Let us pray.

Gracious Heavenly Father, as we have experienced cold temperatures in recent days, we are grateful for the warmth of your love.

We pray for those in normally warm parts of the country who are experiencing challenges following the freezing rain, ice, and snowstorms from last weekend.

We pray that you would provide for their safety and well-being.

We pray that you would uphold all in authority, especially the President and Congress of the United States, the governor and legislature of this state, and all judges.

Graciously enable them to lead according to your will and for our good.

Continue to bless our city and community.

We thank you for our emergency workers, police, fire, and EMS, along with medical workers and all of our public servants.

Keep them safe as they carry out their vocation to serve the public good.

Bless these leaders and those who serve in the supportive rules.

We pray that matters brought before the commission may be presented and discussed in kindness and respect toward one another, so that decisions will seek the best interest of our community and be in accord with your good and gracious will.

Thank you for your love expressed to us in Jesus, your son and our savior from sin.

Keep us in your tender and loving care through Christ our Lord, we pray.

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.

Okay, we can go ahead and call roll.

Commissioner Rish.

Here.

Commissioner Zenker?

Here.

Commissioner Connolly?

Here.

Mayor Schmidt.

Here.

Chair Cleary.

Here.

All right, first up is public comment.

Public comment is restricted to items on the consent agenda, regular agenda, or the prior city commission agenda, excluding any public hearings.

First call for public comment.

Second call for public comment.

Third and final call for public comment.

Anyone who wishes to speak, please come forward.

All right, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

Up next is the consent agenda.

What is the wishes of the commission?

I'll move we pass the consent agenda.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Go ahead and call roll.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

Okay, regular agenda.

Item A.

Consider the request to receive a presentation for the community conversation forum on homelessness survey from the Bismarck Human Relations Committee, the HRC.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Sargiana Witski, and I'm the outgoing chair of the Bismarck Human Relations Committee.

Katie and I are here to provide a summary of the recent community conversations forum on homelessness that was hosted by our committee on November 18th, 2025.

The event was well attended with approximately 80 community members and featured a moderated panel discussion followed by an opportunity for public input.

I want to remind the commissioners of how the community conversation forums came to be.

As it is our hope to receive feedback from all of you on next steps.

After several hours of public comment, former City Commissioner Mark Quart stated that there needed to be more conversations in our community about issues.

As a committee, we decided we would be the ones that would host forums to bring these conversations to light.

Tonight we are going to share a summary of concerns, barriers, and community-identified solutions gathered during this community conversation.

These findings are organized under themes from the panelists, public input following the panel, and an online form we use to gather input.

A copy of all form responses has been provided for you along with our written summary we are sharing this evening.

The feedback reflects the voices of individuals with lived experience, service providers, and community members who are deeply committed to addressing homelessness in our city.

The first key challenge is lack of affordable and accessible housing.

Community members consistently reported that the availability and affordability of housing is their most significant barrier.

High rental costs, application fees, security deposits, and a shortage of accessible units, particularly for individuals with disabilities, makes securing long-term housing extremely difficult.

Participants also express concerns about the lack of landlord accountability and the absence of mechanisms to address unfair practices.

The second challenge is gaps in shelter capacity and availability.

Bismarck currently lacks 24-7 shelter options that meet the diverse needs of individuals and families.

Both high barrier and low barrier shelter options are needed, and people emphasize the importance of places that are safe for youth, domestic violence survivors, as well as families.

There is also a critical need for daytime warming and cooling spaces with access to bathrooms, showers, and laundry facilities.

The third challenge is barriers to employment and daily functioning.

Individuals without housing struggle to secure employment due to not having a permanent address, reliable access to cell phones, or safe storage for important documents.

Many describe the cycle cycle of losing essential items, including winter clothing, identification and job materials, because they did not have a stable place to keep them.

The fourth challenge is transportation and accessibility issues.

Limited transportation options and a lack of wheelchair accessible infrastructure create major obstacles.

People with mobility needs describe significant challenges navigating the city, accessing services, and attending appointments necessary to secure housing as well as employment.

The sixth challenge is behavioral health and basic needs.

Mental health and substance use concerns are significant and often go unaddressed due to limited access to care.

Individuals also lack access to basic amenities such as restrooms, charging stations, water, and safe places to rest during the day.

Winter conditions and tests of intensify these issues and challenges and pose serious safety risks.

The sixth challenge is service silos and system complexity.

Participants highlighted the difficulty of navigating multiple agencies with overlapping services and inconsistent requirements.

The lack of coordination and communication between organizations leads to delays, frustrations, and miss opportunities for stabilization.

And the last challenge is stigma, judgment, and loss of dignity.

Perhaps one of the most striking themes was the emotional toll of homelessness.

Many describe feeling dehumanized, judged, or viewed as less than.

This stigma contributes to a loss of self-worth and makes individuals less likely to seek help or trust systems intended to support them.

Good evening.

I'm Katie Hoole, the incoming chair of the Human Relations Committee.

I'm going to continue our summary by providing an overview of community-identified solutions for the city to consider.

The first solution is expanding affordable housing and to strengthen tenant protections.

Participants recommended increasing the availability of low-income housing units, exploring rent stabilization policies, reducing financial barriers to applying for rental units, and improving landlord accountability.

Long-term solutions include mixed-income housing models and increasing funding for supportive and transitional housing programs.

The second solution is to develop and sustain 24-7 shelter options.

The community emphasized the need for a fully funded 24-7 shelter system, including both high and low barrier models.

People express strong support for the continued development of the United Way Center for Opportunity as well as low low barrier options such as Ministry on the Margins and Youth Works.

The third solution is to establish a centralized service hub.

Community members advocated for a single centrally located facility where individuals can access multiple service providers at once, such as case managers, behavioral health specialists, employment services, and assistance with identification documents.

Co locating services would reduce transportation challenges and improve service coordination.

The fourth is to improve access to basic needs and daytime resources.

The community recommended expanding access to public restrooms, showers, laundry, daytime warming and cooling areas, and secure storage for personal belongings.

These basic supports increase safety, dignity, and the ability to maintain employment.

The fifth solution is to enhance transportation support.

Improved bus routes, transportation assistance, and mobility-friendly infrastructure were identified as essential.

Ensuring transportation options connect shelters, service centers, and employment locations would reduce barriers significantly.

The sixth solution is to strengthen behavioral health and harm reduction services.

Participants recommended investing in mental health and substance use treatment, including medical withdrawal support and harm reduction services.

These should be offered in a compassionate, person centered and coordinated manner.

The seventh is to foster greater collaboration and coordination.

The community expressed a need for reduced red tape, improved communication among agencies, and formalized collaboration between city, county, and nonprofit partners.

Coordination will allow for more effective use of resources and prevent individuals from falling through gaps.

The eighth is to increase community education and build a culture of compassion.

Participants stress the importance of educating the public to reduce stigma and to promote understanding.

They emphasize that homelessness is not a choice, and that compassion, dignity, and respect must be central to all interactions and policies.

In closing, the community conversations made clear that homelessness is a complex issue with deep human impact, but also that the community has identified meaningful and achievable solutions.

Many of these strategies require city support, collaboration across systems, and the political will to implement long-term sustainable change.

On behalf of the individuals who contributed their voices and lived experience, we want to respectfully present this summary for your consideration.

Our committee would like to also express our gratitude to city administration as well as Caelin and Communications for all of your support in engagement and outreach and setting up not only for this community conversation but our other events as well.

We appreciate the commission's leadership and the human relations committee is interested in receiving your feedback on where we go from here.

When we go back to the intent of the community forums, it is critical for us to consider our committee's role in creating spaces for community members with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to share their feedback on areas of concern and opportunity.

We're open to your feedback this evening and moving forward on how we can continue to work together.

Thank you.

We'd be open to questions if you have any.

Does anyone have any questions for Katie or Sargiano?

I just want to say thank you, Katie, for stepping up and we come in new chair, and thank you, Sargiana, for all your your good work.

I missed a meeting in November.

We had another one concerning uh the sales, I think it was sales tax or the special assessment tax or something to that effect.

But Sargiana, you guys headed up the Martin Luther King event last week and did a wonderful job.

Great turnout.

Thank you for that as well.

Thank you for what you do for our community.

Thank you.

Yeah, I also don't have any questions, but I would, I mean, if you're looking for feedback as to where this goes, I think that at least at the forums that I've been able to be to, I wasn't at the most recent one either, but um I think that they've brought a lot of value.

I think the events and participating in, you know, the Martin Luther King, the Juneteenth, there's a there's a lot of reasons for our community to get together, but I think the forums have brought a really great like educational piece that I think that even on the next agenda item, you're gonna see that like we can learn from things that you are hearing from our community at those, and then we can hopefully do something with that information.

That's always the goal.

And so I just would like to see them continue, even if the topics change or if we take them in other directions.

I just do think that they bring a lot of value to the people that attend them and to us with the information we get from them.

Perfect.

We appreciate that feedback.

And just so you all know, um, the topics that we do for our community conversations really do come from the conversations themselves.

So we survey and ask what those topics might be.

I know that there was a lot of interest in maybe continuing conversations around homelessness in the community, but we appreciate your feedback.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

And I I would just like to voice my thanks as well to the committee and for all this information.

And as Vice Chair Clury has mentioned, this summary is going to help us with whatever direction we move with the next agenda item.

Uh that's on tonight.

So thank you for your continued work and we look forward to more engaging conversations.

Okay, yes.

And yeah, like I said, I think that these two pair back to back nicely.

So we're gonna move on to be consider accepting the final community triage center planning report prepared by health management associations and authoritizing BBPH to proceed with phase two of this project.

Renee.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Do I call you vice chair or commissioner?

I don't think it matters.

Vice Madam Chair, Madam, Madam Chair for having me present tonight.

Just to briefly tag on to the former presentation.

I was in the room that night and heard a lot of feedback from the individuals that shared their information that night.

It was very valuable to listen and really aligns with a lot of the work that we're doing and the same needs that we're seeing through the community health needs assessment.

And that was, as you know, a collaborative project with the local hospitals and community stakeholders that we do every three years to get feedback as far as what the needs are.

We do have a repeated behavioral health, addiction, mental health, homelessness, repeated needs that have come to the surface.

And so that's what this is all about for people that may not have heard about the triage center before and are tuning in tonight for the very first time.

There has been a lot, a lot of ongoing discussion around this.

It's been in former strategic plans, it's in the new strategic plan, and we do plan to continue to take uh steps to keep people educated on the process.

So I will get started with the final report tonight.

Um as you had stated, Health Management Associates was the technical service provider that provided information to you with a brief update, preliminary findings.

They came in person in November on the 13th and presented.

They're not here tonight, but since then finished up with their work and provided a final report, and that is in your packet tonight.

Um the purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide a high-level summary of that report.

Um it is lengthy, and I didn't want to have you have to review.

I think it's 106 pages total.

Uh so I'm gonna provide a high-level overview of of that for you.

Um, look at the key findings and recommendations from that planning process, and then outline some proposed next steps as we move our project forward into implementation readiness.

So just to summarize what the work entailed that health management associates did, um, they did a community and system assessment.

So they reviewed local data, um, service utilization, looked at gaps related to behavior health, addiction, and homelessness.

They had some stakeholder engagement.

We had core group and steer steering committees that met.

Um that included public health, health care, behavioral health, social services, and public safety.

They did a model review and comparison.

So they looked at um successful community triage center models from other communities and identified best practices that we could potentially utilize for our community here in Bismarck.

Um they did a review and analysis of governance and implementation particularly around governance structures, leadership models and partnership roles, um, funding and sustainability review.

Um, they were able to provide local, state, and federal funding opportunities and some long-term sustainability considerations for us to keep in mind as we move forward.

And then lastly, put together an implementation approach which would outline our next steps and uh some decision points and readiness activities that um we can hopefully move forward after tonight.

So I'll start with the model review and pull out some of the key takeaways from their model review.

Uh they reviewed some, as I had stated, um, successful triage and crisis response uh models from other areas.

And just one thing to note um there is no single um governance model that fits all communities.

It really is the successful communities, they look to see what works in other communities and adopt what we need locally.

So in some areas it might be medical detox or a low barrier shelter.

Um other communities it might be crisis response.

It just depends on what the needs are and what the current resources are in each community.

And so that was something that they uh pointed out that our unique needs to Bismarck.

Um really there's not an ideal uh one size fits all solution that's out there, but there are key components that we can pull from to meet what we need here locally.

Um successful triage centers are integrated systems, they're not single services.

And I think that Sargiana had mentioned that previously, that the silos and the ability to communicate, that is something that this project is about is collaborating with the partners and being able to communicate and coordinate.

We're seeing the same individuals.

How can we work better together?

Low barrier 24-7 critical access is needed to divert people from emergency departments in jail, and that was a factor that we're looking at is to relieve some of that impact on our law enforcement in emergency rooms.

Medical detox and crisis stabilization are key components to repeat crisis.

Obviously, we're all seeing a lot of people are seeing the same types of individuals with those key issues as being part of the problem, and really part of getting a handle on that is the key to success.

Strong care coordination and case management improve outcomes, and that is something that a triage center would focus on is that ongoing case management to make sure that there's follow-through and people are getting the help that they need and moved forward, whether it be between referrals or moving on to their next stage.

It's about collaboration and working together with the providers that we currently have in our community.

So looking at the governance analysis, that was the next component of HMA's work.

What they did, they analyze different governance options to be considered for a center like this.

One is city-county ownership.

When you're looking at that, the city or county could own the facility, and then services are delivered through partnership agreements.

Funding is the responsibility.

I think to kind of see how this works, I'll get into some of the funding aspects shortly.

But a lot of the grant applications, if you're applying for funds, would have to go through whoever the governance or oversight entity would be.

So whether it be the city county or 501c3 organization or a private entity, that would be something that we would have to determine.

And that would be this the second option would be the 501c3.

That second it would be a nonprofit organization that is governed by an executive board.

Community providers can be given space and contracted to provide service, but then that 501c3 would be the individual with the disbursement of funds to the outside entities.

There's a national housing and homeless associates that was mentioned as a potential they're doing this in other communities that would be the private outside ownership and then work with the community partners to be able to implement the needs locally.

So those were the three the governance types that were reviewed.

So just some key takeaways from that.

And I think that's what this project is really all about is us coming together and working together to address this as a community.

HMA recommended a coordinated multi-partner governance approach, and that's often referred to as collective impact, which is a framework that communities use for huge complicated, complex projects just like this.

We have shared goals and outcomes.

The participants have cleared clear roles and accountability and ongoing coordination across the partners.

A backbone or convening entity then would be the organization that does data performance management, disbursement of funds, and then a final governance structure should be determined, but further planning and funding alignment is needed to be able to make that recommendation.

So that would come at a later date.

So talking about funding sources, there was a review, and I think this was a great opportunity for us to kind of picture what this could look like, what we need to be able to put ourselves maybe in position to be aware of some things coming up.

What they had mentioned is that no single funding source is sufficient on its own.

So there's not going to be one pot of money that is being going to be able to fund and make this successful.

But talking about the typical funding, you can look at Medicaid and payer reimbursement.

So if the individual that comes through has a health insurance or Medicaid, if they are covered by Medicaid, if you are in, depending on what service they're getting, if it's medical detox or mental health care, could be a potential reimbursement aspect to that.

There's hospital and health plan participation in other entities that have done this, state and federal grants, and then of course philanthropic and foundation support.

And so those were all outlined in the annual report and something for us to consider.

And then lastly, funding strategies evolve as services are phased in.

And as we start looking through this, there might be additional funding sources that come up and things that we can pay attention to once we start getting plans more firmed up that come along and could support the effort.

So just some key takeaways, I think from their funding review.

Medicaid reimbursement is a critical and long-term funding component.

We have been in contact with the Department of Health and Human Services and their team up at West Central talking about the certified behavioral health clinic model, and that aspect of things really improves the sustainability, especially when you're looking at the crisis response component of this project and medical detox as well.

I think having that ability to align ourselves with the state's direction to go to a community behavioral health clinic and all of the regional human service centers, the timing is really appropriate for us to kind of see what we could do to fit into that planning process.

And so I think I mentioned this before, but there are some human service centers that were selected as pilots in the state of North Dakota.

Bismarck was not one of them, but there is a plan for all of the local human service centers to be moving towards the C C BHC model, and Bismarck would eventually come to that as they start moving forward in other areas of the state.

So something for us to pay attention to and be involved in.

Hospitals and payers participate due to their reduced emergency department utilization, and that is a cost savings for them when they have their emergency rooms available to treat other emergencies versus individuals that law enforcement ends up bringing to them for services.

Grants and philanthropy are most useful in the beginning when we're looking at planning and startup costs.

There's a lot of opportunity there that were mentioned in the report.

And then long-term sustainability requires coordination across multiple funding partners.

And that is something that I guess I'm well aware of in public health because that is how we operate in public health.

We have multiple funding sources, and I think for a project like this, there would be that same expectation.

So moving into their implementation approach, they had a collective impact project, is what their model and recommendation is.

And when I'm putting that up on the screen for you, it is phase one is basically the action that we have completed up to this point.

So we have convened our partners, identified community champions, mapped services gaps and challenges.

We've used data and community input to define our need and inform planning, and completed our comprehensive planning and feasibility process with health management associates.

So tonight, as I'm coming to you, we are finished with phase one and would potentially then move in if you guys are up for this, move into the next phase.

That would be organizing for action, and that's the proposed next phase, which focuses on establishing a formal governance and project leadership, identifying a backbone organization and clarifying partner roles, defining a shared agenda and success measures, and then looking at phased implementation and aligning funding.

And that's a future phase for further down the road where services would be implemented as planned, monitor outcomes and refine the models over time.

I think as our community changes, we would look at the services that are offered and see what we would have to do to make changes to that and make sure that what we're doing is being evaluated and having some feedback as far as what's working and what's not working.

And we do that a lot in public health is evaluation.

So I think that would be another huge part of this once we get to that phase.

And then last to support long-term sustainability with ongoing engagement and evaluation.

So continuing the effort of the community partnerships.

So tonight, if the commission authorizes us to move into phase two, um, what could you expect?

Um if if you guys are um gonna move forward with this, our community triage center core group and steering committee that we've been working with up to this point would continue guiding this work.

Uh partner roles and responsibilities would be clearly defined.

Um we have had you know preliminary conversations with some of the community partners as far as who would do what or who could bring certain things to the table, and that would be firmed up if we start moving into phase two.

Our short-term priorities and long-term goals would be clarified and phased.

I think if we look at the community, we'd have to determine is medical detox most important, low barrier shelter, where do we want to start and who's going to be helping with with those things?

So that would be part of the next phase.

A leadership and governance structure would need to be identified.

Uh so we would look a little bit closer at what being a backbone organization would mean, who could take the lead and what would be the benefits, um, pros and cons of taking that on.

And then partner support and commitments would be formalized.

Um my goal would be to get letters of commitment, letters of support from the entities that would be participating with us in this project so that we can continue to move forward as a as group with everybody at the table.

Planning and funding opportunities will be explored.

I really want to mention that the rural health transformation grant is another big funding opportunity that's coming up.

Um I hope to see an application being put forward that relates to the triage center, whether that be um medical detox or another component, um, we'll have to see what the grant application looks like and what they're looking for to see where it fits.

Um, but I really think that um that could be a good nice piece to this to be able to get some of that funding to support this because it is uh a major need and um part of um what the grant requirements are asking for.

And then lastly, um I would return to the city commission with updates and recommended action.

And so as we continue to move through phase two, I would continue to come back as we got milestones that needed to be approved or updates if you would want um anything that comes up, I would bring to you unless you would want me there sooner.

Otherwise, I would, as a milestones come up, continue to come back before anything else gets moved forward as we move through phase two.

So basically tonight um I have two asks.

One is that you accept the final report, and that would complete the phase, the planning phase of our community triage center project.

And then number two would be authorizing us to proceed with phase two to organize for action.

So that is my um ask for you tonight.

If you have any questions, I can certainly stand for questions.

Thanks, Renee.

Um Sherzenker.

Yeah, thank Renee, thank you.

Um I got one question on the alignment with the certified community behavior health clinic model.

Yes.

So um at the the very first time we talked about this, we talked about a regional opportunity.

Yes.

Is that still on the horizon, so to speak, or in one of the boxes that we need to open up to make sure we do that?

So with the involvement of the West Central Human Service Center, they are the regional human service center for region.

And that is who has been aligned with us in the planning process, and that is the approach that we are that I'm trying to focus on because it that is the region that we serve.

Um so I'm starting um with the involvement, of course, of the local here in the Bismarck Mandan area, um getting the partners at the table, but that is um something yes that um we're looking at planning for.

So um as as you know, Jason is part of the interagency council on homelessness, and there's some work that's gonna be done at the state legislative session.

I'm actually gonna be presenting here in February the same information about our triage center to the human service committee to talk about the work that we're doing.

So there could be a potential, I don't know if you want to say like pilot or model that they could follow, but the the um work that we're doing here certainly aligns with a regional um type of thing.

Sure.

So I mean, someone's got to be the icebreaker, right?

Right.

With the cold weather, someone's gonna do that.

Right.

All right.

So I do have one more question, and and based off the the previous presentation from the human relations committee, which is a very extensive list.

When I see that and I I see what we're doing here, they co-mingle, right?

Yes.

Need both of them to do it.

They're doing a fantastic job gathering information.

So my challenge to you would be this.

One, um as we move forward with this, I would like to see you the next time you come back some of the low-hanging fruit, maybe that we can take care of on that list.

Yes.

To start the process because it's such a heavy lift that it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of resources and a tremendous amount of effort to do that.

So it kind of all falls together under your your on your plate and under your hat.

So I think that'd be a fantastic opportunity for you.

I will do that.

Thank you.

Yep.

Additional questions for Rene.

Commissioner Connolly.

Um tying in from the um human relations committee also.

Affordable housing, it's the buzzword in government, but it's something that that page is turned.

It's subsidized housing.

The cost of construction, the cost of repairs, the cost of utilities, the cost of taxes and valuations going up, have made the term affordable not a reality.

Nothing's free.

It comes it's obtainable housing, subsidized housing.

That's what it ultimately is.

And a lot of this puts a huge amount of pressure on the middle class.

And those are some challenges that need to be looked at as well.

Um we talked about it at one of the conversation actually came up during one of the library board meetings.

Um and we've talked about it before too.

I used to work in Jamestown.

Um that's where my internship and uh worked for some other agencies there.

But um their property values are impacted because they were the regional hub.

If we become a regional hub to where we're inviting a lot of um people with challenges that do deserve care into our area, are they going to put further pressures on the middle class because it's going to impact our property values as we try to grow into those next spaces?

Um if you look at the net value over the last four decades in Jamestown, their overall value of homes haven't go up, and that has some impact under 1176 to where we can only utilize some of the that 3% portion of it.

Um then uh one of the things that when I was working in that area, um, if you're um insurances only cover um a diagnosis so many times.

And I actually saw it where different people within those agencies would move diagnoses around in order to secure insurance funding.

It was more about securing the funding than it was actually treating the people.

There were people with over 200 commitments, so then we have to ask ourselves is the system benefit doing what it's there to do, or is it just government agencies trading money?

When I go to the homeless coalition meetings, there's a lot of people there.

And is this actually going to provide the outcome, or is it just another entity in that hamster wheel continues to where we're chasing, because in most cases the problems are always more than the resources, regardless of what we throw at it.

Um those are some of my concerns overall.

And then when we talked when you, me and Jason talked, uh you kind of act uh said, does everybody think that we're building a center as if that wasn't even on the table?

But yet here, as far as part of the three options, the first one is a center.

Those are monies and resources and an expansion of government.

And people are getting weighed down by all of the expansions of government.

So can I just speak to that?

Um just because it's a community triage center, it doesn't mean it's a campus.

I think it could be it could be ministry on the margins, it could be one central location.

So I don't want people to think that when you're saying center, it could be a facility, community triage facility, and that could be designated as um Heartview, it could be designated as Bismarck Burley Public Health, whoever that location is, it doesn't necessarily mean a giant campus is being built.

Um so just to maybe clarify the language a little bit on that um is a lot of this effort and work is systems are complicated, they're not talking to each other.

We've seen it in the street outreach that we're doing.

We have um spreadsheet that we're you know, capturing information and and trying to communicate amongst partners, but there needs to be overall insight uh and oversight to try to connect everyone.

And um I can I have my community partners actually here um tonight from CHI St.

Alexius, I have um people from Ministry on the Margins, Heartview, these individual entities are all working to try to make this better and try to serve the people that we see are repeatedly falling through the cracks because of the lack of um coordination and communication.

And I think that is if I have to say anything about this whole project, to me, that is the biggest component.

It's not um government expansion, it's all of us collaborating and working together to try to meet the needs in our community, and it's the needs that are here, it's not people moving from outside the state.

We are a regional center when it comes to shopping when it comes to health care, the healthcare facilities can tell you, you probably see people coming here because we are the biggest city with the most resources.

And so we're already seeing a lot of those individuals coming here for services and care, but there are people falling through the cracks, and that's what this project is trying to address.

So I'm gonna speak to that too a little bit, Renee, and it's not necessarily directed at you.

You and I have had a lot of conversations about this.

Um I think that when we talk about being a regional hub for people who need services, I think Bismarck already is that.

Like you said, we're that for shopping, we're that for regular medical care.

That's I mean, kind of just the way that it's going to be until a city in our region grows to be bigger than us.

People are always going to go to the biggest city, that's why you see the most services in them, and that's why you have the most vulnerable people living in our communities instead of these smaller communities around us because they're coming in for services.

I don't think that the answer to trying to maintain that is by doing less or by trying to exist how we are, because I don't think that like by trying to make it better or trying to have more communication between these services or more services isn't gonna bring more people that are vulnerable to our community, it's just going to make those vulnerable people vulnerable people be able to exist here.

So I just I don't I I get what you're saying about the affordable housing piece for sure, and I don't know how much of that plays in with the triage when I look at like Commissioner Zenker said, the like quote unquote low-hanging fruit, but there's also some pieces in here that the HRC went over that fit right into it.

Um for me, that like centralized hub of communication.

Um it's hard as a 501c3 to like direct people to another 501c3, the transportation is hard, all of that sort of thing.

So like even if public health or a singular entity decides to play that backbone role where they are able to facilitate that communication, I think that's gonna open up a lot of like positive things.

And then the the concept of like strengthening mental health and uh substance treatment, I mean it's on the HRC's list.

It obviously fits right in with this, but it's also been on every like priority list for homelessness that has come out in the last 10 years.

And so I think that like that's just a sure sign that we need to keep taking this in the direction because like that need is not gonna go away.

And connecting them to the right people is the only way to get like typically those people in crisis are the people who want to be out of crisis.

Like when you're at homeless forums, we talk a lot about like kind of the people who choose to be homeless more so than the people who are just actively in a cycle that they would like to get out of.

And I think when you're talking about the substance abuse, like that's those people who would really like the help, and I think that Bismarck as a whole wants to do better and can do better at connecting those people.

So I would like to see it move forward.

I know there's a lot of conversations that have to happen in phase two, specifically kind of about the who plays that backbone role.

If public health is the entity that plays that, what does that look like for the city?

Um, because I think that that's a very plausible role that we could play.

Um, and I think that there's um two versions of that, and Renee and I have talked about it.

Doesn't necessarily mean that the city is all of a sudden pushing out a ton of funding, that we have a bunch of more public health staff.

It might just mean that we're a landlord for a couple entities that need to be side by side.

We help with the communication piece.

That can all happen in-house, but then we're like you said, having these other entities on board.

We don't have to be that backbone, but I think that like that conversation happening in phase two.

Like I'm I'm ready to see it happen.

So uh that's where I'm at.

Go ahead, Commissioner Connolly.

Another question medical and I work in that area.

Um when people are challenged, it's one of the number one entities that where a person burns through their entire retirement.

It sends some people into bankruptcy.

So why are we working hard to save hospitals money?

What is the taxpayer have to pick up that liability?

What is the taxpayer have to pick up that liability so Commissioner Connolly, I'm not asking the taxpayer to pick up the liability.

I think we're looking at multiple funding sources coming through here.

Um we're not looking at putting any tax dollars towards this at this point.

Um I think we have the opportunity to sit down and do some planning.

Um and that could be some involvement from you know the hospitals from philanthropy from different funding grants that are coming up.

Um so I think that I don't know if they if that is a good idea.

If I can interrupt, when you were on the page where it says key takeaways from funding review, and you were talking about the hospital payers participate due to reduced emergency department utilization.

Um you'd mention that it's to help save hospitals money.

Yes.

So that's why I bring up that question.

We are saving them money so that they can focus on the other people in their waiting room.

Um and and are you asking why we would help them?

Why does the tax uh basically because we're a government entity?

Why would we save an entity that puts people in difficult positions in the name of health care?

Why would we bail uh them out, so to speak?

Why does the taxpayer have to pick up that?

I feel like they can I can I attempt to address some of this because I think this conversation has gone sideways.

Go ahead, Mayor.

First off, I I would say that the fact that a hospital might see cost reductions means they're gonna become a partner in helping us with this facility.

Secondarily, I have spoken to I don't know how many people who are extremely concerned about the number of individuals who are in our community who are unhomed, and they want us to do something.

We meaning we need to coordinate it.

That's what we're trying to do here is try to find a coordination effort.

It is not saying the city of Bismarck is going to pick up the tab and run this facility.

In fact, I'd have a hard time with that, but that does not mean we can't be somehow involved to make sure a facility is up and available to the organization.

So I think that that's what we gotta focus on here.

We already have a population in our community, a Bismarck man in Berlin Morton County that needs services, and our community wants us to make sure that those individuals are a taking care of, but also in a safe space and not causing other problems within the community.

And so we we can be at the front of this or we can be at the back end, and if we're at the back end, it will be a disaster.

So I'd rather be on the front end.

So I would love to I would make a motion that we accept the report and we authorize Bismarck Burley Public Health to proceed to phase two.

Second.

Okay, there's a motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Commissioner Connolly.

And I'm merely asking the questions that a lot of people ask me along the way.

I mean, I spend I go to the homeless coalition meetings as much as I can because I can't take off every day of the week.

And I uh try to learn along the way too, but there's a lot of people that are also investing a ton of their time.

They're working two and three jobs in the middle class, trying to make ends meet.

And seeing some of the stuff that I've seen in the past in the organizations and that if we're going to take the swing, we gotta siphon out as many good um ROIs as we can and not having the tougher conversations or asking the questions.

Um we might not get that.

Commissioner Rush.

Madam Chair, Renee, thank you so much for your leadership on this.

Uh the citizens of Bismarck are paying now.

We have our police department constantly picking up people with mental health problems, substance abuse issues, they take them to the uh emergency room, they have to sit at the emergency room, haul them to the jail, we pay to have them jailed, and the next day they're back out on the street.

If we could come somehow coordinate and simplify things through a triage center, we could take a lot of that taxpayer expenses through the police department and the jail out of the equation.

And I'm not suggesting we pick up the whole tab, but I'm with the mayor on this and the others, and thank you for your leadership on this, Renee.

I really appreciate it.

I yeah, I do agree, Commissioner Rush, that when I think of you know helping the hospitals or specifically the emergency rooms and how that correlation, if there was somewhere else for those people to go, that also I mean you could say the same thing for police officers.

So I think that's kind of where all that blends together.

But anybody else have any questions, concerns?

Okay, go ahead and call roll.

Commissioner Connolly.

Yes, Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Sorry about that.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

All right.

Item Consider the request to receive a presentation on the request for approval for the implementation of an internship and recruitment program created by the Bismarck Police Department and the University of Mary.

Chief.

Good evening, Mayor.

Madam Chair.

And Commissioners.

So I'm here, Jason Stublmeyer, Chief of Police.

I have Chad Linton, Dr.

Chad Linton from UMARI here.

And as everybody knows, we've had some challenges with recruiting and retention, and that's no different from the rest of the law enforcement community across the country.

But we've been talking here in the last six months or so about how do we enhance getting University of Mary criminal justice students into our police department because we have we've had several good ones over the years, but if we could find a way to get two or three a year, uh that would be very beneficial for us.

So Dr.

Lytton came up with a program where it's free for us, which is good.

We do have to put a little work into it, but they would provide a scholarships through a scholarship program and in return for the last four semesters of a student and a criminal justice program.

In return, uh they would intern with us.

Um they would have to be vetted and approved by us, and we would give them the opportunity to apply with the police department.

And with a four-year degree from University of Mary with uh uh successful internship, um, we think we could provide some excellent opportunities for students that would transition into the police department to be permanent employees.

So the cost for us is is nothing.

Um it just a little bit of coordination, a little more internship uh staff time helping that, but we've find that's gonna be very beneficial for us in in some recruitment efforts.

Any questions for any questions for the chief?

Commissioner Zenker.

Chief, so I mean we have expenses when we train new hires that we have anyways, right?

So we wouldn't have any more expenses than that.

It'd be a a net wash.

And with the with the aid of the University of Mary providing some guidance initially.

Um I don't see how this is not a positive program.

Do you need an approval for this?

I just mostly for information um attention to the issue and get her done.

Sounds great.

Thank you.

If you don't need a motion, then we're I think we're good unless anyone else has questions.

Sounds great.

Thanks, Chief.

Thanks, Dr.

Linton.

All right, item D, a public hearing on the application to transfer the Class F one alcohol license from Chariz B Inc.

Uh doing business as Charles and Tequila to Team Charas Bismarck LLC doing business as Chariz and Tequila at 4503 Skyline Crossings.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone who wishes to speak on the item, please come forward.

Second call for public hearing.

Third and final call for public hearing.

Public hearing is now closed.

What are the wishes of the commission?

Move to approve is presented.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Go ahead and call roll.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

Item E, public hearing on ordinance 6651, a zoning or zoning ordinance text amendment to revise section 140306, 140401, 140401.1, and 1404 17 of the city code of ordinances related to the rural accessory structure size.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Cleary, uh Mayor Schmitz and Commissioners.

It's a mouthful in terms of the number of sections that is addressed here, but I'll try to be as straightforward as possible.

For this particular uh agenda item, the planning department requests approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment to revise and update ordinances uh regarding total accessory structure size in rural areas to align more closely with uh Burley County's current zoning ordinance.

That is sections 140306, 140401, 140401.1, and 1404 uh 17.

1404 140306 is the the bulk of what will be discussed here, and then the rest of them are just the uh zoning district specific parts that are clarified just to make sure everything is consistent.

So as uh some quick background to make sure we're all on the same page, uh as you all know, the city commission and Burley County Commission have agreed upon a new ETA agreement and a new map along with that with an effective date of March 1st of this year.

Uh during various ETA related discussions leading up to that.

One topic that came up several times was the uh topic of rural accessory building size.

So on October 14th of 2025, planning staff received uh direction from the Board of City Commissioners to amend the city's zoning ordinance, Title 14, to align with the equivalent sections of Burley County's zoning ordinance.

As you can see on the screens uh before you, and this was included, of course, in the staff report as well.

Uh the main change here involves moving the city's accessory structure size away from a uh current tiered cataract categorization approach to a uh baseline of four percent of the parcel size, regardless of the actual size of the parcel.

There is one other uh quick clarification that was included in this ordinance as well, and that was removing one reference to a wall height limit in the A agricultural district specifically to clarify a previous zoning ordinance text amendment which removed wall height limits from all residential accessory structures, urban and rural.

But we realized as we were doing this one that we missed one reference uh specifically to the A agricultural district.

So we just cleaned that up to make sure everything was consistent and across the board there.

But going back to the meat and potatoes here, uh this is the existing uh ordinance as it stands, and then on the far right side there is the proposed regulation, which is the current county regulation as well.

So as you can see, depending on what the lot size is for both rural residential RR districts, R R five residential districts, and A agricultural districts, there are different uh initial size uh limits as of right now, and then some of those sizes uh would have the option to go up in size with an approved special use permit approved by the city's planning and zoning commission.

Um the proposed regulation would instead move strictly to a 4 percent size of the lot, and that would remove any uh special use permit option to increase.

So whatever the 4 percent is, that's what uh people would be offered.

That is what the county currently has.

And just to visualize this, and this of course was included in the packet as well.

This is what we would see uh differently here.

The gray uh diagonal line there is the current four percent um regulation of the county.

That would be the proposed version here.

The blue line uh on the left, well, both of them, the blue line is um without a special use permit, the orange line is with a special use permit if that option is available.

The left chart is uh rural residential accessory buildings, the right chart is agricultural districts.

And as you can see, there are uh some situations in which the existing structure that the city has, either with or without a special use permit, is more than four percent of a parcel.

And then there are other areas.

Once you get about 80,000 square feet or so for a lot in rural uh residential areas, that's when that 4 percent will uh quickly become more than what you would be permitted under the current regulation.

So in an initial analysis of approved special use permits, uh planning staff found that since 2014, the planning and zoning commission has approved uh 56 special use permits in rural residential zoning districts and five in a agricultural zoning districts.

Of those 11 in the RR residential would be considered legal nonconforming by this uh change.

In other words, 4 percent of the lot size would be smaller than either 2400 square feet or 3200 square feet, depending on what tier they are in.

Uh no parcels in an ag district would be considered uh non con would be created as a nonconformity in this uh proposed change.

The planning and zoning commission held a public hearing on this request at their November 19th, 2025 meeting.

And prior to that hearing, the public was notified of this request via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on November 7th and 14th, and then again before this meeting on January 16th and 23rd.

Uh to my knowledge, staff has not received any formal comments from the public on uh this topic.

So, as a cumulative result of all findings contained in the staff report, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan, Bismarck Code of Ordinances, and relevant state law.

Therefore, staff recommends approval and the planning and zoning commission also recommends approval of the zoning ordinance text amendments to revise and update ordinances regarding total accessory structure size in rural areas to align more closely with Burley County's current ordinances.

Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time?

Any questions for Isaac?

Uh Commissioner Rush.

Madam Chair, Isaac, good presentation as always.

Um Commissioner Connolly and I are on the Burley County Zoning Commission, and the 4% comes up routinely where somebody wants to build beyond that, and we go through the process.

Um and I really like what you have done.

You you've struck in a whole bunch of complicated stuff out of the ordinance and replace it with the 4 percent.

That's a good idea.

But the county, I think, is thinking about increasing the 4% level because people come in and we always approve it.

So the 4% seems a little restrictive.

I'm certainly in favor of this today, but we might have to return and um up it a bit if the county takes action.

That's a comment more than anything.

Commissioner Connolly.

And I was going to bring it up to you, but thanks, Commissioner Rish.

They did talk about that.

And some of the buildings that they have been approved of lately are fairly close to town and they're very large.

The variance was a lot more.

It wasn't a little bit, it was a lot more.

As close as like the University of Mary region and things.

But um I guess it's not in the force percent percent specifically.

But um, and maybe it's something you're working on.

Um is it still required to have concrete floors in the structures?

Uh Commissioner Connolly, Chair Clearing, Commissioners, that is more of a a building code question that I am not aware of off the top of my head.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions for Isaac?

Okay.

Thanks, Isaac.

Thank you.

Uh, this is a public ear hearing.

Anyone who wishes to speak on um ordinance 6651, please come forward.

Second call for public hearing.

Third and final call for public hearing.

Public hearing is now closed.

What are the wishes of the commission?

I have to approve as presented.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Go ahead and call roll.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

Item F public hearing on ordinance 6652 to amend sections of Title IX.

I'm not going to read all of them unless you really want me to, Julie, of the City of Bismarck Code ordinance relating to uh relating to definitions of terms, employee coverage covered, exemptions, administrative officer duties, employment lists, updating a plan, annual leave, grievances, and procedures.

No, nothing to add, correct?

No, Madam Chairman.

We we discussed this at the last commission meeting.

Yes.

Okay.

So this is a public hearing.

Anyone who wishes to speak, please come forward.

Second call for public hearing.

Third and final call for public hearing.

Public hearing is now closed.

What are the wishes of the commission?

I'll move we approve as presented.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Go ahead and call roll.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

Item G, consider the request for resolution receiving bids order ordering preparations of the engineer statement and awarding contract for highway construction project HC 174 street improvement district SI593.

Gabe, ready for us?

I am.

Perfect.

Let this load up here.

Mayor and Commissioners.

Perfect.

We opened bids for HC 174, which also is Street Improvement District 593, which is our Ottawa Street reconstruction.

Closing a bunch of windows here.

We had five bidders on the project with a low bid submitted by Strata Corporation for 4,394,957.

My request will be actually is to continue this and not award here today.

We also applied for funding through the North Dakota Department of Transportation's Flex Fund Program, and we're awaiting some final coordination on whether or not that project was awarded and to what conditions it would be awarded under if it was.

I'll make a motion to continue to the next city commission meeting.

Second.

Motion and a second, any further discussion.

The only question I have is for Gabe, these bids are going to hold.

We don't have to worry about that.

Mayor and Commissioners, Mayor Schmitz, we can hold bids for 30 days by right.

And if we've had other instances where we've requested to hold those dollars or to that they would honor their bid after that point, but we uh have every right to hold it for at least 30 days.

So we're still within that 30-day time frame once even with the February 10th potential commission action.

Okay.

Then I'm fine.

Thank you, sir.

Uh go ahead and call roll.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmidt?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zanker?

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

Item H consider the request for resolutions receiving bids, ordering preparations for the engineer's statements and awarding contract to for highway construction project HC 173 and sewer improvement district S E 7, 576 Part A.

Thank you, Chair Cleary.

Uh Mayor and Commissioners Chair.

This is our Tyler Parkway extension project that we bid with a portion of the Tyler Cooley Regional Stormwater Improvements.

The goal was combining these two elements, both the Tyler Parkway extension and the embankments in that general vicinity to see if we get some contractor efficiency during construction that we would be able to uh produce both of these projects potentially at a smaller cost.

So we did have six bidders on this particular project with a low bid from Central Specialties Incorporated with a bid of 9,940,797 and two cents.

Our recommendation is to award to Central Specialties Incorporated.

I did want to bring some attention to the project budgets that I've left at your table here.

It showed both the project budget with the combined funding sources for both the HC 173 project funded through half cent sales tax and the SE576 project Part A funded through special assessments.

There will be a Part B project associated with that that we will be uh bidding and awarding, hopefully in the kind of the June-July time frame.

Um so you'll also find what we'll anticipate for future costs associated with the special assessment district um the the next contract or the part B contract.

So this is kind of the first step towards our Tyler Cooley regional stormwater improvements, and these costs would be special assessed to the benefiting properties within that watershed.

So I just wanted to provide that clarification before a decision or actions made by the board.

Any questions for Gabe?

Madam Chair, um Gabe, it's nice to see the bids come in like they did.

This is two-thirds of what the engineers estimate on this one, and the other one was far lower.

But my only other comment is don't forget about the fish pond.

And when you're building those dams up in Tyler Cooley, I've spoken to the Game of Fish Department, they're interested in working with us.

And we've got one on the south side, we've got one on the east side, a northwest side, one would be nice.

Mayor Commissioners, Commissioner Rish.

I have in my mind where something like that could could be placed.

But I'm not I'm not ready to include that just yet because it's not in these contract documents.

Okay.

Perfect.

I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Along with the uh notation that Gabe and Commissioner Rish don't forget about the fish pond.

Second.

All right, there's a motion and a second.

Any further discussion.

Go ahead and call roll.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Chair Cleary.

Yes.

Item I.

Consider the request to receive an update on the public input received and provide direction for the proposed half cent sales tax extensions for roadways.

Gabe again.

Thank you.

Once again, uh Chair Cleary.

Uh the presentation they'll have here today is kind of the summary of the public involvement memo that was included in your packet.

Uh just kind of highlight some of the questions and hopefully can guide our discussion on what our next steps would be regarding the half cent sales tax uh for roadways.

So you'll you'll notice there's a lot of parallels of what the presentation was last meeting regarding the half cent sales tax today compared to what we had talked previously about the street utility fee.

But um here we are with a similar kind of concept or engagement strategies, uh public input meeting on December 18th.

Uh unfortunately only had about 20 people in attendance.

I think that's a combination of cold weather uh at the time and getting into the holiday season.

So thankfully we have other engagement strategies and not relying entirely on that in-person meeting.

Uh so our online story map actually had more views on this particular map than our street utility fee.

So we had just under 500 people or engagements on that story map that had a lot of the same content that the uh public input meeting had.

Uh as part of that, we uh received written and oral comments both at the public meeting as well as through through other uh input opportunities.

And our online survey had about 122 responses.

So I wanted to highlight, I'm not gonna highlight all the things that we talked about at the public input meeting, but I just want to highlight a couple of things that were shared at the public meeting just so it helps, I guess, uh set the stage for this conversation.

Uh this slide I wanted to share is just why did we even ask why are we even asking the citizens to extend the tax?

And we tried to boil that down into some succinct reasons, and then because of these reasons is what's driving uh the decisions or the philosophy that we would use on that project list.

So if we didn't have these reasons of the outstanding deficiencies that are there, or the lack of of features or the lack of interconnectivity, we wouldn't need to have a project list.

But because these deficiencies exist, that's why we identify them and try to find ways to correct those into the future.

So this would be the slide.

But I did want to provide that this is a combination of what was the un or the roadways that are on the original project list that were not completed, plus additional arterials.

And we did add some blue collectors here on the map as well as some roadways that would be considered local.

I do want to provide some distinction that the collectors versus local, even arterials for that matter.

That's just a functional classification.

We try to use that to guide you know the importance and access management, and generally speaking, maybe even the traffic volumes that are on that.

But we will find an arterial road in the outskirts of our community will have less traffic on it than even some of our local roads do.

So just because it's a local road doesn't mean that it's not used by more than the community than just that local person.

Um just just wanted to state that that it might be a collector or local, but some of those, if constructed or even in their existing condition, uh do have more traffic than what I would even say some of the arterial roads that we have on this map or even our community.

So wanted to then get into our questions, and these are all uh included in the the memo that was prepared.

Uh the first question was just rating the satisfaction of how we've administered so far this uh existing program.

Um Commissioner Rich to your comment before this isn't a scientifically valid survey.

This is just the 122 people that elected to take it, so everything we can take, uh whether it's great news or terrible news, it should be taken with a grain of salt and should just be one of the tools that we use to help inform our decision making.

But by no means do we look at this and say that's what the public has decided just based on their 122, but they are representing the 122 people that took time to engage in the process.

So just wanted to give them credit for that and thank them for that.

Uh but for this uh strong in terms of the neutral, satisfied, or strongly satisfied represents about 75% of the people that took the survey, uh, with either strongly dissatisfied or dissatisfied being about 25% of it.

So I took that as at least a good plan, good first step that it wasn't 90% of the people saying strongly dissatisfied and then wondering what the heck are we doing here.

This next question uh doesn't format very well in a poll, but this was this is um described changes that they'd want to see in the project list, uh, whether it's a corridor to be removed or corridor to be added.

Uh kind of hard to demonstrate that in a graphic here or uh but uh those were all included in the narrative that was included in the memo.

So that's probably the spot to go find the additional roadways or roadways to be removed.

This next series of questions, question three will be the next you know, three or four slides here, are the what percentage of costs should be special assessed to the adjacent properties.

Um and really where this question is coming from is understanding that if we do include roadways that aren't on the arterial network and get into the collector or local network, what should the adjacent property responsibility or regional property responsibility be in helping support that improvement?

Uh historically, we have not used a special assessment paired with the half-cent sales tax for any project we've done so far with that program.

Um but that could also be a commission decision as well, understanding that even that arterial road on the south side of town, north side of town, wherever it might be, could provide a benefit to that adjacent property owner.

We just haven't used the special assessment there.

So this is a question I want to ask, especially if we start opening up into other types of roadways.

Uh this first question showing um 60% or so saying 0% was the recommended special assessment for the adjacent properties.

Maybe that the trend that I'll want to show is that the colors are kind of tar, but the the 100% category is the one that's kind of on the upper part or kind of at 12 o'clock, 11, 11:30 kind of time frame on this pie chart.

You'll see as we get into the other functional classifications, you'll see that pie slice getting larger or the 100% slice getting larger of what that cost should be.

Uh and then the 0% cost share getting smaller as we continue through the next series here.

So for arterial roads, this one, as we work our way to collector roads, now we're finding that that zero percent cost share is down to 50%, uh, with then other segments, whether it's even a nominal 10% or 20% being um darn near the majority of it, uh, and then that 10 that 100% cost share getting the very top of the screen getting even larger here.

And as we slide into the local roads, we can see that that 100% is now uh 14% once again of the hundred or so people that took this survey.

So, once again, caution with the grain of salt.

But you'll see that even when we get to the local roads, a uh there's at least uh a majority wanting some level of local participation for those costs that it shouldn't be at a 100% uh special or excuse me, 100% sales tax supported improvement.

And that's really kind of what I would have thought the public would say, and it was uh I guess positive to hear or to see the results that were in line with what I think our our indication would be in terms of providing equity uh in this program.

So this last slide is I think just a fun, colorful pinwheel that shows all of them at the same time.

Uh is helpful for me at a visual age just to see those graphics grow as that red gets smaller and those other pie charts get bigger, uh reflecting the uh the change uh for each functional classification.

Next questions.

Uh was this just a straight up would you support the extension as proposed?

Uh so it does provide at least a quick test to see if if if where we're at right now is uh agreeable to at least those that took this this poll.

Uh it's about 50-50 or 55 45 at this point, so coin coin flip-esque.

Um, unsure if there's a small tweak that could turn one of those no's to a yes, or a small tweak that would turn one of those yeses to a no.

So I don't think we have a lot that we can glean from this um besides that it's not a universally supported concept, nor is it universally opposed, and that's really probably all I would be able to take from this particular slide.

This next one was also a question that we had for the public in terms of how long should the sales tax be out there.

Um if we knew this was a five-year extension, we'd probably come up with a different project list because we would know that we're not gonna be able to support as many things, so why even bother having these things on the list?

If this was a list that never had a sunset, it would have to be pretty robust to say, well, this is what needs to be supported for for all future growth.

Okay, every road needs to be on this list.

So somewhere between those two is where we'll land, more than likely.

But I was curious to see what the public had from their opinion.

Um was surprised to even see some that said no sunset that they would just support the project.

Now, I don't know if they understood what that question meant, so that's another thing to keep in mind when we're reviewing this, is making sure that the public knew exactly what the question was asking.

Um but there wasn't in this mind a consensus of saying everyone that took this survey would love a 10-year sunset or a five-year sunset.

But um the concept of a sunset was was mentioned and was and I would very much support the sunset concept.

These last two uh were more of a um while we're here talking to people, let's talk about other things kind of concepts.

So this was a question that we asked uh here in this forum to understand if this half cent sales tax could also be used for rec improvements.

You know, we it's it's coming coming from or stemming from uh our inability multiple times asking for DOT support to build trails in the right of way or to maintain trails in the right of way through some certain federal funding programs, and then also not really feeling it's very appropriate to try to special assess those costs to an adjacent landowner to maintain a trail.

Uh, would this be a funding source that could be utilized?

Not that it would take a huge dollar amount to maintain the trails and extend trail networks that we have, uh, but we would need to write that into the homeworld charter if if that was the decision or or the thought process.

So have that on there.

Didn't provide a lot of context or or in pieces of information that would um help inform the the public on what we were talking about here before they made their their their vote, uh but just give that to you as a point of uh information.

And then this last one was also in the same vein.

Hey, if we're talking to the public, those that are aware of what we're talking about on our South Bismarck flood control project, um, as we get closer to a date of construction, we'll have to have more serious conversations at this table regarding what is that local funding source.

And and right now we don't have that.

So this was in my mind an opportunity.

If we are going out to the voters, the timing is appropriate to at least consider if there's a tie-in here to allow something like that to be utilized for uh our local share of what the half sense or excuse me of what that South Bismarck flood control project would be.

So the input themes.

I tried to summarize what I could from the the memo from what the written box or the open comment fields were, uh, and I'm try not to um minimize or or marginalize any comment if it wasn't summarized here, but I tried to just find some themes or some commonality or some threads that we can talk through.

Uh one of them is prioritizing our tiers.

That was, I think, from the general public wanting to understand that these dollars are going towards the busiest, the most traffic, the the highest utility facilities that we have in our community, and we're not building the road for some some person that is benefiting them more than it's benefiting the public good.

Um so that was a a theme.

I think that second one also probably plays into it, prioritizing community beneficial projects.

Um I think on its own that that that leans into the arterial conversation too, is just a project if they're all on the south side, all on the north side, all on the east side, none in the downtown, whatever it might be.

It it does you trying to find the sales tax that we're generating that is being generated by this plan is throughout the entire community.

And so, how do we make sure that we're investing throughout the entire community to help support this program?

Uh say there's themes on just specific roadways to exclude or include.

Um, and so that is more so the details that you'd find in your memo.

Um some comments just said allow the tax to expire.

Like we were perfectly content just letting the thing fall by the wayside and come back later if you've if you want to.

And some of the comments also refer to just a higher burden on developers so that we don't find ourselves in this position that we need to build roads on the outskirts of town because we've had the mechanisms in place through other whatever that other solution might be to ensure that we can build the facility that we need to when it comes time to expand something.

Um I didn't put a lot, then I don't think they came up with a lot of solutions.

They just in general the public would say we would like that burden to not be on me, but be on someone else who's who's causing the problem or that increasing capacity issue.

So last couple of slides here.

First would be our next steps, kind of where we're at and where we where I think we'll be going.

Uh here we are today, uh, talking about the public input and hopefully some prize and direction.

We'll try to use the month of February to finalize the project list and then use March to I guess really finalize the project list if we need to, but also uh finalize that home rule charter language that we would uh anticipate asking the voters if that's the direction.

If that is the direction, we would have a couple of month period, uh, April through June to uh educate at that point in time.

We would be moving our transition from uh receiving input because we'd be kind of past that point, and now we're just talking to the public about what this vote means, yes, and what this vote means no.

Uh, and then ultimately the June 9th timeline to talk about a home rule charter amendment ballot question on that uh primary slash municipal election.

So I just have a couple of items that I want to to bring some for discussion and then open up for anything else.

But the first item would be just the sunset term direction.

Uh, this would expire uh the first quarter of 2029 if left uh on its own devices.

So if it's not extended this half cent sales tax, that's when it would terminate.

So even when we talk about a five-year extension, I just want to make sure that we're clear that it's a five-year extension from the date that it would terminate.

So it's really seven years from now.

So just keeping that in mind when we talk about what a 10-year extension it really is a um over 12-year extension from from when that vote would be passed.

Uh but having some direction on what we think is an appropriate sunset timeline will help define where we think development activity could even occur within that same horizon.

If we say it's 20 years out, like I said before, we'll have to expand what we have for a project list.

If we say it's 10, this is probably where we're at.

But even the projects that we have, many of those are triggered or would be triggered by some other activity.

So whether it's Burley County Highway Department building a segment of road and but only providing gravel on it, and then the city coming in paving it like we did with Tyler Parkway, um, that would be an opportunity that really is only contingent on Burley County building that road somewhere.

So it's something that we'd have to have that project list or project on the list.

But if unless that other party does something, it's not that I would anticipate that we would go out and build some of these roads that might be Burley County's responsibility or their intention, but it would be beneficial to have that as an option if if they have uh as a way to look at multiple you know agency funding for particular infrastructure improvements.

Um so some direction on sunset term would be appreciated, and then on the project list as well.

I wanted to bring up um just some comments here.

I I put a lot of value in being consistent with things because I want to be able to say this is why we did it, and we'll treat everyone the same.

Well, as long as the same rules apply, I want to be able to to create a system that that creates everyone equally.

So when we get to something like this, it's a local functional classification.

We have local roads that are on there, like an Ottawa Street that are an existing road that exists right now that it could be a reconstructed.

But if we say, well, Ottawa Street would be a good candidate.

We can all see the community need of doing something like that.

I look for the other roads that are like Ottawa Street in our community to say, well, what are the other ones that we'd want to make sure are on the list as well?

So a lot of times a project might come in because we see a lot of support from even the comments we saw from the public, uh building 19th Street, this backage road behind Hay Creek Shops behind uh Costco all the way up, you know, it just kind of doesn't go anywhere.

You'd be nice if that road existed.

We've heard that from the DOT.

The DOT specifically said they don't want to invest money on State Street until the city invests money on our parallel corridor corridors like Ottawa Street, like 19th Street.

So we can say, Great, let's put 19th Street on the list.

So that's a an extension because there's not a road there today, but it's in a platter drive-of-way.

Okay, what are the other ones like that that exists?

So then we bring in a bunch of other roadways over the similar ilk.

So I I bring that in just to see if just to kind of check in to make sure that that's of value that this commission supports.

If so, we'll continue with that assumption.

But if there is a desire to say yes, I'll this one and pull this one out or some direction along those lines, I would gladly take that.

Um I guess with that, I'll turn turn it over to you all with any other questions that you have.

Commissioner Zenker already has one for you.

So start there.

I'll throw this out there because you and I have talked about this for a few years is Calgary from Centennial to Legacy.

That'd be a fantastic opportunity for this.

And I think legacy high school BPS would appreciate that as well, along with the residents that everybody kind of navigates through to get there.

So I don't know if that's on your list or not, but you can add that.

Mayor Commissioners, Commissioner's Anchor.

Um, yes, that is on the list.

And in when we add that segment of Calgary, I don't know how well I can zoom into this whole thing here.

I'm not close enough, but um, so that's trying to put my my pointer on here.

So when we add this segment of Calgary, then it questions should we bring in this other segment of Calgary that's maybe less of a priority.

That's it would cross the railroad tracks, cross Hay Creek to get there would be a bridge, would be a very substantial crossing.

But for me to include this one quarter, you know, thousand foot stretch of Calgary over here, I felt like it was important to then bring in all the other segments of Calgary that might be in a similar kind of situation.

So but now we add these, and now it looks like we have a map that we might not be able to deliver, because this is 250 million dollars worth of work potentially, and we don't only anticipate a hundred million dollars worth of revenue generated.

So we know we're not gonna be able to do all of these things, let alone if we even added more to this list.

Um so making sure that we are at least meeting those public expectations too.

If we show them this but only deliver a third of these projects, that also might be a concern.

I kind of have a maybe this is a dumb question.

I don't know.

But you talk about like I understand wanting to set that public expectation, but I think including those projects, even if it's not like balancing the dollar amount, it also gives you, I mean, 12 years is a long time.

It gives you the ability to be like, oh, our city is shifting in this direction more.

This project, which we maybe didn't think was a priority in 2026, all of a sudden in 2032, it seems like way more of a priority than we thought it would be.

Like I guess I don't know if there's a way to make sure that the public understands that like we're putting all of these on here because they all seem like they put like possible, but they're not all gonna get done in this 10-year span.

But then maybe in 10 years we'll be where we are right now, looking at like, is this program still working?

Do we want to keep doing this?

We still have all these projects because we didn't get through all of them, we didn't expect to, but at least we it gives us the flexibility to like watch how the traffic and the city grows.

I don't I understand wanting to like make sure that we're setting expectations for people if we're showing them road projects that we want to do, that we do them.

But I also like like the idea of I mean, because a lot can change in 10 years.

So Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Cleary, I I think we we benefited this last in the 2018 vote, I believe, from the public, more or less driving on all the roads that were eligible.

Because they they would see it, they could see that the 43rd was not to their like and they could see Ashkoole Drive wasn't great.

They could see how South Washington wasn't performing.

I think as we move into whatever this next stage would be, regardless of what it is.

We we have taken a a lot of addressed a lot of need with the current program.

Um so I'd be the first to admit that that it's been successful, but in that success now we probably don't have that top-tier category target that this is our you know, a road in the middle of town that we've just abandoned for years and years and years like we did before, which is good.

It's a good for us to be in that spot, but it does put us in a location or situation where uh we're talking about roadway improvements that maybe aren't as heavily traveled than than what we saw before.

You can't see them right now, but they might be noticeable in ten years.

That's very true.

Yeah.

So and as we if we look back at the 2018 measure, I mean, we had roads on that that were listed that we did not address yet.

And I think if we just be too specific and only come up with a we think is a hundred-ish million dollars today, as I think Commissioner Zenker's even expressing Gabe's expressed, you know, we don't know where some those needs might come up.

We've got to have some options if we're gonna list all specific roads in the measure.

We we gotta have some options to be able to move and shift if need be.

And um it it it has been very successful.

And it is certainly a way of keeping our roads in good shape without having to special assess to accomplish it.

Commissioner Resch.

Madam Chair, Gabe, I think 10 years is probably a good compromise between unlimited and five years and whatnot.

Um but the ballot measure itself will actually list all the possibilities.

Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Rish, uh, that's if we want a project list, and which I would recommend that we do have a project list, then yeah, it would have to say this is the fund, this is the the eligible list includes now a pretty long list potentially if if we have this many roadways or corridors on there.

Well, I like the uh the long list because it gives us flexibility, of course, as the city moves around.

But you might have somebody saying, Oh, they're gonna fix my road, and it never ever happens, and they vote for the measure, but that's I guess that's just life.

And I think too by having the list, we are limiting our scope.

It's like obviously you could write this measure and be like, we're only gonna use it on artillery and collectors, but that's a really broad list in this city.

So I mean I think giving them the list, even if it is cumbersome and more than we'd be able to pay for in the 10 years, it does still limit our scope at least a little bit.

Mayor and commissioner, if I can add to that.

Um I think having a list also doesn't have to have to describe that roadway as a local road, a collector road, an arterial road, it's just a it's just a road, and people can understand what that is.

If if they use it a lot, then they might think it's an arterial, even though it's a local road, it's just because that's what it's what happens to be its functional classification.

Um I would add also that if it's this board's direction, what I would come back to you with your next meeting or probably two meetings from now, second meeting in February would be a revised project list, like looking at the the public comments received, see if there's any of those that really maybe were an overstep, like yeah, I don't know why we'd need to go up that far with this particular improvement.

Um so look at what might be need to be removed from what we presented to the public initially.

Also look at maybe some additional ones that were you know brought forward to our attention is oh, yeah, that probably is a good idea.

We should we should consider that one.

Um so come back to you with maybe a revised project list as well as then the whole world charter language that would marry up with what that list looks like if that would be a a next step to consider.

That would be my preference.

Uh Commissioner Zenker.

Uh Mayor, Commissioners, Madam Chair, Gabe.

So I look at it like this.

So the current the current half cent that we have um took care of a reactive situation, right?

Everything built around 43rd.

I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna hang on 43rd because that was the that was really the the street that needed the most um attention because it was left so far behind.

It gives it gives us uh we were able to forward fund it because we all know that the process of being uh reimbursed from the federal government through the MPO and all of those things take a lot of time.

When I look at the extension of this, it looks it gives us an opportunity to yes, take care of some of those things that we need to be uh reactive to, but it also gives us an opportunity to be proactive.

We always get we always get those sayings that city take it takes too long for the city to get things done.

And this is a fantastic opportunity to be proactive in many situations.

Um the list that the picture that Gabe has, I've driven by most of those and kind of understand where where they're all at.

And some like I said, some of them are are reactive.

Some of them got left behind when Washington Street went up to 57th.

Uh those types of things we can we can clean that up, but then the flexibility that we have allows us to be proactive.

And I think that is that that's how you we gotta look at this.

Um the 10 years is I'm all in for the 10 years.

Um and then move forward.

We have it's been a very, very positive experience with this half cent sales tax to get done what we needed to get done.

And then when then those federal funds come, we can take those federal funds, put it in here and and help in different areas as well with that project list, not in other parts of the city with that project list.

You okay?

I completely agree.

I like the like what you said, like having it be more proactive this time because we've seen how well it works.

I think that makes total sense to me.

So is that enough direction for you, Gabe?

Enough direction for me.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um that is the last item.

Any other business for us tonight?

Shocked.

Mayor, anything from you?

No, thank you all.

And then we are adjourned.

Thank you.