It's five I have 515 on the 13th of January.

We're in the Tom Baker room of the City County Building.

This will be the Board of City Commissioners meeting.

However, before we'll start, I would like to ask Chaplain Carr to come forward for invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

And maybe he wants to make an announcement about the per breakfast.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

And it's an honor uh to be able to do this, and we thank you for letting the chaplaincy continue to do this at each meeting.

We appreciate it.

And also we appreciate you letting us uh host the mayor's prayer breakfast.

And I'm happy to announce that date as May 20th, Wednesday, May 20th of this year at 715 a.m.

So we hope to see everybody there.

Let us pray.

Heavenly Father, I s I just want to thank you for uh this commission and the men and women that make the decisions to make Bismarck the great community that it is.

I thank you for giving them the wisdom that they need to make the right decisions every time.

We may not always agree with those decisions, but Father, I believe they're your decisions as well.

So thank you, Father, for these men and women.

Thank you for all of our workers in our city and our county.

Thank you for all of our first responders.

We ask your protection upon them as they do their job that they are called to do.

Uh Father, be with us tonight.

May everything uh that is done in this building uh just uh make Bismarck a better place.

And again, we give you thanks in the name of your son, amen.

Amen.

Please stand.

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.

Again, thank you.

Commissioner.

All right.

Um if we can call a meeting to order by calling roll, please.

Commissioner Rish.

Here.

Commissioner Zenker?

Here.

Commissioner Connolly?

Here.

Commissioner Cleary?

Here.

Mayor Schmidt.

Here.

Our first item tonight is public comment.

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

Anyone who wish to speak, please come forward and tell us what your topping talking to and sign in.

Good evening.

Uh for the record, my name is Dustin Goverlow, Bismarck resident.

Uh I'm speaking on regular agenda item number uh letter D regarding the street utility fee.

Uh I'm not going to get into policy on it.

I I just want to make a few comments about strategy and timing.

Uh and uh urge the concept of not letting the this and the uh sales tax get too blurred together.

Uh they are very complicated discussion points.

And I know that uh I think next meeting there will be more discussion on the sales tax side of things.

Uh and hopefully that gets ratcheted down significantly as far as the expectations that come out of that.

Uh but I I think that uh in my opinion, strategically to be able to best explain these uh separate uh measures to the public if that's where it's going.

Uh that uh having them be rushed is not necessarily a good idea, and that uh having them at the same time on the same ballot is not necessarily a good idea.

Uh with that, I will stand for any comments or questions.

I mean any questions for Dustin.

Thank you, sir.

All right, this is public comment.

Anyone who wish to speak, please come forward.

A second call for public comment.

A third and final call for public comment.

Public comment period is closed.

Commissioners, I know there's a couple of you want to pull a couple topics at least for further clarification off the consent agenda.

So uh I ask what your what your requests are with regard to consent agenda and go ahead, Commissioner.

Mayor, if I could have uh item D6 pulled.

Okay.

And I would pull item I1.

Okay.

And I'd pull item D1.

Okay.

So I'll let you each be respective to which item you have to come back to that.

What are your wishes with regard to the rest of the consensus?

Move to approve second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, uh, we'll call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker, you're first.

Yes.

So mayor and commissioner, so item uh D6.

Um is the amendment to the contract with uh Jones Lang LaSalle, JL for the um management and a kind of a um operational standpoint to get us through to the to the Oakview group.

So um when I did the math on that quickly, I was a little I had a little I had a little shock.

Um and I think I think we need to do one of two things.

In fact, I know we need to do one of two.

We need to either um be very, very um selective when we ask them, or we need to shrink the time frame down because I don't think we I don't think we need them for five months.

Um if you need them for the first sixty days or whatever, we could do that.

Um and then I think it should be specific to who asks the questions so they don't get you know every time somebody gets a question from somebody from the Bismarck thing, they gotta they could check off which one their hourly rate they're billing us.

Sure, right?

Yep, and and Commissioner, I had I had my first cut at that before it even came to us and and knocked some stuff off.

So I do appreciate that.

I I certainly I think Jason, you would agree with me that we could keep it to 60 days probably and be very specific.

It's it's primarily getting through the contract negotiation and maybe attending one additional authority board meeting.

Sure.

And I think I think if we could appoint who's gonna be that contact person as well, it'll be Jason.

It'll be Jason.

So if that's the case, if we can shrink it to 60 days, I'll make a motion to approve item D6 with the amendments of set of five months to to sixty days because February's in there, you only get 28.

So I that and the only point of contact with uh JL will be uh city administration Jason Timonic.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes, Commissioner Cleary?

Yes, Commissioner Rish?

Yes, Commissioner Zenker?

Yes, Mayor Schmidt.

Yes, Commissioner Connolly, your item is next.

This is more just for clarification's sake, um, because we uh brought it over from uh December consideration.

Um we met with IT city administration, municipal court, and it was clarified that we're getting consistent with the wording with uh state, some of our wording over time is not consistent with uh state um uh uh sentry code.

Um anything that's uh as far as the municipal court, the department leader will be the clerk of court when it's city matters, it'll be city matters when it's judicial, it'll be judicial.

And it's broken down that way.

We met with Stephanie from the League of Cities was also there, and we came to the understanding.

So with that, unless somebody has questions, I'll and to clarify in in the courtroom the judge is the director.

Yep, yep.

And unless uh well maybe I should ask Julie, is there anything maybe I didn't get the wording right?

Maybe you want to no, I think you did get it right, Commissioner.

We just we did have that meeting to clarify that we're just cleaning up some language, um, and then there'll be some more um ordinance changes for the pension board so we can clarify who the director is for city purposes, but municipal court is its own unique department within the city because there is a judicial function that the city doesn't control.

That's the judge, but for city matters that would be the clerk of court.

Yeah, thank you.

And I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes, Commissioner Rish?

Yes, Commissioner Zenker?

Yes, Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Rish.

Yeah, I asked to pull uh item D1 just to draw some light on it.

It's the county who has now decided that they were going to pull out of the joint powers agreement with the park district in the cities.

And it's just another example of the county not wanting to work with the rest of the community, and it's not good for the citizens overall.

Uh I'll move that we adopt it, but it's just a disappointment to me that once again the county is deciding uh to go it on their own.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Moving to the regular agenda, item A, public hearing on the application for an F1 alcohol license for TJ Galplan Enterprises LLC doing business as Tufts pub and grub.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wish to speak to it, please come forward.

Second call for public comment.

A third.

Please state your name and sign in.

Neil Galpin, uh Tiffany Galpin and myself are the owners, so we just came to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay.

Anyone have questions?

No.

Thank you for being in business.

And I'll just make one more call for public comment if there is any regarding this.

I don't see anybody else, so I'll close public comment.

Moving on to the room.

To approve is presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Next item B public hearing on the application for Class B five alcohol license by Dirty Bean LLC doing business classic rock.

Kitch Coffee and Kitchen.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Anyone wish to speak to this, please come forward.

A second call for public comment.

A third and final call for public comment.

Seeing no one and hearing no one, I'll close the public comment period.

Commissioners, what are your wishes?

I'll move we approve is presented.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yes.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Next item is consider request for resolution receiving bids and ordering preparation of engineering statement.

Engineer statement and awarding contract for street improvement district 592.

Gabe.

Mayor and Commissioner, Street Improvement District 592 is street lighting throughout our community for the 2026 construction season.

As part of that bid opening, I don't know if we get the Elmo up here.

There we go.

We had four bidders on the project.

Thank you, sir.

Uh four bidders on the project with the low bid being Denny's Electric LLC with a bid of 864,942 dollars.

Our recommendation is to award to Denny's Electric.

Take any questions that you may have.

Commissioners.

Move to approve is presented.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Cleary.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt.

Yes.

Next item D, consider request to receive an update on the public input received and provide direction for the proposed street utility repair fee or maintenance fee, whatever we're called, whatever term it has had to it.

Whatever we're calling it these days.

Uh for the board to consider.

Relating to the public involvement and our street utility fee, we had a couple of different opportunities, one being our public input meeting that we had in person on Tuesday, November 18th.

We had about 40 people or so in our public works conference room.

We also at the same time launched an online story map.

The link online there, as well as in the packet, would give you access to look at what that story map looks like.

A lot of the same materials that we presented at the presentation were just carried over and formatted for a map to be consumed, kind of as you as you go graphically and as you read through it.

Some of those at the public input meeting, others returned to us during conversations or submitted via uh email or even letters.

And then lastly, we have an online survey that was live through that that same kind of time period.

Uh we had 342 responses, and that's what I guess the next couple of slides will be talking about the results of the online survey.

Um so the first question was the satisfaction with the city's uh roadways, and really this was a question I put uh I wanted to get some insights as to um an indication of whether or not we're doing right by the citizens currently with how we're maintaining the roadways.

If we would have seen this question come back saying uh not satisfied at all, the roads are terrible, we think that they're the worst in the world.

We might think that our capital investment isn't where it should be, and we should be talking about increasing that.

Uh contrarily, if we found ourselves saying everyone is very, very, very satisfied with the roadways, and there is no one saying dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, we might be investing too much into those roadways.

If we did a you know a brand new road every single year, it's probably too much investment.

Uh what we're seeing here is a lot of people at neutral, uh, the most was satisfied.

Uh, and if we took all the neutral and satisfied and very satisfied together, that adds up to uh I think it was around 80% of the group.

So I think that we're that that's kind of the indication to me that we're probably at the right investment level relative to the the driver and the property owners' expectations, because that's really what ultimately drives those revenue requirements is how much are we investing into that system?

So now specific to what we were talking about with the public.

Um first question was just even without getting into any details.

Do you support the concept of a street utility fee to replace street maintenance special assessments?

Um, quite honestly, I thought this one would be a little bit higher than terms of the for those from the public that we hear saying we don't like special assessments, but of the 342 or so that took this survey, uh, about 75% said you're really not interested in the concept at all.

So just want to make sure that that's out there.

Once again, this is only 342 people.

Uh, usually people that take the survey or ones that are have a reason to take it, those that are um uh satisfied with the status quo probably aren't going into the system and and taking uh a survey potentially.

Next question.

As we start talking more of the details about how this fee would be constructed, should the fee include paying off street maintenance special assessments from previous projects?

That was a question that we wanted to know because that also drives significantly the revenue requirements if we are paying off the existing special assessments and for giving those.

Uh, that drives up the cost of what that utility is responsible to pay for, and therefore rises up what those rates would be.

So in this particular instance, it was about 75% saying no.

Uh we do not want to have the paying paying off of existing specials included in the fee.

So just offer that.

Next question is should only metered accounts pay the fee?

So that would be vacant property and property without a meter would not pay.

Uh, this one there was resounding support for, or I should say opposition towards the cot the question with 86% saying no.

Um, this would be contrary to how special assessments are used now.

So special assessments we do uh can do a maintenance project and special assess that cost to a vacant property or property that doesn't have a meter.

So I think it is something that we would want to look into and analyze.

At the same token, we don't want to uh uh special assess a property when it's in the city, or I should say put a utility account onto a property when it doesn't even have a road in front of it.

So it's something for us to consider if we start down the road of saying um yes, we might want to consider some of these vacant properties, um, narrowing the scope and really identifying what sort of properties are we really talking about there.

Question five is the proposed fee of 30 to 35 dollars a month for residential.

I'll read, I guess you read through all those.

Um, is it reasonable?

So what we found from the public is they're very very unreasonable and or unreasonable was the uh majority of folks with a number upwards and 70 percent saying that that's an unreasonable number with 30 percent saying um it was reasonable.

Um, I do want to seek a clarification here on this note as well as I'll have a whole slide following this.

But you look at the 30 to 35 dollars a month for residential, 750 to 850 per dwelling unit per month for multifamily and manufactured home.

When we said 23 dollars to 27 per thousand square feet, we didn't put a time frame on that.

So that's something I want to clarify is that, and there's a lot of words, it's probably more so just to have it on the record.

So if someone looks at this chart later, they can get the full story.

This is the same language was in the agenda memo.

Uh, but as we looked at the analysis and would have people calling in for questions, we realized that there was a kind of two errors that happened at the same time.

One, we didn't have a time bound to the commercial or or the non-residential rate, so it didn't say per month or per year, it was just it was actually a per year number as opposed to a per month number.

But compounding that was the calculation that came out of the billing software uh was uh make sure I'm stating this if I have it in there correctly or not, but uh it was uh three one-third as much as what it should have been.

So that combined with the 12 month ended up being one uh a fourth, a factor of a four is really what what the real rate would be.

So I do apologize for any confusion.

Quite honestly, we didn't see a lot of comments from the non-residential folks besides churches.

A lot of people that called in in that grouping were the churches or people associated with churches wondering what their fee was, and it was those sort of individuals and calling in asking questions that really got to the bottom of why that rate was so high for them.

So I was able to respond to those resident non-residential property owners when they would call in.

But moving forward, we want to make sure that there we do a pivot and we talk about what the new rate is and that previous 23 to 27 dollars should be removed from anyone's existence.

And really, we were talking about the 575 to 675 per 1,000 square foot per month is what the non-residential fee would be.

The last question we had, and this was more of a throw-in at the end as we're just talking about infrastructure in general.

Um I'm sure you've realized multiple times we've came to this board asked seeking funding for trail maintenance on in the public right-of-way through various DOT programs, and we've been unsuccessful in getting maintenance dollars for those sort of facilities.

So this was an opportunity to see if this there'd be a public appetite for including what would be shared use path trail sort of maintenance activities, mill and overlay, or repairs of those facilities as part of this fee as well.

So that's just a question asked to the public without a lot of context or explanation behind it, but we did see 63% or so saying uh no, that would not be something that they would support.

So there was also of the 342 people that took the comments uh include in the memo was um some 300 or so individual comments.

So that was really the insightful piece reading through those and kind of getting more of in their words what their concerns were.

So trying to summarize here what some of those are, but obviously in the memo that was part of the agenda packet has all of their words verbatim without without a filter or context.

Uh first theme I'd want to put up there is that some prefer special assessments.

I mean, they just say that they like the value of it of understanding that if that improvement's in front of my house, I might pay the thousand dollars, and I know that that thousand dollars is going towards that improvement here.

Uh they like the um transparency associated with it, that they know where those dollars are going because they can see it happening.

Um so I just I just offer that there's some people just philosophically would rather have a special assessment than a street maintenance fee on the books.

There's also a subsect of those that want neither special assessments nor the street utility fee and comments associated with that as well, saying don't do either of these things, just make the roads better and use the resources that you're given.

So that's just wanted to make sure that that comment is being noted.

It's just that's hard to probably accommodate without lowering the pavement condition that we have in our community.

Uh there was concern over forgiving the existing special assessments.

Uh, that's probably from those that don't have a special assessment balance.

Likewise, there were some comments, albeit less in favor of forgiving the existing special assessment balance.

Those were probably from people that have a current balance of maintenance special assessment.

So I just offer that that is probably driven by those individual circumstances, and someone that might not be in favor of forgiving special assessments might change camps the minute that they get a letter from us this spring saying your prop property is subject to a special assessment, and some of those might turn over into people in favor.

So I note that is just it's kind of a moving target, but it is something that just wanted to bring attention to.

The third bullet interest in vacant properties paying or the non-metered accounts, that was, I guess, unanimous darn near unanimous from those.

I would say, as I mentioned previously, if we did go down that road, we won't want to talk about what sort of grace period should be out there for properties, um, similar to what we've looked at in our sidewalk gap analysis.

If something's been out there for 10 years, probably reasonable that they could be paying into the system and or paying for a sidewalk at that point in time.

But if something is one year old and it's in a new developing area and doesn't even have a street yet, that's probably not the right time to turn on a utility account just because they've been annexed into the city and they're a vacant property.

So we just want to be sensitive to that and make sure that those that are holding those vacant properties, because we didn't propose anything to the contrary.

If we start moving towards that, that we give some time for some additional input for those parties.

The fourth bullet rate control provisions.

Uh, I say it, I summarize it that way, but a lot of it was based on yes, we can vote this in, but then what happens next?

How do we know that this rate doesn't increase?

How do we know where the dollars will be going?

What's the plan look like of what how you use these dollars?

Um we didn't spend a lot of our energies with the public talking about what the five-year plan is, like what streets you're gonna do next year, what streets we're gonna do three years from now.

We really just talked about the funding mechanism, but I think some from the public would like to know what that plan is so that they know where those dollars are being used so that they would can show that prior to uh submitting their support.

And my last bullet up there is just a general misunderstanding of taxes and specials and development processes.

Uh we read through it, and it's something that I want to be very sensitive to because I would really hate for us to have the voters pass something like this and then find out later that this isn't what they thought it was going to be.

So the education component or just understanding uh what what the topic is of street maintenance special assessments that really has nothing to do with what a uh developer in the south side of town is doing for new street construction.

They are not interrelated, but judging by some of the comments, there's some in the public that make a connection between those activities for some reason.

So we'd want to just be sensitive and make sure that we understand where that maybe misunderstanding is coming from and what we can do to help better educate the public.

So I have two questions or concepts to explore that came out of that public input process that I'm that just piqued my curiosity.

The first being, what would we do, or what if the existing special assessment debt wasn't forgiven?

That's an issue that we've looked at.

It was never really decided upon.

It was some in favor, some opposed, and all of the task force information that we've got up to date.

There's about 14,000 parcels right now that have or would have had a special assessment on the books as of January 1st, 2026.

And I say would have had is because some of those parcels might have paid it off early.

They could have had a five year assessment and paid it off early.

So they don't show a current balance in one system.

We'd have to go back to look at the original creation of these districts to then tally up how many parcels were actually included.

So we did that.

We came up to about 14,000 parcels, would be the kind of are the other people that we're talking about that would have had a special assessment.

And so with those 14,000, we can either A, I guess maybe I should back up.

There the reason that we've talked about forgiving special assessment debt, primarily was because of the concern about a person paying for two things at the same time.

Paying for both the street maintenance fee that's going to be on the utility bill and paying off their special assessment for the project that was done last year, two years ago, five years ago, etc.

So that was the driving factor behind even including the existing street maintenance special assessment debt in the package, is just as a way to not double charge someone.

So there's other ways to do that as well.

But I'll say our first option A would be keep all the properties and accounts in the same as we would, but if we don't have to pay that debt off, we would be seeing the rates be 47 or 50% or so lower just because of not having that debt repayment as a piece of what that utility is obligated to pay for.

I wouldn't advise that because that still gets us into that situation of charging people for both for two things, albeit at a lower rate, so that's great, but those people are paying for things and their special.

What I would advocate is is part B there is activating those accounts over time.

So that's really if if we wanted to consider this further, and I think I have one more slide on a different question, but um activating those accounts over time with a proposed fee as it is today, or some other number, if it's not $30 per month for residential, maybe it's a different number that we could use.

Uh really the goal there would be as the properties pay off their special or their term expires for when their original term would have been, would be the time or the year to bring in those parcels.

So initially we might bring in 2,000 parcels in 2027, then another 2,000 parcels in 2028, another 2,000 parcels in 2029, etc.

Until we can eliminate that list.

Now, obviously, as we turn on this fee and stop making new special assessments, we'll start to see that list get smaller and have a tail to it.

Right now, it we lower that number, but as we create another year of construction, we add another 2,000 parcels to that list every year.

So it's kind of always we're always adding 2,000 parcels at any given time to that list, although the parcels themselves change.

The number of parcels probably doesn't change a whole heck of a lot.

Um so I offer that as something to consider that I'm curious, probably exploring a little bit more, although it is difficult to come up with an exact number.

And I'll I'll say that as the caveat with exploring that proposed fee and our alternative fee and activating these over time.

It's easier at a higher level to come up with there's about 2,000 parcels out there.

Once we start saying, well, which parcel are we talking about, then it's a very individual exercise that we would do if a rate was established and this fee was established, but it's a lot of effort and staff time to come up with a hypothetical rate that is 100% correct for something that we don't know is even gonna happen.

That's just a lot of effort to expend to get to that answer.

So hopefully we can come up with an answer that's um gives everyone enough confidence to say this is the right path without going through utmost detail on it on an individual parcel by parcel basis.

The other question that I had for that came out of the public was the the utility accounts be created for those unmetered properties.

There was a lot of public support for I guess including those vacant properties.

I would want to better understand what that is.

Maybe it's just looking at that first list of uh those that are developed that they don't have services.

So there might already be a building out there, they might have their road, it might have been built 30 years ago.

Uh maybe those are the right candidates to bring in before we start talking about vacant properties that that have no construction on them.

So maybe just talking about the tiers of what those look like.

I don't anticipate this question drastically changing what the rate would be, uh, whether or not we're adding 50 some odd developed parcels that don't have a water meter in them or a utility meter currently, uh, probably isn't gonna move the needle drastically as far as what the rate would need to be for this.

It's probably more of a philosophical position than it is a financial type of position for the city to take.

Um I guess with that, my last two slides, our next step.

So here we are today, January 13th, receiving public input as then that hopefully providing some direction on what you'd like to see for next steps.

What I would recommend is on uh two meetings from now on the commission agenda that I come back with uh a final or more final utility framework that would include some of the concepts that I just talked about and some options for you to consider, and then a draft home rule charter ballot language while ultimately um deciding what do we want to put on the ballot and what components we think are critical to have on the ballot and which ones would be more on a policy statement or something along those lines that we get figured out and decided later after the home rule charter um power is authorized to the to the board uh would give us a month until the March uh 10th meeting to finalize the home rule charter ballot language.

We'd use the time between April to June of 2026 to have public information.

Um at that point in time the um ink would be set and what the question is what it is, and it's just now talking to the public about what this question is and what it's not, but we really can't change the question at that point in time.

Um that's really now is the time that we can change the question.

Uh we'll ultimately looking to a June 9th, 2026 ballot question, and if it passes, likely in 2028, talking about implementation, just knowing that it's going to take some time to create all these accounts or do what we need to do inside the system that we likely wouldn't be ready by January 1st of 2027.

So with that.

Take any questions and any specific direction that you'd like to see.

Commissioner Rish.

I just want to comment on the survey process.

I've been a commissioner for about a year and a half, and I think I've seen at least six of these self-selected surveys where you just put them online.

Anybody can take the survey.

And my concern is it's not a scientific survey where you get a good impact on what overall the community wants.

Um, I was involved with hundreds of surveys when my when I was at working before I retired, and we use random weighted surveys, just like the associated press uses.

Um, I got a call just two weeks ago from the uh national health or whatever it was wanting to talk to me about.

I was I was selected, you know, it was randomly selected.

So you get a better, it's far more, you get a far better reading of what the public actually thinks.

So I would just throw this out to the city in the future.

If we're going to do surveys, we should do ones that cost a little more money.

Uh it's a usually phone and mail-based surveys, but do it in that way rather than um just allowing the rabble rousers to um pass it around and say this is a terrible idea and get other people to uh repeat what they're saying.

So anyway, I'm just concerned about the surveys itself, and I don't put a lot of faith in self-selected surveys.

Commissioners, other comments or questions.

I guess I could follow up.

Um I I actually um I'm kind of debt adverse, and I when I have the ability, I pay off my specials.

And um, it just seems like if we pay off the specials, the people that have already paid off their specials in full, well, they're not you know not being treated quite as well as the people that are getting theirs for given.

So I I like the idea of your hybrid one where you phase it out and we'll be able to reduce the monthly fee from $30 to $15 a month.

That's certainly a lot more palatable for homeowners, so that seems like it makes more sense to me in general.

But overall, I like the idea for the long run, is because we save the citizens a lot of money if this goes forward.

We save the money on um interest during construction, we save the money on interest uh on all the special assessment debt, and in the long run, we save a lot of money, and that's the most attractive thing for me about this whole proposal.

Commissioner Connolly.

Can I be just correct?

I'm sorry.

A comment on Commissioner Rish, you you made a comment about $15.

That that would be the fee if we still required everyone to pay it, even those that are paying special assessments off.

So I wouldn't advise that that's the right number, but that would be the right number if we just blanketly said we're not paying for the debt, but all the people that are currently paying the debt also have to pay the fee.

But it's certainly be less than the $30 or $35.

Mayor and Commissioners, I would anticipate as as we get through a more um detailed analysis on what a rollout would look like and trying to make some assumptions on what year we'd anticipate getting how many accounts relative to what we're doing on our capital plan that we would see a number that's gonna be probably lower than that 30 to 35 dollars on the residential.

What I am fearful of is that the commercial properties, there's just a lot of assumptions in the the non-residential parcels, um, whether or not uh we we assessed a really big one or really really tiny one that with with either huge cost or a tiny cost.

There's a lot of variability between um a Kirkwood mall, the landfill, and uh in a tiny little uh shop or a shop condo that might have 10 parcels inside it, but only one utility account, but it's maybe being overweighted as we look at some of those factors.

Commissioner Collie Well, what you presented here was certainly better than the first time.

When you talked about the per square footage sense, I believe the first example you used was 0.023 or 0023.

And then I think the next one was 25 and 27.

So I just use the number 200,000 square feet.

That's about a little over 60,000 a year that a parcel would pay.

Using the um 675 per 1,000 square feet, that it's a little over 16,000.

That's bringing that down a little bit, so that's a little better on the conversation.

But there's a lot of businesses that don't generate the type of capital where they're gonna be able to come up with sixteen thousand dollars a year to cover a fee-for-service model.

And either way, the city wins in it because, like you'd mentioned in the one comment, we have to find a way to pay for our infrastructure.

On Ottawa Street, there's examples to where it's business prohibitive what those penishable assessments would be.

But if the citizens vote no on this, that's what we're left with, and the blame goes to the citizens.

The city kind of washes their hands of it.

That's what I'm hearing from internally.

But we're supposed to be empowering businesses to thrive.

So I don't think that's the right conversation to have.

At 16,000 a year, I I still struggle with that.

Can we get it down to where it's five to six thousand?

Is there a way to make that work out?

I I agree with uh Commissioner Rich and the fact that this is better to get beyond some of those finance fees, but when we drive up those costs to the rate where it's can sink businesses, we shouldn't be in the business, even though I've been told that's the cost of doing business.

The cost of doing business at the government level.

Maybe we have to postpone things or maybe we take them at a little bit, but we shouldn't be putting people out of business as we're trying to move forward, in my opinion.

Other comments.

So my struggle, I I think we need more time before this would be put forth, in my opinion, if it's put forth.

I personally think there's a big benefit to having a monthly fee versus special assessments, but I've run the calculations multiple times, so I know what the impact is, but I don't think we have enough education right now.

And if we're just I don't think it's gonna be confusing if we have sales tax at the same time.

So that's my concern.

Um we certainly have heard from a segment of the population that it's not something they want.

Is it the full population?

I kind of agree with Commissioner Rich.

I don't know that we've got a good sample.

And maybe that's the real issue.

I don't know if we have a good sample.

Mayor and Commissioners, if I may, um I think there's probably two strategies, and we can talk about this more in our February when really decisions have to get made.

Um there's the strategy of saying we don't know the answers right now.

So we can try to get as well as we can and get the best information we can inform everyone as well as we can before a vote.

There's also the strategy of saying really the the vote is asking for just the power to create this similar to what we have with other utilities that we have in our community.

So whether it's the the water utility, obviously when rates are or or subject and come before this board, there's a lot of discussion that happens here and at the at the community level.

Uh I would think that this would follow a similar pattern that if it's a fee that's created and the ability to create that fee is is created, then we can really dive into the details of it.

So it's just a question of how many of those details do you want to have ironed out before you even go to the vote, and how many of those details are you comfortable figuring out once you know that it's something that you're gonna move forward with is probably just the philosophical question.

And and I'm that's my I mean I have been a proponent of this for a long time.

As I think there is a big savings ultimately to our residents, but we need them to understand it.

And I am fearful if they don't have some idea what the rate might be that there that's it's gonna be a vote no because they don't know.

But Commissioner Zinker, you've had as much in this as I have to do.

So let's um let's just look at it from this perspective.

So I've been on this, you said a year and a half, I've been here seven and a half years.

I know I am.

Yeah.

You can tell you tell by the gray hair, too.

So I think what you gotta realize is that all of those special assessments that we've approved here, or I've approved more than you guys have, have never gone down.

We've never had a year where they've gone down.

So the cost of doing business is the cost of doing business.

Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

Ironically, in the industry that I work in, things are not getting cheaper.

They're not like they were in 2018, 2019, those types of things.

Now they've stabilized a little bit.

And encouragingly enough, what we approved tonight earlier with the with the uh lights was less than the engineers' budget, right?

So it's always like cyclical.

I I think uh the the heartache that I have is every year we send out those letters, two thousand people, thirty five hundred, whatever gets those letters, we have to explain special assessments.

What do you got to do?

You know, hey, I don't our neighborhood doesn't need this.

People try to protest out, which is totally totally what they can do.

A lot of times, I don't even remember a time where we where was one that was protested out.

I think there's some lights or there's a street that is really close.

Those they still happen, right?

So everybody knows that eventually you're gonna get this big bill.

What we're trying to avoid is that big bill.

So instead of instead of a six thousand dollar bill, a four thousand dollar bill, seventeen hundred dollar bill, whatever it is, you just pay it monthly.

Right.

I think I think Mayor, you said it one time when we were at the at the chamber, instead of you know, those people that have paid it off, now you're just forward paying it.

You're still gonna pay it off.

Um the the concept, and it's and it's a different concept for North Dakota because we like to special assess every place in the in the city and the state and those types of things.

So we need we will save money, our citizens will save money.

Um whether I would I'm not in favor of moving this to November, but if that's what the board wishes to do, then that's fine.

I always think because of our local elections are in June, and those candidates that are running, they have to answer those questions, you know.

Um they should be able to answer why they're why they're running and why these why these questions matter to them that are on the ballot.

Um for that that's for anybody who wants to run, not just us that might see seek re-election.

So I uh I you know that's why I think we need to do this.

Um and I I think I don't know, I I think Gabe is right.

In fact, I know Gabe is right, is that we can't really give you a hard dollar amount.

So maybe we we it maybe it is a two-step process.

And maybe they're gonna ask we gotta ask and say, listen, do you want us to go down this path or not?

And if the if the question is no, then we're done.

Well, and right I kind of like that approach.

And if we get if we get the answer of yes, then we can always go back and say, okay, here's our fee, here's our how's the finances gonna work.

I mean, Gabe and I have had one-on-one conversations kind of scratching our head, like, hey, how does this really how does this really work?

And how much effort do we want to put into it if they say no?

Right?

There's a there's a huge let heavy lift after the vote is yes.

And I think when you look at some of the questions that are on here, I think that's some of the fear, right?

Okay, here we go.

We gave we gave government another tool, they're gonna charge us 30 to 35, but in three years is it gonna be 55, right?

Those are fair questions to ask.

And we've had interview we've had conversations about hey, we're we're only gonna have a we're gonna put a cap on this thing for how much money can actually be in the fund, adjust the adjust the rates per that amount, right?

So if we find a project like we did today that's less than our budget, we have a little gap of savings that's in there, right?

So I I think there's more questions to ask than answers we can give.

But I I think we're it'd be prudent for us to send Gabe back with a couple ideas that that we think are are good for us, and then come back in February and have a much deeper conversation.

And I'm fine with that.

I just like I just don't know that we can get all neither answers.

We can't get all the way.

I think it is two steps.

It and if that's if that's the case, so be it.

But if the first step is like I said, if the first step is no, then we're done.

Yeah, now we're not moving, then we're moving on.

So I don't know if we cover anything.

I just ran out of it.

I I don't know.

I mean, I think we so you need to bring back maybe some potential draft language, it sounds to me like, and more of ask the question, not you know, here's what's actually gonna happen, but do you want to give us the ability to investigate this with the power to uh ultimately have it?

Authority is a better word.

To have to actually have it.

Whether we implement it after we have the authority is still unknown because maybe it's not implemented because we can't come up with a formula that makes sense.

And mayor commissioners, I would also offer if there are any you know guardrails that you would think are appropriate to put into that home rule charter ballot language, that would be the opportunity as well.

If there are things that this would only be passed if long as these metrics are met or this condition is met, or these other processes have to take place.

I mean, that's the type of things you can put in the home real charter without actually getting to the answers of what all those processes get you, but it at least lays out to the public what steps would happen after the passage of this, so it's not just a blank kind of unknown, unknown path that the city would go down.

So it's not just a blank kind of unknown, unknown path that the city would go down.

And I I think we could we could mirror what happened with the state, right?

3% cap on property taxes, so we got to put 3% cap on this.

And I actually would like to still somewhere along the line have the reserve calculation that says what the reserve can't, because all of a sudden maybe 3% cap is being applied and it shouldn't be it should be sure.

Yep.

Those are all fair questions.

And I don't know, Gabe, if you've got any of that information from before when we were doing this slide on was it five years ago, six years ago.

We had some of those reserve type calculations.

Yep, Mayor and Commissioners, uh Mayor Schmidt's, uh I think that was one of the recommendations that came out of the infrastructure task force and then special assessment task force.

Um so I can dig those those out and see which ones are applicable once again at the level of asking the public to have a home real charter amendment.

Is it describing that there will be a policy or is it describing the policy?

That's kind of what we have to figure out what's the best strategy there.

So the question would essentially be do you support replacing special assessment for road resurfacing with a utility fee and not um identify what the utility fee may be on the ballot?

Possibly.

Well, I think there'd be a lot of reluctance if people didn't know how much the the fee would be.

Well, you can go ahead, Commissioner Connolly.

Well, we could actually use that as a vehicle to further the education on this.

I mean, the uh Dustin that spoke during public comment, um the mayor and myself, uh we attended all of the meetings that even predated you, Commissioner Zenker, because you were just coming onto the map.

But you certainly got most of the internal knowledge being on the commission longer and whatnot.

But um we've tried really hard to educate the community in a lot of different ways.

We've tried a lot of new things.

We've argued over a lot of different things, even at this table.

So is it something to where not necessarily saying yes or no in June?

Is it something merely saying special assessments can keep it that way going forward?

Or what's the public's opinion on exploring the fee for service option?

Is it a better option than what we currently have?

Just to see where their buy-in is, because the survey is kind of proof at 342.

We got over 77,000 people in the community.

You can't even round up the percentage to where we get one percent response rate.

But people do vote at a higher rate.

Would that give us a window of insight on our direction on where we go?

And then we work towards the next answer if they say we're satisfied with special assessments, conversation kind of ends at that point.

But if they say let's explore to see if it's a better option on the fee for service, then we move it to the general election to buy time.

In the educational piece.

Can we use that as a measurement, a barometer?

So it wouldn't be a wouldn't be a home rule charter, it would be a advisory vote.

Yeah.

Which maybe that's the route to go.

I don't know.

I mean a little bit more difficult.

Other topics.

Yep.

This is a complicated issue.

Well, the more complicated it is on the ballot, the more likely it will fail.

Um it's got to be some pretty simple, straightforward proposal.

Well, and you only get so much each square inches, it's not even square footage of summary, right?

So the long term, you're gonna strategically pick the right words.

So I would think though some of it is maybe we don't include the payoff or the extinct the forgiveness of specials that are existing, you know, how we would come into I I don't know.

I'm just that's that has certainly been a topic of conversation that was always a struggle.

Um I guess just my two thoughts um would be to Commissioner Rish's point.

I think like having the dollar amount in the language, there's some value there because of transparency, but then I also think I I guess I don't know if it's necessary, especially if we like we want the ability to figure out how we're going to really get there in the best way.

Because I think the point of the ballot measure at the end of the day is we're creating this fee as a way to take the place of these really big bills that can all of a sudden show up.

Like regardless where that dollar amount lands.

Hopefully we can keep it low and manageable for people, but that at the end of the day they're gonna know what that is and it's gonna be a regular thing instead of having like a very big special dumped on them that they're maybe not prepared for.

It is just hopefully setting them up to be able to create that like normalcy in their billing.

And then I guess too to your point, Mayor, if we're trying to keep it simple on the ballot and we don't want to include how we do with the debt forgiveness, um, existing specials, that sort of thing.

I I think it might be fine to not include that just for the sake of then we can still figure it out.

I like the hybrid option that you put in here, Gabe, but if we don't have that all ironed out, the less of that in the ballot gives us the ability to continue to work on the best option for it, I guess, would be my thought.

Okay.

I don't know if we've given enough direction or not to you, Gabe.

Mayor and Mayor and Commissioners.

Uh it's a very complicated issue as as Commissioners Anchor and others have stated.

Um so it's I don't expect I didn't expect to come out of here with a oh yeah, we we know what it is.

This is the path that we have to go down.

Um, this is kind of how this process has worked since we've started talking about this issue.

Um but I can come back to to this board in February with uh what I would consider draft language for the purpose of a home rule charter amendment that would authorize the city to create this fee so long as the voters uh accepted it, and then also language that would be more on an advisory vote uh kind of strategy, and then maybe between those two options lay out which one the the board would like to proceed with.

Okay.

Good thanks, Gabe.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item E is uh a request from J uh City Administrator Justin Harmonic on the 250th uh celebration for the United States of America.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Uh thank you for the introduction.

Uh I'm here today with some finality in mind uh up until about three weeks ago or so.

We were still a little uncertain if we were going to be able to celebrate the Fourth of July at the MDU resources community bowl.

Standing here today to tell you gratefully, yes, we did figure out a way to coexist.

And by coexist, what I'm what I'm kind of hinting at, the Bismarck Public School District will have a construction project going on this summer on the track and the artificial turf.

And there was some concern that the construction project uh could limit our access to the community bowl.

But gratefully uh we sat down with our friends at Bismarck Public School District, and everybody's on the same page that there is uh certainly a way that we can coexist and still celebrate and allow the construction project to go on without any impediments from uh the celebrating public.

So with that in mind, uh we're now really honing in on the next one hundred and seventy-one days because that's how far we are away from celebrating America's 250th anniversary.

Um with that in mind, we are getting very intentional about some of these memorable experiences that are uh hopefully going to be offered to the public.

And the intent here is to provide a community event that is free and open to everyone in our community and give them a place to celebrate.

And with that in mind, uh like to remind everybody that just based on the uh technological data that we were able to access, we had well over 8,000 people that showed up for the 2025 inaugural celebration of the Fourth of July event at the MDU resources community bowl.

If I'm interpolating the data correctly, that doesn't count all the little kids because the way that data is actually captured is through cell phones.

So unless you're every little kid is running around with a phone.

I'm sure there's lots of kids that were counted in that data, but not every single one was.

So with six months.

So uh I'll save my commentary on uh technology and kids.

But uh what what I would like the commission to consider, and uh I should note that uh John Bollinger is here as well.

John is, of course, with the Bismarck Larks, but also with the Fanatics uh group and the fanatics were brought on board last year to really facilitate the entire experience.

Um admittedly the project first started out as a conversation between myself, uh the Chamber of Commerce, the C VB, the Downtowners, North Dakota Gateway to Science, Bismarck Mandan Symphony Orchestra, Bismarck Parks and Recreation District.

Uh but all of our organizations, we all had a vision and an idea, but the fanatics really brought forward the team and the resources to facilitate the entire event.

So I'll let John kind of talk about what the role of the fanatics and how they help raise funds and bring people to the event.

Um but what we're talking about this year is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate uh something that most of us won't ever see again and in our lifetimes.

And looking at the the scope and the goal to improve on last year's experience, but really amplify it and take advantage of this opportunity.

A budget has been constructed.

And much of the budget is built with the idea that there will be a very intentional uh ask to donate funds to get donations from local organizations and individuals to help support all of this.

If the budget can't be reached, then some of those experiences end up not being able to be obtained because we just simply don't have the resources to pay for it.

Some of these things are non-negotiable.

Um obviously I mentioned there's going to be a construction project, so there will have to be some fencing and some security and things like that that we didn't incur the first time around.

Uh but what I'm hoping for is that uh with the city's additional support uh for this one-time ask that through the use of the fanatics and the resources that they have through the sponsorships and the donations that are going to be coming forward throughout the Bismarck community.

Uh I am hopeful that there will be a very memorable experience for everybody walking in the door, and there will be some never before seen or never before experienced opportunities.

Uh none of this is set in stone because we can't commit to any of these vendors or entertainers.

Because we got to make sure we have the resources to provide uh their compensation for their events.

So typically, historically, the city of Bismarck has come forward with $15,000 every year.

That money has been predominantly used for the actual fireworks display.

Uh in this year's 2026 budget, we match that amount again with the intentions of being back at the community bowl.

I don't want to imply that these additional dollars would be put towards the fireworks.

That is where the budget is today.

I would like to uh suggest that these additional dollars would be put towards those exceptional experiences that the fanatics are going to help us get to.

Um so if you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to try and answer that.

But if you're comfortable, I'd I'd like to welcome John as well.

Let's make it public.

What's the ask?

The dollar ask.

Sorry, I I may not have said that.

So flat out uh the dollar ask would be for an additional fifty thousand dollars from the city of Bismarck for a one-time uh support.

In addition to the fifteen thousand for fireworks.

Yep.

I just want to make sure we had that clear.

So I'm certainly understood.

Thank you for that.

So if you don't have any questions for me, uh I'd like to move to the right and give John a little bit of room to talk about how the fanatics can help support this event, and then if there's any other questions, we'll both be here to help you get through those.

Sure.

We're trying to we yeah, no.

Thanks, Jason and uh Mayor Schmidt's commissioners.

Thanks for having me here.

Um I own Fanatics events.

Our uh our mission is how do we create innovative immersive experiences that connect and celebrate community.

So as Jason mentioned last year, again, this this event was put on at the Capitol for over 30 years.

The Symphony Orchestra put it on.

Um they did a really great job, and it's really one of the more key free events for our community to celebrate uh a huge event.

Uh again, last year they were unable to continue to do that, wanted to be a vendor, but just as you know, putting on events is a lot.

And so, again, very uh grateful that Jason and the committee which he referenced approached us.

Again, we we have a uh uh a busy summer, a lot of different events and clients that we get to work with in the summer, but when we got this opportunity to keep this event going for our community, uh it was a slam dunk.

We said, hey, we want to jump in and help.

And so uh to as he mentioned again last year we we had to pick a new venue.

Uh we helped take care of all the event planning.

Uh we also, in addition to that, uh raised all the dollars.

So again, the city of Bismarck contributed 15,000, but our team went out, we got uh sponsors, uh helped get some some some other grants in the community and so while we had a budget, okay.

Uh you know, we that that basically that money paid for everything.

So again to Jason's point, um this year we want to make this additional ask.

Uh we do have an exciting uh plan.

It was it's nice to have an event under your belt and see.

I mean, honestly, moving from the capital of the event uh to the bowl, we had no idea how many people would show up in his point, 8,000 people show up.

And if you were there, it was hard to get out.

Okay, so I think we need to put some money to some traffic control and some additional crowd management pieces.

But again, this is this is the 250th anniversary, and I just I think in our community uh to be able to put on a free event that anyone can come to and have that core memory with their loved one uh and share that sense of community is a really exciting opportunity.

So again, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Is his point, this is a larger budget, so we do have some things and some vendors we're working with uh that would do something uh I believe has never been done in our our community in our state um that would really be attention grabbing uh that would be exciting to announce here this spring to be an attraction.

Um but again would be happy to answer any questions on the the current planning and what we would do.

Any questions?

Commissioner Rish.

Well, thank you for all you do for our community.

Bismarck larks are great and whatever.

But what is the exciting thing that you're thinking about?

Yeah, so it would I uh it would be uh you know, we want to make sure we have a vendor uh locked in uh right now.

We just again I I would as this is kind of part of the urgency.

We we we have them penciled in, but they can commit to go go do something else.

So I would just say it'd be an addition of the fireworks show.

Uh what we're working on is something else in the air uh to really catch everyone's attention.

Um to that and and I would also say, you know, again, a huge part of this is the Stephanie Orchestra.

The music uh last year kind of uh with the fireworks was awesome.

We are looking at some additional entertainment musical acts uh uh in addition to that.

And then I'd say the third piece is the family programming.

So last year, if you came there was four or five inflatables, uh you know, some some small pieces, and the lines for these inflatables were I mean it so long.

I mean it was awesome.

So again, how do we do more family programming for kids around that six to nine o'clock hour, and then we can roll into the music and the the uh the the fireworks.

So let me get this straight.

So we moved the venue, great experience.

Long as we're we learned a lot of stuff, we want to make it better.

We need an extra 50 grand.

Yes.

Make a motion to approve.

Is there any discussion?

Uh I just want to add quickly, John.

I sat in on a lot of those committee meetings with you, and um I think overall it was great.

We were all very nervous to move the event, uh, something I had been attending at the Capitol my entire life.

Um, and it went great.

I think we learned a lot.

It'll just get better.

Uh hopefully this like special anniversary can be really, really awesome.

So I'm excited to see what we get done.

And the only comment I'll make is the idea extra 50 is not a commitment that we're doing necessarily every year.

Correct.

This year because it's for the 2000.

250.

Yes.

Yes.

So I have a motion, a second to have any other discussion.

Uh call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Um, thank you.

Appreciate you guys.

Thank you.

Is there any other business?

Seeing none.

I got one thing.

We did start the 1926 fire truck last week, and it's going boom boom boom boom.

So that was kind of exciting.

We've got a crack team out at the um uh public works that are tuning it up and shining on it a bit.

So I'm that's an exciting thing.

Hopefully, we'll have it in the parade.

All right.

There was a fantastic picture with the oldest and the most recent on on this Facebook and social media.

So those are pretty cool.

So hopefully, Caitlin, you put that on our website because it is really awesome.

All right.

If there's no other business, we are adjourned.

Thank you.