as ours.

So those will be uh corridors like South Washington Street, corridors like uh anything really in our downtown area, 43rd Avenue, uh anything that's uh an arterial road or collector road that's on the functional classification system is eligible for funding.

Uh the project that I have I I should back up to and say for 2030 solicitation is what we're talking about.

So it is a kind of a long ways out.

Um this is also pending a passage of a new uh highway bill that would fund some of these programs.

So the DOT is requested that we still program projects uh with the expectation that there will be a funding bill that would uh fund these sorts of improvements.

Uh DOT has anticipated that there'll be about 5.2 million dollars available for fiscal year uh 30 funding.

What I would like to do is propose a project on Main Avenue, which would uh do a concrete pavement repair project primarily between uh Memorial Highway and Washington Street.

Uh, it's a corridor that was originally constructed in the 50s.

Uh our most recent work there was in 2008 with some stimulus dollars.

What I like about this project is that it doesn't fit well into our special assessment policies really at all because on one side of the road is the railroad tracks, and the other side of the road is a park, and there's just a lot of road out there and not a lot of adjacent properties that fit well into our assessment policies.

Uh we typically don't allocate our federal dollars that we might receive in our MPO area to maintenance projects for for fear that we're given uh one property owner a heck of a deal by subsidizing their project at 80%, but then the next person that happens to live on a similar concrete road, uh, really no federal dollars invested in there.

So I try to be strategic about where we would recommend using those dollars, and I think this is a really good candidate that uh would create some really high special assessments for those adjacent properties because we really wouldn't be able to bring the railroad in as a benefiting property for many of these these improvements.

So uh scope would be put back what's there, generally speaking, but also we'll open ourselves up to other opportunities.

There's some asphalt shoulders um throughout this corridor.

We might ask if that's necessary, or is this maybe a spot that we would want to put curb and gutter?

Uh the intersection of Bell Street, Rosser, and Main Avenue is kind of a wonky type thing.

Uh might look at either lane configurations or or intersection improvements, including but not limited to a roundabout potentially at that location, would be things that we'd want to explore as we do our project development.

Uh but really starts here with just asking permission if this is something we can start exploring and advocate to the MPO that we should use what I would anticipate would be all of that balance of the $5.2 million could be put towards this project for either a really robust uh put back what's there and tweak what we need to, or uh a more modest improvement uh that includes some more strategic investments in some intersection traffic control.

So take any questions you may have on this project or the direction we'd be going.

Any questions?

Move to you just want it you want to wait for the whole thing either's either's fine.

I'll make a motion to approve this as presented.

Second any further discussion.

Call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Okay.

The other part of this program is the urban regional program, uh, which is the DOT's regional system within our community.

Uh, you'll find that these are the roadways like Expressway, State Street, 7th Street, 9th Street, and University Drive that are DOT facilities, arterial roadways, but they happen to reside within the community of Bismarck.

Uh, these are projects that uh we would need concurrence from the DOT to program.

These aren't really our dollars to advocate for, even if the MPO says this is the greatest project ever.

Uh it's not our choice.

It's goes into the DOT's hopper of projects, and they get to decide what this priority is relative to the other priorities that might be throughout the state that would use those same funds.

Um as you can about imagine the improvements that are happening right now in Mandan and Memorial Highway have used up a lot of the statewide resources, and it might not be our region's turn for a while until we probably have some projects in Grand Forks and Fargo and Minot and everywhere else get caught up because of the the influx of dollars that was required to construct uh the strip project over in Memorial Highway.

So we have a couple of modest projects here that uh we've had before.

I just want to refresh our our applications.

One would be a regional roadway sign replacement project that looks at kind of the regional highway system and replacing uh the signs.

Uh, their typical mill and overlay projects or concrete pavement repair don't address signage.

Uh so it'd be something nice for us to just ask are these signs needed?

Are they the right size?

Are they the right thing?

Uh, and uh work with the DOT on that sort of project.

The next one I have is an evaluation of storm sewer uh at 7th Street and 9th Street.

Uh this is an intersection of 9th Street, excuse me, 7th Street here.

Uh this is a project where I don't know what we want, but it's something that we know that there's uh something less than desirable happening and and and more frequently than we'd like it to be occurring as well.

I know when when we do have a rain event that occurs, even a pretty marginal rain event, uh the system at 7th Street and the pumps that are there is unable to keep up with the amount of rain that makes its way there.

Uh so we'll have initially uh police cruisers out there to stop traffic, and hopefully we don't have a car inside the the belly of the the underpass, but sometimes that's what happens, and then until public works crews can get out with more uh road closed barricades and the like until the the waters recede.

So I don't have a necessarily a pro or a solution just yet, but we're definitely know that there's a problem, and that's what we wanted to have the DOT help us evaluate to look at what sort of solutions might be out there.

And the second to last project is a intersection signal replacements for some of the ramp traffic signals at Tyler Parkway and I-94 uh showing their age.

We've actually had to do a certify some welds on some of this infrastructure that's out there.

Um so we know that it's uh past its point of uh uh service life, and we'd like the DOT to help explore funding the replacement of that infrastructure once it gets to the end of its service life.

And the last project that I have is a state street trail rehab from the Capitol Grounds near the Capitol Grounds up to Calgary Avenue.

This is the existing trail that was constructed in 2003 that I guess really hasn't been touched too much.

We've done some Parks and Rec has done some crack sealing on it.

More recently, we've done crack sealing, but doing a more robust mill and overlay uh of that asphalt section that's there for the trail and replacing that.

Many of the ramps were replaced when the DOT did their safety improvement in 2023, but didn't touch the areas in between the ramps.

So we just want to make sure that we have a safe uh roadway for our uh bicycle and pedestrian users to use.

This application was also sent through our transportation alternatives program that the DOT solicited for previously.

We're trying to give the DOT the same project but in multiple uh funding potentials so they can fund that in whatever way they think is most appropriate.

And I guess with that, we take any questions on those projects.

But look for uh a motion to approve those four.

Second any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Cleary, yes, Commissioner Rish?

Yes, Commissioner Zenker?

Yes, Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Next item K consider request from administration department to provide final draft of 2025 strategic plan.

Douglass, good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Gabe said roundabout, and it perked me up a little bit.

I'm not from here and not used to so many straight streets, so I like roundabouts.

Um if you recall, uh last month I presented the rough draft and uh had a couple requests of the commission.

So tonight um I'm asking you to consider what you received as the final draft for the strategic plan.

Um, this does not mean that we are done with the work to implement this plan.

This is just you all accepting what is currently presented to you.

Um I'm gonna review for those listening and for those in the crowd uh some of the high points of what what occurred during this process.

But before I get to that, I would certainly want to thank a few people.

First, I want to thank the commission for uh giving this direction for us to move forward.

This is a very important project.

It provides direction and accountability for our organization.

So it's uh very um thoughtful for you guys to make this important and for allowing me to lead this project.

Uh second, I want to thank our consultant Patrick Ibarra from the Mehiranda group.

I know he is watching or will be watching the recording of this.

Um he is the king of one-liners.

Um it was really fun listening to him.

He felt like he did a really great job managing the meetings on the the three or four times he was in town.

He was able to pull over 150 staff together to get input on the good, the bad, um, from the perspective perspective of our frontline employees from across the organization, which helped us to develop our strategic plan.

And most of all, I want to thank the strategic planning committee.

Um I'm gonna list who served on that as Renee Mock, Luke Teagle, Jason Stuglmeyer, Tondra Kraft, Gabe Shell, Kelly, Kaylin Oz, Sarah Berner, Steve Salway, Katie Jonke, and Leanne Schmidt, and then our former finance director, Dimitri Cherniak, and former community development director Ben Aerith.

Um it's a very smart group of folks in that room, and I learned a ton, and we got to where we are today because of the work that they did.

I just kind of help put everybody in the room.

So they're they're a great group of directors and a great group of staff, and we should be very appreciative and thankful that we have them leading our community.

Um to get back to kind of the process, Patrick was here three or four times, four times in person.

And uh the first time he came, he met with you commissioners, he had conversations with you, and then he met with staff, got some input about, like I said, where we are as an organization.

Uh some of it was um refreshing, and some of it led us to where we are with some of our recommendations with what we want to do moving forward.

Um the vision, mission, and values.

So I've mentioned this to you in previous meetings, but I will just go over it quick.

Uh, our new vision for the city of Bismarck is that Bismarck is a dynamic community, dynamic community committed to an extraordinary quality of life.

Quality of life came up, you know, kind of to the surface over and over as we try to figure out what it is in Bismarck that keeps people here and draws people here.

Our mission is together, we will deliver exceptional public service.

That's what our organization does.

We work with people, we work with each other, and we provide that service that makes our community a worthwhile place to live for our citizens.

Values, uh there's a little preamble to what our values are, but we have five values, and um our values will reflect who we are and guide how we serve.

Rooted in our commitment to Bismarck's vision of an extraordinary quality of life for our uh city administrator, and our mission to deliver exceptional public service together.

These values define the way we work, lead, and connect with our community.

So those values are service, stewardship, respect, care, and innovation.

And then, you know, we kind of go in tiers.

First, you have vision, mission, values, and we have our uh strategic focus areas uh for this strategic plan, this iteration, our strategic focus areas are infrastructure and development, economic vitality, safe and healthy community, emerging issues, engaged and informed community, desirable lifestyle, and organizational excellence.

Um a little bit of history.

This is our third strategic plan.

The first one's in 2012, and I'm just gonna kind of lay out the track record, and hopefully this will lead to some discussion about our implementation.

In 2012, um, we had our first strategic plan is actually with Patrick Ibarra, he led that effort.

Uh it was kind of disrupted.

We had a big natural event in 2011 that kind of put a halt in the process and kind of put a hiccup in our step of carrying that forward or implementing it.

And then in 2019, we had a really big project for the um the next strategic plan.

And uh I got to be a part of that group, and it was led by our city administrator at that time, our current city administrator, and then we had a uh COVID event, which kind of altered how we implemented that as well.

So we're not going to alter the strategic plan is where I'm going that.

We're we need to change, um, not necessarily change, but we need to be very diligent in how we're implementing this.

And I would love for Commissioner Zinker to talk a little bit about that and what his feelings are because this is something he has mentioned over and over and over to me, and then I will elaborate.

Thanks for not stealing my thunder.

You're welcome.

It's always appreciated.

So I think this is critically important, right?

What our strategic plan to that, the the previous one was about us reaching out to the community and those and getting that feedback.

This is more us um and our employees working on our business, right?

Not in the business, working on it.

And one of the big things that came back from when Patrick talked to the 150 employees is some knew that we had a strategic plan, but a lot didn't know that we did that we had one.

And and the good thing is is that they were just doing their job, providing the services that they do as they expect to every day, which is fantastic.

But I I think that we need to make sure that our department heads, um, and I'll put the the burden on on Doug since it's it's his is to make sure he's communicating with the department heads that it goes down to our team that's you know boots on the ground, so to speak, right?

They live it, they do it.

Um they're they're our number one salesman if we're in sales, because they're providing the services, they they know what needs to happen on a daily basis when when uh Gabe brings up his pictures of seventh and ninth flooded, right?

It's not us that take care of it, it's it's our team that's got the boots on the ground.

So I think it's it will be critically important.

Um the other thing I think we've talked about it before is that Doug brings this back every quarter and gives us an update of of what's happening, right?

Sometimes we lose focus as to as to what our strategic plan is, and I can I could probably say that um I still have the one that we did the the last time I was on it, and I'll replace it.

Um, but it's right here because if we follow our strategic plan, our city is gonna be vibrant for years to come.

And thank goodness for our employees that we have because they're the ones who get it done.

So um I just think these are these are critically important for us for our own businesses, um, because as Mr.

Um Martin from the Ward Development said they like they like our city and they want it to be, you know, they're hard enough architect for landscaping for crying out loud.

So we need to make sure that we're doing the right thing for the future.

Uh because this was this is gonna move.

It's a moving document, as you can see, that someone's gonna have to upkeep Doug, and then make sure we're getting communications back from our the rest of our department heads.

And it's us as commissioners to make sure that we we hold our department heads in our portfolios responsible for it.

We don't without a strategic plan, we don't have a triage center coming.

We don't have a new police station.

Um we don't buy back hundred year fire trucks.

Right?

So I think that the right, then that's what that's what we need.

That's what we need to do.

So is that good?

You want me to elaborate any more?

I just keep rambling.

What do you got?

You can keep going.

No, I can take it.

And I'll take any questions you got too.

So I'll answer any questions and then continue if you don't.

No, I mean I go ahead and then I think then we should have hopefully there's a little bit of discussion at the end because I know one of the things commissioners referred to already is kind of that report back, and yeah, and I know I've shared some of my thoughts on how we do some of that too.

So just to kind of get into the implementation and what we've done so far with that is Commissioner Zinker and Calen and I have set in on meetings with a uh contractor that is gonna work on developing a management solution for us, which will provide some accountability across the organization.

Um it will allow for directors and supervisors to provide um inputs into a dashboard or an update into the strategic plan, which will be online, and it'll allow me to schedule those inputs and make requests and automated requests to directors to give us an update.

Um we're not always gonna get updates, obviously.

Some things are scheduled out in 2027, but we should see progress uh on some items very quickly.

So that's something that we weren't able to fully implement the last time we had uh strategic plan.

We we got almost there and then we got disrupted.

But so that contract has been signed and we have a meeting next week uh with that contractor to um just kind of a welcome meeting and then kind of get the ball rolling there.

So we have that in place that will allow for uh reporting that'll allow for a public facing dashboard, that'll allow for an internal facing dashboard so you or anyone in the city can see the work that we're doing.

Um and then one of the questions I had for you was not only to meet with your departments, which you did and I received some feedback on that, and that's all been put into this final draft.

But then as the mayor alluded to, you know, what exactly do you want for me to do to report back to you?

And if you have ideas for what you'd see on like to see on other aspects of implementation, I'm welcome would welcome those comments as also uh go ahead, Commissioner.

I guess maybe um keep the plan updated on what progress is being made, what what what's been started, the stages of them, and then you know somebody's got to keep that up.

Yep.

Commissioner Clear.

Yeah, I was just gonna say I think that we've set ourselves up really well to actually be able to implement.

I like even like looking at this and how every like departments are assigned, so we know who's like the lead on an objective, we know when we want it to happen, we know we can see its status.

So I think just like keeping those things updated, like and having it be a true like living document, I think is so valuable because you can really like track the progress and maybe see as we move through it, like what what's not getting done, what needs to be worked on more, um, if like focus needs to shift.

So I think that that like the way that it's set up, I think makes a ton of sense.

So I think just continuing to update it and keeping it a living document is is super valuable.

So Commissioner Sinkers already recommended or made the comment like quarterly a report that you know encapsulates the a summary and into the particular projects if there's something specific that come out.

But I would also like to see, like in our memos when we have things on the agenda, and there's a particular action item in that memo that is being a that is addressing one of our strategic initiatives that we call that out as a separate header, or we can get a new capsule or title for that.

But I think that also helps show not only to us as commissioners, it reminds us that we're or addressing or staff is addressing that particular initiative, but it also shows it for the public more clearly because we get to have that in the public view uh a lot a lot more frequently than so I mean I think that's from my perspective uh what I would like to see from a report back as well, as as well as just the quarterly update and then we can do that for sure.

And then hopefully our departments that we have in our portfolio are talking to us to let us know how they're doing independently too.

And and you probably need to ask them if they're doing that, or Jason has to ask his who are his directors as well, you know, make sure you guys are being updated too.

Yep.

Any other feedback for Doug?

I I'm I'm thrilled that we have this.

I think it's really gonna set us up for the future.

I just and Mayor, if I could just um I I just want to say too that it was a great group of people.

We have we have such a talented group.

Um it was a lot of fun.

Sometimes Patrick had to reel me in to keep me focused too.

But I mean it's just when you from a leadership perspective, when you get into those meetings, and I got I was very very fortunate to be able to do this twice.

The dynamic people that we have that work for the city of Bismarck is um first class, and we should be very proud of who we have that those boots on the ground getting that done.

So I just want to say that.

Anything else?

Doug, you've got do you have what you need?

Uh yes, motions are last thing.

Okay, well, I'm making a strategic plan.

Okay, second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes, Commissioner Rish?

Yes, Commissioner Zenker?

Yes, Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Thank you for the efforts.

Um do we have any other business for the city commission at this point before we go into executive session?

Hearing none, uh I would ask if there's a motion, if someone would make the motion to enter into executive session.

I would move that we enter executive session under North Dakota Century Code Section 44-04-19.2 regarding contract negotiations and negotiation strategy under NDCC section 4404 19 point one.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes, call roll.

He's she's calling role.

She called me, yeah.

Oh, that'd be yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.