515 excuse me on the 10th of March.

We're in the Tom Baker room of the city county building.

This will be the Board of City Commissioners.

But before we call roll and call to order, if we can have Chaplain Lucas come forward with invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Thank you for the opportunity.

I would invite you to stand with me.

And then continue standing for the pledge that will follow.

Heavenly Father, I come before you tonight with Thanksgiving.

Thankful for all of the blessings that we have in our lives, our families, our children, our friends, and a country that is free for the opportunity to voice our concerns to vote and to have an impact on our country moving forward.

Father, I pray for our first responders this evening, even those that are serving at this very moment for safety, for discernment that they can safely and efficiently serve our city.

And Father, I ask your blessing on this meeting tonight.

Give discernment to these leaders that have stepped forward to lead the city forward to make the critical decisions to keep moving our community forward.

We ask these things in Jesus' name.

Amen.

And the pledge.

Thank you, Mayor Lannon Eimler with Swedenagan Engineering representing Heather Jones for item E on the regular agenda.

We're repealing the uh planning and zoning commission's uh denial of the zoning change, uh, major final plan and road uh fringe roadway master plan amendment.

Um we're asking for the appeal tonight, uh so we have another opportunity to really to present to the commission some of the things that maybe were not clarified as well from our end on the on the initial planning and zoning presentation.

Um there are some uh some future land use issues to the east of this property.

It's an urban reserve area.

Um I think that perhaps the the neighboring uh property owners who who had concerns about the placement of our road and the way we were going to set it there, they had some concerns about that interfering with their ability to subdivide or their ability to have their septic system where it is and things like that.

Um this area to the to the east is is urban reserve, so at some point it would become city-sized lots.

Uh so we would place the road on our property to the west, we'd be matching up on the east as well, and we've shown uh in exhibits to the city staff that they they can better develop the area um as city-sized lots with the road place where we have it set right now.

Um it is a small adjustment, it's about 200 feet from where the the fringe roadway master plan shows it right now.

Um, but but it would be our intent to obviously to to serve our our our development as well, but then it works as well going to the east.

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

Not at this time, thank you for the right to bring it back.

Thanks.

All right.

Again, this is public comment.

Anyone wish to speak, please come forward.

A second call for public comment.

A third and final call for public comment.

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

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

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to pull off item I two.

Okay.

With regard to the rest of the consent agenda, Commissioners.

I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll commissioner.

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly.

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary, yes.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

I pulled off I2 because it deals with the lead pipe issue that we're trying to address in the city, and I thought it would be a good opportunity for Mr.

Mark to explain what it is the city is doing as far as helping people in replacing these lead lines that are going into their homes.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

I'll explain a little bit.

Mayor Commissioners, Commissioner Rish.

Um, what we're trying to do is section off this portion of our service line policy.

The city has received um some federal and state funds to help reduce the cost of replacement for homeowners.

Um so right now with the funding that we have, um we can reimburse up to 80 percent right now as long as that funding stays there to help property owners repel replace their lead service line from their curb stop into their home.

They are responsible for that.

This would cover restoration, concrete, um, sprinkler repair, and that lead service line.

Um so if they want to reach out to the city to utility operations, we can get them in contact with staff and give them the packet.

But um it's a great opportunity to help reduce those costs for them.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor Michael, and that's why I brought it up because I was concerned there might be some folks that are looking at this lead line and saying, Boy, it'll cost me a fortune.

I I don't dare say anything about it, but when there's that kind of help available, it's important that they they know that.

So help help spread the word.

Thank you.

I got one other I've got one other issue.

I was accusted at the back of the bowling alley yesterday about the uh fees for when you pay your utility bill with either a credit card or a debit card, and I tried to explain to these people, you know you can go what my bank calls it bill paid, but it's a arch payment.

Um it doesn't cost anything, or you can send in a check, is that correct?

I mean, the reason we're charging the fees is because the credit card and debit card companies are charging us for using those cards, correct?

Correct.

This is a convenience fee if you pay your bill online.

Um so if you use a credit card or a debit card online, you'll you'll be charged that fee.

Um if you use a bank transfer or an ACH, there is no fee for that.

If you come into our office and pay, there is no fee.

You can use your credit card there for no fee then too.

Or you can mail in a check if you want.

You can mail in a check.

We still accept those.

Okay, thank you, Michael.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commissioners, what are your wishes with regard to I2?

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Moving to regular agenda item A, it's public hearing on ordinance to amend sections 902 or 90702 and 90802 of the city of Bismarck Code of Ordinances related to the city employee pension plan and the police pension plan.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wish to speak to this, please come forward.

A second call for comment.

A third and final call for comment.

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

Commissioners, what are your wishes?

Move to approve is presented.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Item B, consider request for resolution receiving of bids ordering the engineers' statements and awarding of contracts for street improvement district SI-594 Part A and SI-594 Part B.

Linda, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Street Improvement District number uh SI 594.

Is our annual street maintenance project asphalt maintenance?

Um, given the size of the project, we typically bid this in two parts.

Um start with A.

Part A was bid on March 3rd.

Um the engineers' estimate for this project was just over five million dollars.

We received two bids.

Uh the first bid or the low bid came from Northern Improvement Company for $4 million $64,372 and 90 cents.

Um and before I move on to B, I'll ask that you approve part A.

Okay.

Move to approve is presented.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion?

I just like the comment.

It's 20% under the estimate, so that's good news.

All right.

Any other comment?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Go ahead, Linda.

Okay.

Street Improvement District SI594 Part B was bid on March 4th.

The engineers' estimate for this portion of the project was just over $4 million.

We received two bids.

Again, Northern Improvement Company was the low bidder with the bid of $3,374,000 $112.20 cents.

We ask that you award it to Northern Improvement Company.

I'll move we awarded.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Item C is consider request to hear the insufficiency of protests on the resolution of necessity for street improvement district 595.

Linda.

Okay.

Um Mayor and Commissioners, Street Improvement District Number 595 is a six-unit district to do scrub seal projects throughout City of Bismarck.

The resolution of necessity was advertised in the Bismarck Tribune on February 3rd and February 10th.

The protest period ended on March 5th.

Of the 1159 parcels that are in this district, we received six protests over four of the six units.

So ask that you accept the insufficiency of protests unit one through six and award and ask us to move forward with 595.

Move to approve.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none will call roll.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary.

Yes.

Commissioner Rish.

Yes.

Commissioner Zenker.

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

Next item D, consider appeal from Henry and Lisa Gerving on the denial of variants from Section 140306.

Pair open pair one, closed pair, open, open pair B, closed pair, open pair for closed pair of the City Code of Ordinances, incidental uses.

And I'll leave the rest to Jenny.

Thanks.

I appreciate that.

We really add a lot of stuff for you guys to read through.

So let's get started.

Mr.

Mayor Commissioners.

Henry and Lisa Gerving are requesting an appeal of the Board of Adjustment Denial of a variance from Section 140361B4 of the City Code of Ordinances, incidental uses and accessory uses in buildings to increase the area of accessory buildings from 1200 square feet to 1,320 square feet on their property at 602 Mahart Drive.

There is an existing 1,200 square foot building on site permitted and constructed in 2024.

The maximum area of accessory buildings for this property, which is located within the city limits and is zoned R5 is $1,200 square feet.

This was communicated to the applicant at the time they received this build the building permit for the existing building.

The applicant would like to construct a 120 square foot accessory building in the northwest portion of the property to cover a private well that was also recently installed.

A variance is a device which grants a property owner relief from certain provisions of the zoning ordinance when, because of a particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of a property.

Compliance would result in a particular hardship upon the owners as distinguished from a mere inconvenience to uh or desire to increase financial return.

As a part of the applicant application for the variance request, the applicant submitted a statement that identified their anticipated hardship, explaining to the Board of Adjustment why they believe the variants should be granted.

The statement was included in your packet.

The Board of Adjustment held a public hearing on this request on February 5th.

No members of the public spoke during the meet the meeting.

However, one written comment was received.

A copy of the comment is included in the draft meeting minutes, which are so are included in your packet.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board of Adjustment was unable to identify a hardship specific to this request and voted four to one to deny the variance.

If it is the intent of the city commission to grant the request requested appeal and approve the variance as proposed, staff recommends identifying a hardship specific to this request and to determine that all of the findings for a variance are met.

The findings I'll read to you, but they're also listed in your packet, and you can read along.

Number one, that there are special circumstances or conditions that apply to the land or buildings that do not generally apply to land or buildings within the neighborhood and have not resulted from any act of the applicant that there that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of said land or building.

The granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building, and that the variance as granted is the minimum variance that will accomplish the relief sought by the applicant.

Third, and finally, that the granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

Happy to answer questions.

I believe the applicant is here as well and prepare to speak.

Okay.

Any questions of Jenny?

Go ahead, Commissioner Ish.

Mr.

Mayor Jenny, the 120 square feet you don't ordinarily need a building permit for, correct?

Correct.

Commissioner Rish members.

The building department does not issue building permits for 120 square feet or less.

However, that size still counts towards the overall area of accessory buildings for a property in the zoning code.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

If not, go Commissioner Sinker.

Mayor, Commissioner Jenny.

So is there a in our packet there's no uh picture of the structure that they're trying to cover?

I mean, what kind of well is it?

Um if I could have the control room show the docking station or the emo on the screen.

Ooh, what do I do?

Panic.

Whenever you guys panic, they always go to us, by the way.

Like we didn't have it yeah.

I don't know if we have to close our MSI, but I don't know.

Oh, the red button would scream off.

There we go.

It's the red button.

So you could hold that up a little bit for us.

So is it the structure that's got, I think, an arrow pointing to it or so obviously the accessory buildings where the mark of twelve hundred square feet is in the existing private well is on the northwest side of the building, and right now it's just a concrete pad.

Concrete pad with a jet pump on top of it or submersible well, or what do we got?

That would be a question for the applicant.

Okay, perfect.

Okay.

All right, we'll have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Mayor and commissioners.

I'm Henry Gerving, the well guy.

So the answer to your question is it's a submersible pump.

It's a 125-foot deep well.

Um, in that picture, what's missing is the pressure tank.

And the reason that I requested this variance and I want to cover it, is because I found that in this last year of use that it's really hard water that I'm pumping up.

And so now I need to install a filtration system.

And I want to put the filtration system inside of a building.

The real reason that I um appealed the zoning board's decision is I do not feel that they did do due diligence in that meeting.

So I presented my case, they closed the hearing, and then there were probably 25 questions that the members had that I was not allowed to answer because of the um uh public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

I believe that as the applicant um I should have been allowed to answer those questions.

That was the ri original um reason for my appeal.

Um questions.

Why why 10 by 12?

Um the reason that there's no picture is because I figured that before I got a plan and decided what I was going to build or how I was going to build it, um, I would get the approval.

That is a five by five concrete pad that I put down around the well to protect the well head.

But I'd I'd like to protect the rest of the structure so that I can continue to use it.

And the filtration system is protected.

I'm not putting up a tin shed or anything crazy like that.

It would look exactly like the rest of it.

I I have a greater question though, and it's because I asked the zoning board this question.

What is the penalty if I build a hundred and twenty square foot building that I don't need a permit for?

And nobody can answer that.

I think that's something you guys might want to look at because had I have not gone through this and been apprised of the 1200 square feet, I may have built this and been in violation.

Um and nobody can tell me what happens to me if I beg for forgiveness as opposed to asking for permission.

All right, your questions for me.

Go ahead, Commissioner Rush.

Um, Mr.

Mayor, um, I'm just kind of curious why do you want to put a structure over top of a well?

What if you have trouble and you have to pull the the pipe stem out or whatever in the future?

Wouldn't that be a issue at that point?

So it's Commissioner.

Um that's a good uh question.

Um the structure would be built so that I can access the well and I can pull all 125 feet out of it.

Um the if you look at there's a concrete pad that I can back the well pulling truck up, and I would build it so that I could open the roof and literally pull that because I can't pull 125 feet with a submersible pump by hand.

Other questions anybody else go ahead, Commissioner Rush.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, uh um Jenny mentioned that you have to prove some sort of hardship in order to get a variance request like this.

Um what would the hardship be?

Well, there's there's several hardships.

First off, um, without the well, I would be reliant on city water.

Um, and literally the increase in 2018 did not affect me, but I'm well aware of it.

And the other thing is is that the filtration system would degrade.

So I would have to replace the filtration system because it's it's a stainless steel housing with plastic cylinders in it.

And so if it's inside, I'm guessing the life expectancy of the structure itself is 10 years.

But out in the sun, just like tires and stuff like that, it would degrade by two to three years.

So I would spend a thousand dollars every two years to be able to filtrate my water.

Okay.

Other questions?

Go ahead, Clear Mr.

Connolly.

So is uh I watched the adjustment meeting and I reached out to um you, Henry, we talked a little bit, and I um held back what I know about this conversation on purpose so that you could present a fair way.

Um but so we don't close the hearing like happened at the board of adjustment.

I'll add um what I have to the conversation.

When the water utility rate meetings were going on, um a lot of people were looking at ways because we had a lot of infrastructure that had to be paid for, and that was gonna demand a huge increase.

Um it went up for a while.

We were we learned about it, we were able to adjust and lower it somewhat, but it wasn't significantly lowered where um it doesn't present a challenge for people, so to speak, um, with our five-tiered system now four-tiered system.

So um some of the things that I learned that came up during that meeting is is that well, do you need state approval?

And when I called the state and talked about the um well approvals, um they said that it has to trip a certain unit amount before that would be required.

And outside of the Capitol, there's not really a parcel in the entire community.

Um Cottonwood at that time had switched from city water to where they drilled their own well, and they were outside of that, and that was the only one other one that they brought up.

Outside of that, we don't have what's called a well head protection program in the community.

So anybody in the community can drill a well and use it for irrigation purposes, but we don't have very many water tables here.

We have artesian wells, we have underground creeks and things.

Um the river is the primary one.

Once you start drilling, you don't know what you're gonna hit, and the cost goes up exponentially.

It's not really something that most would find a benefit.

It just so happens that you have a well, which is nice.

And I remember when we were going through it and it was Commissioner Zenker that you talked about uh we wanted green yards and those opportunities.

That's a lot of the discussion that we had around.

So um it's uh because of the overall city need we had to address some of those questions and um when we do close the public hearing, I have a motion ready to go, but um we do um infrastructure in that as far as like neighbor is is the minimal use of land.

You have an opportunity to where you can take care of your yard differently than a lot of other people because just most people aren't in that position.

And the benefit to other orders.

I mean, you're in a place to where you can take care of things even if we get three months of hundred degree weather.

So the stewardship opportunities there.

So I just wanted to make those.

If there's anything you want to add to that, um that's what I took from that meeting.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um the other thing is is in my estimate, I will pay for my well in five years.

Not being on city water and not having to increase the water usage and or also with water restrictions.

Um, you know, I don't know what the future holds, but uh limited watering and stuff should not affect me.

Um and that's all great.

Um again, I just gotta get past this hard water issue.

Other questions?

Any questions?

I'm gonna just make a note this isn't a public hearing, actually.

We're just allowing the applicant to respond.

Okay, so present his case in this case.

So any other questions?

Okay.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for time.

Yep.

Commissioners.

So I mean one thing we have to make sure of whatever we if we agree to overturn the denial, we have to come up with the hardship for the variants.

So just as a point of reference is all I make that.

So yes, Julie.

And and I may have Jenny come up because she has it written down.

You also have to make findings.

So you have to find the hardships, and then there are three at least three findings.

And I'll and Jenny has them written down, so I won't have to read them.

Thank you.

They are commission commissioners in your packet in your agenda.

You can click on the link.

Um they're in embedded in the memo that I wrote for this hearing.

I can also repeat them if you need me to everybody reread everything.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

I make a motion to overturn the Board of Adjustments decision due to um the size.

I think it meets all of them, the size, shape, and topography of the environment and um the decisions that we had to make as a city in order to maintain our gardens and yards.

Um with uh minimum use lands.

I mean um and benefit to other owners because of um fire protection uh for the area uh and um lost my train of thought I had um I'll just stop there.

I don't know if it's we have a motion.

Second.

Okay.

Um discussion.

I just want to make sure that we're meeting the criteria that like you're wanting us to specifically say what the hardship is, correct?

Okay, so in my viewpoint the hardship is a financial hardship.

He has this well on his property.

It's not something everybody has, so it does make it a unique feature on the property.

Um he's using it as a way to uplift financial burden from himself, but then not being able to correctly protect the equipment is going to make it more expensive to maintain.

So I think because of that I would call it a financial hardship.

I do think that to point number two with the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.

Obviously, he already has the 1200 square foot, but it seems a little ridiculous to do construction on that building to downsize it a hundred square feet so that he has the ability to build this very small outbuilding that he's not wouldn't even need a building permit for, other than the fact that he's over the limit.

So I think that you meet that because the alternative of granting this is him downsizing that main building that's already constructed and built in order to build this other small one.

Um the question uh the the question I have is I could just tell by the consensus.

Yeah.

The question I have is is financial hardship is uh item that we can actually grant the variance for.

No.

So that's the struggle to so he can't be a financial burden issue.

Right.

That's that that that seems troubling to me just because most hardships have something to do with some sort of finance, but it is what it is.

Go ahead, Commissioner Sanger.

Sure.

Just to expand on that, right?

So then so then you give an opportunity for someone to overbuild a house or a building or a shop or whatever and never finish it, right?

And say, hey, sure.

Can I get a variance because I ran out of money and I can't I can't finish this piece of property, right?

I mean, you just gotta understand the can of worms that you're gonna open and make sure you you only get the right the right ones out of there type thing.

So if we're gonna grant it, I think we have to have a different reason.

Okay.

Well, Mr.

Mayer, um that's you know the one thing jumped out at me, these were two lots put together in one lot.

Had he not put them together in one lot, he could have but built two twelve hundred square foot buildings.

No.

So you'd have to have the house first.

You'd have to have a house first, okay.

So we could put 5400 square feet.

Right.

I think under safety.

Like I'm just trying to figure out how we navigate this.

Under safety.

Anybody that has access to water during our dry years and that there is some fire protection there.

He's in a unique position to where he has that.

Um if there is to where a person has to ration water where other yards might not be getting that opportunity for water, he's also in a position to where he can pump that water.

And um it's three.

I I wasn't prepared for three.

So we just need to be one of those three.

That's one of the three.

You have to meet them all.

All right.

And the fine difficulty and that Mr.

Mayor, it seems to me the ordinance himself with this highest standards to approve probably needs addressing.

Not going to do it tonight, but it seemed pretty pretty difficult to get a variance under these conditions.

So I'm not sure if it's the variance that is the variance under century code or is it under our building ordinances?

Yeah, that's a good question.

That's a great question.

Thank you.

Um both, actually.

So it's under its century code.

There are findings in century code, and then there are findings in our ordinance that must be met.

Okay.

If I can ask, how do we grant variances like we we've changed zoning ordinances and things from manufactured home parks to to where the they can build closer to the curbs?

There's um certain areas there's been um well, even Commissioner Cleary's house.

Um that was uh how was that three-year montage?

Correct.

Of different events.

Um there's variances that do go through even separate from meeting those standards, isn't there?

A variances to the zoning code.

Zoning code and those requirements go to the Board of Adjustment, as you know.

If they are denied, they come here.

Um staff right now does not have the ability to administratively approve a variance in order to get a larger building.

Okay.

I'm gonna challenge the strictness and maintain my motion with the two options.

Can for clarity, can we have that reread back to us, please?

I make a motion to overturn the or do you want to do you want to I mean you've got it on, so I'm I'm wondering if we can have Julie re at least the much as she got.

I I have been taking notes, Mr.

Mayor, but I just got safety from Commissioner Conley.

I I didn't hear the other basis for the hardship.

Okay.

He had said size, shape, and topography of the environment.

In the original motion.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll just I'm not sure.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, uh when you look at the even Jenny stated it in her um comments as the the adjustments come in those three areas is um and um go ahead, Jenny.

If I may, um with the topography, the size, the shape, the un peculiarness of the property, the property is square, and it is on a flat lot, if that helps.

So it's really just the size, it's the fact that it was two lots at one point.

So it obviously is larger than surrounding lots.

Of course, that's a common thing in this neighborhood.

It's a common in in this neighborhood.

There have been lots that have been combined, so accessory buildings, larger accessory buildings can fit on the lot.

Originally the two lots, lots eight and nine, they both were 9,750 square feet.

If you run the numbers with the building permit and the lot coverage for, let's say the southern lot, the lot that the house is on, they're pretty much maxed out at 30 percent.

They maybe have got a hundred square feet left over.

So he combined the two lots.

So combining the two lots did allow for an accessory building, but if that house was smaller on the original lot where the house is, he could put a 1200 square foot building if it met the law coverage requirement.

But the lots are combined.

The lots are combined into one.

The coverage is not an issue right now, so then the limit is twelve hundred.

If board of adjustment had granted the variance for the 120 square feet, we wouldn't be sitting here today.

Correct.

Because we wouldn't have to be commendable with all the other factors.

Right?

Well they have to come up with them too.

They would they would have to, they also have to find the hardship which they were unable to do and modify findings.

I'm just trying to support.

Like I'm you guys are in the same boat as the board of adjustment was okay.

So we have a motion.

I'm not sure I fully understand it.

That's why I was asking for clarity, but in a second.

Um I'm not sure if it meets all the standards we need to meet.

I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna call the vote, but then I we need help, I think, if we've got haven't met the standards, Julia.

I gotta make sure that we're not running a foul.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, my problem is uh I can't I don't know what the hardship would be that the commission wants to find.

And I and I'm not comfortable m making that decision without guidance from the commission, or the the changes to the findings that are also required.

Maybe the hardship is the hard water.

And this is the angle, this is the way in which to make the water less hard and usable.

So then I'm gonna ask that the motion, the person who made the motion, the person who seconded withdraw, and we start over.

I withdraw my motion.

Withdraw my second.

Okay.

I'd like to start with a clean motion that can try to address the items if we can, please.

So the hardship is the hard water.

No pun intended.

So okay.

So if that's the hardship, right?

Um granting the variance it's a generic comment about being in harmony.

It would not be injurious to the neighborhood because if he covered it and someone someone in the middle of the night inadvertently ran through his yard, he there's no danger for them tripping over the tank that's there, right?

Or the or the cover the covering of the uh submerged pump.

Right, correct.

Yep.

Um which has happened.

I mean I have a I personally have a same type of well and something happened and somebody took some pipes apart and some water went all over one in the middle of the night.

So that is a reality.

It's really detrimental when you wake up at 6 30 in the morning and don't have water.

So we want to try to avoid that for you, sir.

Um special circumstances.

That's the one I'm stuck on, to be honest with you.

I mean, I feel like the special circumstances is the fact that he has a well.

It's not something that every one of his neighbors has.

He has to have the ability to maintain that.

It makes it a unique piece of the property.

We're not talking about the topography or the shape of the lot, but the actual fact that he has a well and that's his use of water, and it makes it a unique piece of the property.

That that's special circumdas circumstances or conditions that apply to the land.

I think that that covers point one.

Like we're saying the hardship is water for point one.

The special circumstances is that he has a well and needs to be able to use it.

Um, the strict applications and provisions of the zoning ordinances would deprive the applicant for reasonable use of the land or building.

I think that that is covered in the concept of if this was two lots, we wouldn't be dealing with the same issue.

I think I think that's more covered because if the water wasn't hard, he wouldn't need the additional filtration system.

Yes.

Right?

Correct.

And then the injurious side of things is to prevent inadvertent things happening.

Yes.

To be able to get the other thing.

So I think you are covering all three.

Together we did.

Yes.

Do you want me to do that all over again?

Yes.

So under so I'm gonna look at the ordinances.

So under A, the special circumstances or conditions.

We have that is the fact that he has a well on his land for water and it is producing hard water.

Okay.

I thought the hard water was the hardship.

It can be both.

Okay.

It can be the hardship and also point A, in my opinion, I guess.

Okay, and then strict application.

Then varying from the strict application of the provisions of the of the ordinance.

I feel like we gave multiple instances of that.

Part of the zoning ordinance issue for him is that it was two lots and has been because it's been combined, it limits him.

No.

No.

So he doesn't have a here.

Okay.

If you have a 5,000 square foot lot, it's 30 30 percent.

If you have a 10,000 square foot lot, it's 30 percent.

But because it's one lot, he's lit limited to 1200.

No, no.

1200 is limited to the additional structure.

Oh, okay.

And you can have a max of 30 percent on whatever size lot you have.

Right, Jenny.

Commissioner, yes, no matter how large your parcel is, your building footprint or the lot coverage is 30 percent.

Um, however, accessory buildings, even if you have 30 percent left over, you're limited at 1200 square feet, no matter how large your lot is in the city limits.

Okay, thank you.

It's interesting that we say no to some buildings because they can't say prior to our change last week, they don't have the water pressure to put fire suppression systems in their building to protect from fire.

And in this sense, a person can actually benefit their yard and benefit the area around it, and because of our code, we end up saying no.

We wouldn't potentially end up saying no to where they can actually take care of their place in a way to prevent fires.

Just or drink water.

Yeah, exactly.

It if I may.

So my understanding is that this applicant installed the well after the ins after the building of the other accessory building.

No.

No.

Saying no.

Yeah.

Can you come up?

Hello again.

So this is kind of a calamity of errors.

I bought my house, the lot next to me was vacant.

I bought it.

The individual that said that I bought it from said that I could buy it from him as long as he built my shop.

Initially, and he's from Lincoln, so he's not velv well-versed in City of Bismarck building codes.

He told me that we could build a shop of any size that I wanted.

Because he was kind of thinking that I was rural Bismarck or rural Burley County.

ETA.

And so initially we designed a 40 by 50 shop.

I called the well driller.

He had an opportunity to drill the well and said, okay, because it was the beginning of the season, came over, drilled the well.

Then put in the permit, and that's when we started talking about 30 percent.

Initially it was 30 percent, and well, I was gonna be good.

Then we came up with 1200 square feet, and that's how the shop was constructed at 1200 feet is to comply with that ordinance.

But the well was already dug and in place.

And then there's some question of why didn't we just pipe it into the shop?

It's because all the concrete was poured with no consideration for that whatsoever.

And the well is for irrigation purposes only.

Correct.

Okay, so not for drinking and not specifically for fire suppression.

I could use it for both, yes.

I could use it for fire suppression.

But not for drinking.

Not well, yeah, absolutely I could use it for drinking once I put the filtration system on it.

But currently currently though.

Currently no.

Okay.

Commissioner Connolly.

And additionally with that, um when asking about the water utility rates, Lincoln's not a doesn't allow for wells for irrigation purposes where Bismarck did, that was kind of a surprise.

Just side note on it.

I'm sorry.

I feel like I'm taking over.

Um we're trying to help we're struggling.

So does does the well produce enough pressure for for fire suppression?

I can um yes.

How many PSI do you have?

Right right now, I have 50, but I can go up to 75.

Yeah.

Okay.

I I can easily pump 20 gallons a minute.

Other questions?

And I'll just say this before I sit back down.

Thank you.

Thank you all for all this diligence and consideration because I realize that you guys are spending a lot of time and effort on this, so thank you.

I just don't know if we've met number two yet.

I mean, building this 10 by 20 thing over the top of a well is should be so much simpler.

So let's do this.

Was there a chance since we're rewriting our land development code that we could just put a couple hundred extra square feet in there?

Daniel?

I mean, let's be honest here.

That'd be simpler.

Uh Commissioner Mayor Commissioners, uh, yes, you can.

In fact, so and I think one of the reasons why the hardship language exists for variance is essentially you're saying everybody else in the city should follow these rules, but this person should not, and that there has to be a good reason for that.

If in fact you think everybody else in the city should not be following these rules, and that's your opportunity with land development code, if you want to increase that by a couple hundred feet, uh you could you'd have that opportunity and we can make that change in the language if you like.

Commissioner Connolly.

Go ahead.

Well, with that, if we made it specific, say in the code or anything, because of the overwhelming expense that goes into say drilling a wall for uh well for this purpose when we update the building code and make it specific to that.

I mean, if people really want to have the well and do that, um and my findings is the the current landowner, if they built the well, they won't be the ones to benefit from less expensive water, it would be the next buyer.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Connelly.

And we we do already exempt certain structures, gazebos, playhouses, those sorts of things do not count.

Um this counts because there's four walls and a roof, and so that um but if you wish to adjust the language of land development code to not count anything covering a well, that could be done as well.

So let me ask you different questions.

That's exactly not to interrupt, but I think that he's on the right mindset there, right?

So if someone builds a structure less than 100 square feet to cover a well, it maybe shouldn't be even included in the calculation of what we're or I was gonna go down the path.

Could we put a height restriction on it?

So if it was 10 by 10 by 8.

Or yeah, something that that then becomes more gazebo-like-ish.

It's not something you can walk into easily.

I don't know.

I'm just he's gonna take the to pull his well head out, he's got to take and have the roof be able to be opened up anyway.

Yeah, but you can do that one of two ways, right?

You could position that thing to make sure that one of the I don't know how he's gonna build it, but if you have a typical frame structure on top of there, you can put an access point on top of that thing and pull that pipe straight up.

That's not hard.

Yeah, I'm just trying to think if there's a way to help with uh so we differentiate.

So I think, yeah, I think what we should do is direct staff to unfortunately we don't have an answer for you, right?

All five of us want to get this done for you, but we can't find the legal means to do it.

So I think we should direct staff when we get to uh the last item is to is to put something in in that code structure where we can accommodate scenarios like that.

Because I think not only would that help us here in this scenario, which is in the city limits, but it probably it will help us too outside the city limits in the ETA, right?

Because they got to build to us.

So I think that means I just I'm I I'm sorry we can't do it for you, but I think we can still figure out a way to get it done.

It just might have to wait till we get through the land code.

Yeah.

Can I say something else?

Sure.

Um if I could just add, I think to Daniel's point, like there are structures that don't count that maybe this just gets listed within those structures, but it has the the restrictions of it has to be a building that's small enough that you wouldn't have to pull a permit or something like that.

That so that nobody's like putting a big out building over this, you know what I mean?

Like you can still restrict it, but then put it into the area like a gazebo, et cetera, where it's not counting towards his square footage.

Right.

Yeah.

Mayor and commissioners, uh, another consideration would be one of the things that I did is I did some research on how many wells are in the city of Bismarck because there is no number.

So nobody has an accurate number.

However, my well drillers said that there are approximately 170.

And so if you limited this variance, you would only have 170 other considerations for this.

It it isn't everybody, and you could also manage it just based on the number.

And of that 170, how many would be interested?

I'm guessing probably 20 percent if this were passed.

So you're looking at about 34 other possible variants.

Appreciate that.

But I I like the idea of let's make it an exception in the code better.

So I we I don't know if we even have a motion on the table at the moment.

No, you may have a sound we need a motion.

Um because of the conversation we just had, I will motion that we uphold the uh finding or the vote at the Board of Adjustment meeting.

The that we uphold the denial of the variance second.

Okay.

Discussion.

Yeah.

Was there a fee to appeal it?

No.

Commissioner Connolly, Commissioners, there is no fee for an appeal to this board.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Hearing no call roll.

Commissioner Ish?

No.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

No.

Commissioner Cleary?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Moving to item E.

Consider appeal from Heather Jones and Lauren Fisher of the February 25th, 2026 decision at planning and zoning to do that to deny a zoning change from A agricultural to RR residential uh residential zoning in an and a major subdivision final plated JP Foxhaven.

Isaac.

Yes.

Uh thank you, Mayor Schmitz, uh Commissioners.

So for this next regular agenda item, uh Heather Jones and Lauren Fisher are appealing the February 25th, 2026 decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny a zoning change uh request from the A Agricultural Zoning District to the R R residential zoning district, a major subdivision final plat, titled JFP Foxhaven subdivision, and an accompanying major street plan amendment for a segment of a future alignment of 76th Avenue Northeast.

And just for clarity, uh in this case, Heather Jones is the applicant and Lauren Fisher is the uh current property owner.

And just for clarity, uh in this case, Heather Jones is the applicant and Lauren Fisher is the uh current property owner, uh, but an application for this sort of thing when the property owner is different from the applicant, both need to sign the application, so that's why they're both listed.

And as we get into this, I'll give some background information first and then discuss the planning and zoning commission's uh uh result uh specifically when we get there.

So this uh project, as you can see on the screens here, and of course, this was included in your uh agenda item as well, is located northeast of Bismarck between 73rd Avenue Northeast and Arcada Drive, and it is primarily along the west side of 41st Street Northeast, although the major street plan portion uh does extend to the east as well.

The project area of the Platte portion uh consists of approximately 10 acres of currently undeveloped land and would uh create uh five lots in two blocks as part of the plat.

The zoning map amendment portion would change the entire platted area from the existing A agricultural uh zoning district to the RR residential zoning district, and the major street plan portion of the project would shift a proposed future alignment of an extension of 76th Avenue Northeast to the north, approximately 200 feet uh to rearrange the uh developable land on the west side of 41st Street Northeast, as you can see on the screens there, as well as uh uh impacting the potential of developable land to the east of 41st Street Northeast as well.

One note uh for clarity is that the area you see on the screen, uh kind of in the beige color uh right now, that is area uh which does include the project area that was in Bismarck's ETA, but as of uh March 1st, uh it is outside of the city's ETA, but it was within the ETA when the applicant applied for the projects.

So per the new now current uh ETA agreement between the city and Burley County, any development project that started uh with the city prior to March 1st, the effective date of that agreement would be carried out to the ending point, whatever that ending point may be by the city.

The applicant was informed of this uh information regarding the ETA, and they chose to begin the plat and zoning change process with the city.

And at the time, the plat area was identified as rural residential in the future land use plan, which are places uh for country living with convenient proximity to city life.

That area on the sort of southeast quadrant there, which is darker gray and uh shown as URB or Urban Reserve Long Term, that is area that is still inside the City of Bismarck's ETA uh in the new agreement.

So now to get to the uh planning and zoning commission meeting specifically, the public was notified of this request before that hearing via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on February 13th and 20th, and 90 postcards were mailed to owners of nearby properties on February 13th of this year, and a physical sign providing information on the uh hearing was placed in a publicly accessible spot at the project location on February 9th, 2026.

In addition to the standard public engagement for all projects, because there was a major street plan amendment uh portion to this particular project, planning staff did send a letter to the two landowners to the east of 41st Street Northeast that would also have this uh future uh roadway uh moved uh on their property.

And that letter was sent to them on February 5th, 2026.

Uh this letter provided more information, uh more detailed information on what the major street plan is, what it does, what it does not do, and it invited them to contact planning staff if they had questions and providing them an additional notice of how to provide a public comment if they wished to do so.

The planning and zoning commission held their public hearing on these requests on February 25th, 2026, where planning staff was uh recommending approval uh based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report.

A copy of that uh original staff report was included with this agenda item for your consideration.

Uh prior to that hearing, staff received three inquiries for more information, including from the landowners directly to the east of the plat area, one of those uh individuals who received that major street plan amendment letter.

Uh planning staff received one written comment prior to the hearing, and it was from the property owner directly to the east of 41st Street, directly to the east of the plat.

And this landowner was uh expressing some concerns uh about the primarily the major street plan amendment portion uh of the uh the requests, and this letter was forwarded to the planning and zoning commission prior to the hearing, and it was included with the agenda item today for your consideration as well.

During the public hearing, the those same landowners who provided that written comment spoke at the hearing and provided more detail on their concerns regarding that major street plan amendment portion.

And then at the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning and zoning commission made a motion to approve the request, and then that motion failed with a three vote in favor and five against, uh and the request was therefore denied as a majority of the commissioners did not concur with staff's determination that the proposed uh zoning change, major subdivision final plat, and major street plan amendment was consistent with those required findings effect.

An excerpt of the minutes from the planning and zoning commission was included uh with this agenda agenda item for your consideration as well.

And then just as a reminder for the commission today, uh this appeal is not a public hearing uh nor is it taking action as to whether or not you uh believe the request should be approved, but rather whether or not you agree with the planning and zoning commission's uh determination to deny the requests or if if you wish to accept the appeal.

Uh if the commission decides to accept the appeal, the applicant uh you know that there would still be another public hearing before the city commission, and if you choose to accept the appeal, the applicant has requested that that subsequent public hearing before the city commission uh be held on April 14th, 2026, rather than March 24th, the next uh available meeting, due to a scheduling conflict impacting the availability of their consultant.

So at this point, uh planning staff are not providing a specific recommendation to you, but I am happy to stand for questions if you have them.

Are there any questions?

Commissioner Zinker.

So um Isaac, first of all, good job explaining all that.

Not a kid.

Um so I do have so in the in the development um that Swenson provided, there is right-of-way access for 41st, correct?

That is correct, yes.

And then they um they also have um their street that they want to through there, which would be 76th.

So the person to the east is just upset because looks like to me like there is already an easement running through their property that they may not have known about.

And and we typically and the county would like typically like to have those intersections be full intersections instead of just T intersections.

Is is that is that what I'm understanding?

Uh so thank you, uh Commissioner Zenker, Mayor and Commissioners.

So a little uh more background on the major street plan amendment and uh to your point also during this process, yes, County Highway Department, MPO staff, they were all uh involved in these discussions uh for this particular project.

But what the major street plan is is just sort of a guiding document of given information we have available right now, these lines on a map are just saying we think this would be a good location for a major road if this area were to develop.

Um it's not specifying when or if construction would take place, who would pay for that uh development or anything like that.

So if the landowner to the east, for example, had no intention of uh developing their land now or within the next 10-20 years, there would be no requirement for them to you know provide a right-of-way easement or dedicate that right-of-way for the roadway.

All right.

So here's I mean, this we gotta be able to simplify this, right?

We just went through a painstaking task item before to try to do this.

So if if they would have brought in a development with and put a call-de-sac in there, not and not encroached or across 41st.

Um I could see that this would have been would have been approved pretty quickly at P and Z.

Am I or am I misspeaking that?

If uh Commissioner Zenker, Mayor and Commissioners, if there was a uh permanent uh call de sac at that point, staff would have uh reviewed it differently, and that might have changed our overall recommendation to uh the board.

Perhaps we still would have recommended approval, but perhaps we would not have.

With conditions?

Because sometimes snow operators don't like call the sacks.

So if I just add to the original layout to the major street was further south.

And this moved north.

And so they would have actually, if I remember right, I don't know.

How it would have actually taken and made part of this parcel less usable or maybe not usable at all from a development standpoint.

And so you know the discussion from the parties to the east was that that major road is going to infringe on their land if they even accepted a dedicated easement at some point in time in the future.

But it's still allowed to intersect with 41st Street coming through.

I think that was why I don't remember if that's exactly why staff said they didn't have a necessary problem with, but the county and city, all the road people engineers were okay with this new alignment.

Um it's odd that the road alignment originally was so far south and not going straight across on 76th, which is what I think everybody would have loved to have had originally because you don't have the jog.

And that was that was basically the reason for the denial.

Was the major street, yes.

Uh Commissioner Connolly.

Is the landowner to the east?

Do they own that whole whole section to where their lands split if a road were to go through?

Uh Commissioner Connolly, Mayor and Commissioners, the a landowner to the east, uh perhaps you can see on the map there.

There is uh the parcel lines are shown there, but depending on the distance or the angle, it might not be as clear.

Um but it goes to uh about well I'll just go around.

Okay.

About there is uh the edge of their property.

So they do own that whole section and probably hence their concern.

Any other questions for Isaac?

The question that to before us is whether or not we want to grant an appeal hearing.

Or yeah.

Not because not necessarily we're gonna overturn it to be the hearing.

And I I can add just for uh another bit of clarification, I suppose, uh mayor and commissioners, the uh there there could be other options of a motion, but the two main ones would be yes, either to accept the appeal, in which case there would be another hearing or to uphold the planning and zoning commission's um denial.

Um I believe you could return it to the planning and zoning commission for further discussion, but that is usually uh only used when there is additional information that comes in, which as of right now all the information you're seeing here is what the planning and zoning commission saw.

I'll make a motion to accept their appeal.

Second.

Do we have further discussion?

Can we just make a note that we're are we okay doing the public hearing on the date that they requested?

Yeah.

That's fine.

Oh I don't know if that doesn't need to be in the motion.

Make a motion, yeah, for the appeal as presented.

Yeah.

So that includes the dates.

All right.

We have a first and a second.

Any discussion?

Hearing that we'll call roll.

Commissioner Zenker?

Yes.

Commissioner Connolly?

Yes.

Commissioner Cleary, yes.

Commissioner Ish?

Yes.

Mayor Schmitz.

Yes.

Moving to item F, land development code.

And oh, I'm sorry, is it no uh before they get started?

I think if we could just take three, four minutes to discuss item D as to what we want to direct staff to do.

Sure.

And I mean, because I I don't think it's gonna come up in a lot of detail on this on the update that we're gonna get.

Unless Daniel is gonna expand it now, since we've asked him to do that.

You I don't Mayor Commissioners, I'll do whatever you like.

So the uh you would like to add the well head protection um yeah, I guess I can read what I wrote down and if it makes sense to everybody.

I don't know if I would call it that since there's ordinance that are use that terminology.

Okay.

So that uh and allow well coverings to be listed under built buildings that are allowed to not be considered a part of the total lot coverage with the restriction that the structure be small enough to not require a building permit and have possible height restrictions as well if you think that that's necessary.

Okay.

And I I think I heard an area restriction as well, like maybe 120 square feet or something of that nature.

I mean, I'm okay with that if everybody as far as direction as we go into land development because we're in the midst of we're getting close to adopting so.

Yeah, I mean we're gonna add six sentences to this thing, right?

It's hundreds of pages long.

It's yes.

And it's very practical.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are we all in agreement with that?

Okay.

So then I think we can move to the update if you're okay, Commissioner.

Okay.

And I'm not sure.

Okay.

There's our presenter.

Hello.

Good evening, Commissioners.

It's good to see you all again.

My name is Shenny Baker, I'm a Clarion Associates, and we are here to just give you a quick update on the progress for the zoning code update.

Um I thought I was going to be up here talking to you about variances, but I think we're solid on that.

So as you all know, we started this process in 2024 and have been working um to update the zoning code.

One of the reasons for initiating the project was the adoption just prior to this of your together 2045 plan.

One of the best ways to implement the plan and the goals and objectives in there is to update your zoning so that the regulations support that.

So when we started, we were looking at things like how to implement this plan.

So this project, some of the changes at a high level are designed to continue affordable housing being produced here in the community to allow different kinds of housing in the community so that you can have some cheaper options for different types of families.

It's also designed to promote your economic growth and your population growth.

And so those things are some of the guiding principles that we did that we kept in mind as we did the drafting.

We have come back to see you a number of times.

We talked to you about the zoning zoning districts and uses we talked to you about development standards.

We didn't really come and talk to you about the procedures but those are in there as well.

So we are here if you can take a look at the slide we are kind of at the last steps.

There is a consolidated code that we're here to talk about today and tomorrow and tomorrow evening from four to seven there is an open house where we are inviting the public or anyone who would like to talk about the code it's in the public works building on 26th street and so we're hoping that people will come and we can talk in a little more detail about what's in there, what the changes are.

And so as of today there is not a public version of the code available but you would be able to see that tomorrow we encourage you all to come if you're able to otherwise it's obviously going to be published so that you all will see it before it comes back to you in a couple of months I think next week is when it will be fully available to the public to see the whole thing from start to finish.

It is scheduled to go before the planning commission next month.

Starting this month and then when it goes through that process it will come back before you I believe in May for the final vote.

So that's kind of a quick update on the process why do it what we tried to focus on in doing it.

Is there anything you would like me to tell you about do you have any questions?

We hope to see you all tomorrow and we'll certainly be back to tell you in more detail about it as the adoption process continues.

I I just know that there's been group you've been meeting with several groups to vet a lot of the discussion and developers and builders are been a part of it and other users as well so there's a steering committee that has been I think essential to kind of adapting the code to local developers builders to kind of make sure that there's nothing in it that's really going to constrain the work that they're trying to do here.

And they have consistently shown up each time we wanted to meet with them and their feedback has been very valuable.

Thank you.

Thanks for your time tonight.

We'll come back with the uh the well protection in there appreciate your time.

Yep.

Daniel do you have anything you want to add I'd like you to make sure that you'll let no let people know about the opportunities for people to see and hear this.

Yes thank you.

I I don't really have much to add I I I'll reiterate the open house really hoping we get a good turnout there at the public works building on Bismarck I'm sorry what is it Bismarck LDC dot organi is the website and and a lot of content is up there now.

So anyone's welcome to go and review that including new zoning map um that is up there as well so uh that might be something people would be interested in uh so the full draft that Jenny referred to will be there next week uh next Friday we'll be putting it on the consent agenda for the planning commission for their consideration just to give it plenty of time to percolate and get through go uh um have the community review it so and it's not too it's make changes like like tonight we'll we can make we can make changes so um this is a great time to come tomorrow.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we have any other business tonight I just saw some street sweepers the other day so spring is upon us Commissioner Zinker.

I do I just got I got uh one thing and it has pertained to the event center.

So I was there this weekend for some basketball just because I'm that guy who likes to hang around that kind of that sport.

First of all to to the crew down there they're doing a fantastic job.

They are um from what I can tell from our approvals of positions and stuff like that they're still understaffed quite a bit.

I had a couple of them come up to me why I was there and we had a small conversation quickly.

One of them told me actually both of them mentioned that Oakview was in the building this week.

So I have some concerns that they're in the building and we don't have a contract with them carrying on whatever business they're carrying on knowing that this is the busiest time of year for a staff that's quite frankly understaffed.

There's a lot of turnover um down there from event to event to event there's um multiple things going on it's their busy time of year.

So I guess I'm looking for an explanation as to why someone's in our building without a contract conducting business.

So I'll address that, I think, and if Jason may have to help me out because I haven't been to all of it, but Oakfree was here.

Um not not under the they're here to start gathering information or basically to talk to the employees and to just let people know we're going.

We're because we're the contract is we're supposed to have the final uh I won't say founder, we're supposed to have a draft today tonight or tomorrow.

Um financial terms from the authority board and from their perspective have been agreed to.

It's more of what the um what the exit strategy would be if we're terminating the contract and finalizing some KPIs.

Um they offer to come in with no, they're not they're not advising anybody.

Mostly they wanted to start being able to meet with staff who was there.

And um, my understanding is from the conversations that staff had very good meetings with them.

Um, and we did not interfere with their activities over the weekend.

It was all Monday and Tuesday today, yesterday, um, and they were not scheduled other than one large group meeting, which was early in the early in the morning.

It was like at nine o'clock yesterday.

And then it's been individual and meeting with uh so they could get a feel who Oakview group is as well.

Um so that's what that's where they're they they volunteered to come without any compensation.

So that's I don't know if there's more questions you have.

Well, I mean, I just I first of all I don't like being blindsided because they asked me how come they're here, and I had no way to answer that.

Um two meetings, or the last meeting you and you announced that the you're still working on the contract.

Um, and we have it we have yet to see any we haven't I mean we haven't seen it as a commission.

And now I'm assuming that there's the the advisory board has, and I would again fully support the advisory board, but I just don't like the fact that they're in the building taking up staff time, and and it's business that's got to happen, but it should only happen after the contract signed.

I think it's a little it was it was premature and the timing of the year for that group of people that they've that they have to go through.

I I think quite honestly could have been done better, maybe some more communication from from us as commissioners, so we might have more idea what's going on.

Um, and then and then protecting their time because I can tell that they're short that that are short staffed.

And and I'm not gonna say they aren't short staffed because I know they are, but uh AI did announce that Oakville was going to probably be in the building um at the last commission meeting, and I actually announced the dates they were going to be here.

So that was not a secret.

Um I don't know if it's in minutes, but it was another business because I clearly remember stating it.

And I, you know, I we need we're moving forward and they're they're ready to go, other than we just have can't let them operate until we have a signed contract, and um but they wanted to be able to get some feet on the ground and get themselves in front of the employees so that it was gonna be there.

Actually, the person who's gonna be the GM was here.

And so I think that was pretty important for those employees, and I understand that the meetings went well.

There was good feedback.

Unless I was told something that didn't exactly happen.

Jason, you can certainly add in, but Mayor, excuse me, Mayor and Commissioners, uh, maybe just to add a little more to the mayor's comments.

OVG brought two HR staff, and their role was to meet with all the full-time employees to understand their role within the organization, uh, ask them, you know, what do you like about your job, what don't you like about your job.

There were um discussions about uh an offer letter from OVG.

As we've talked about in the past, there's an employee protection plan, and one of the messages that OVG shared with the staff is that all the full-time employees will be offered a job day one.

In fact, OVG has already identified through conversations with staff and analysis of the organizational chart that we have used, there are gaps that they would like to fill.

They've already identified three finance positions that they need to hire in order to effectively run the department, the building.

So some of what they were doing was just that meeting with staff, better understanding the roles of staff, but then also conversations with Jeff Huble, who we know has been a huge part of the design process.

Uh Jeff and the team from OVG met this morning to talk about what does the capital improvement plan look like, where could this kitchen go?

OVG has come forward and said they are willing to invest in an on-site kitchen in the facility.

None of those designs have been done yet, but just having those initial conversations with Mr.

Uble to understand where it could go, how it could get done, what's the timing, what that's where these very high-level conversations are today.

He's having direct conversations with the OVG business development gentleman.

We were told either tonight or first thing tomorrow morning we will see red lines on the contract.

That will be the first time that we have seen red lines.

Now what I will offer is after all the meetings and everything today, myself, Mr.

Fenton, and the reps from OVG sat and talked through the key performance indicators that we have talked about for this, uh how we are going to establish those, how we will measure those, uh, the uh the the incentive package that would come with OVG if they were to obtain and achieve all these goals that we're putting in front of them.

Uh there was discussion not just with myself but also the authority board members as well.

That group has met with OVG uh to better understand that relationship.

OVG has other facilities where they have authority board members.

Our board members are very interested in learning their role and understanding their responsibilities, and part of the discussions were just that to to begin that dialogue and to realize that number one, all the authority authority board meetings are public.

So OVG, that is a little different situation for them.

Not everything they manage is publicly owned, but these are things that they're going to have to adapt to because there's no flexing for us.

These meetings are always public and they will be.

Now we can have executive sessions for contract negotiations, and they understand that.

But these meetings, like all the meetings we have, are sunshine meetings.

And so that's working through some of these high-level uh nuances that are part of Bismarck, I think is a is one of the goals that they're hoping to achieve.

But also really they're just trying to assess what are we walking into?

They want to be here, they they have been very enthusiastic, as the mayor noted.

They're here on their own volition, they're not being compensated.

They wanted to assess the situation and advise as they go forward.

And frankly, the departments that the city has brought forward to meet with OVG staff has been IT.

We've had public works because we're going to continue to own the building and manage the building, and so we've had conversations with who are the key people from our organization that will be working with their organization.

Our finance people met with them, and so really it's been an opportunity for us as staff and authority board members to ask a ton of questions of OVG because we've had simple questions like what happens to the vehicle assets that are currently part of the event center.

Today we own those.

Do we own those in the future?

And if we continue to own those, what does that mean for insurance?

Because now non-city employees would be operating these devices and things.

So there's a lot of a lot of questions that we were able to ask and get answers to, not all of them.

Um there's certainly much more to move forward.

Um but I am I'm hopeful that uh they will deliver with the red lines as they said they would, and we will come forward with a contract.

It is our goal to come forward with a contract at the next meeting in March.

And that would be full disclosure, the contract would be uh for your review, and hopefully then we can get them physically here started moving forward with all of the improvements that need to happen.

Any other questions?

And the authority board actually was the one who wanted them here, which we've delegated to that board that duty.

Anything else?

Commissioner Connolly.

Um PO has a uh survey right now.

Um it's up on our Bismarck um website.

You can also search out the MPO's Facebook page, but I think they have a week left in that survey that they have out there.

Um it was mentioned in our transportation meeting this morning.

That's just wanted to mention that.

Okay.

Any other business?

Not we're adjourned.