00:00:04,670	Buddy, I’ve got 4 o’clock Verizon time and today is July 10th, 2025, which is the appointed time for the Bismarck Renaissance Authority’s monthly meeting, and I’m your chair, Jim Christiansen, and we have, we have a quorum present either in person or uh digitally and we would call the meeting to

00:00:26,700	order and ask for consideration of the minutes from the May 8th meeting. We did not meet in June because there was no business. Move to approved. Uh, any discussion changes, comments on the minutes, the good as is all in favor say aye. Paul sign that motion carries.

00:00:43,370	We’ll move on to the regular agenda. Uh, first item is, uh, Oh, I’m sorry. Sure. I do roll. Since when do we do roll? We do always. My other. Yeah. Always do it. So I think we’re supposed to do it. You’re the boss send or whatever you want. That’s OK. I won’t fight it.

00:01:05,100	Roll call Greg Zenker. Steve Bakan. Joe Fink Here, Amelia doll. There she is. Kirsten to work. Nancy Guy here Kate Herzog. She’s running late. She texted me. John Lee here, Christiansen. Thank you. Thank you. It’s always good to have a first. These things. Now, we’ll move on to the regular agenda.

00:01:36,030	Uh, item 2A is renovation of a house at 609 North Fourth Street in downtown Bismarck, and this is a downtown design review item and Isaac’s gonna walk us through it a little bit, and we don’t know, there’s no sign of an applicant yet or are they coming or a representative of the applicant is online, so

00:01:55,270	if they wish to speak, they certainly can after this quick introduction here in case we have, OK, so, uh, Chair Christiansen and authority. remembers this first regular agenda item comes to us from Mark Hague who is requesting Downtown Designer review approval of a renovation, rehabilitation at 609 North

00:02:14,600	Fourth Street, kind of on the edge of what is currently Downtown Fringe zoning, as you can see on the screen before you and you know, everything that will be on the screen was also included in the packet, so if you have those in front of

00:02:24,130	you, you can see this there as well. So just kind of on the north side of what is currently, uh, the Downtown zoning, Downtown fringe right now and The project is renderings of what the house looks like as of right now.

00:02:41,670	There were some other uh images included in the packet, but the project includes some interior and exterior work. Uh, we are just reviewing the exterior work as part of this Downtown design review, interior work is not formally part of this process, but the exterior work does include replacements of windows and doors, as well as inclusion of egress windows at various locations around the property as well as the remodeling of

00:03:03,170	the entry. way are the main entryway adjacent to Fourth Street, um, This is a relatively straightforward design review we did send this to the design advisors as well to get their input and they can certainly speak to any notes or comments they have, but as a cumulative result of all the

00:03:23,570	findings contained in the staff report, uh, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed design would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it is generally consistent with Downtown design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, code of ordinances, and all relevant. State law.

00:03:42,530	Therefore, staff does recommend approval of the Downtowns design review for the rehabilitation at 6:09 North Fourth Street. I was just gonna ask if the authority had any questions for me at this time. Um anyone have questions of Isaac or of uh David or technical review staff.

00:04:03,330	Questions We don’t know what color the house is going to be, do we? Um, do you want me to, um, do you want me to answer that? Sure. Can you identify yourself please? Yes, I’m Kelsey Hawk. I am co-owner in the project that we are renovating right now.

00:04:23,800	This property, it’s kind of a yellowish color and it is Um, and pretty poor conditions, so we’re bringing it back up to original charm to match the neighborhood, but right now we’re looking at, it’s kind of an off white. Right, pretty similar to the color green I gave, I sent it with the packet. It’s a different one that went on there, OK.

00:04:39,770	So, I think there’s a picture that should actually be included with that. There’s um a paint sample. Kelsey, Kelsey, the, uh, the perspective views show one in a kind of a pale green and then others in white. It’s not really a pale green. That might just be the printer with OK. OK.

00:04:57,930	Other questions of Kelsey. OK, Nancy that satisfy. No, that’s good. Thank you. OK. And I think, I think the final green came to kind of tie in with the street cause the old governor’s mansion is across the street and just to kind of keep some of the flow of the color scheme right there. Yeah.

00:05:19,870	Um David, did you want to weigh in with any comments or questions? And we’ll open it back up to the rest of the authority members. Um, yeah, my, my comments to staff when they shared this with me were, and I’m actually just looked it up, um. Uh, seems fine, no issues, so, yeah.

00:05:37,470	OK. OK. And those who are with us remotely, Joe and Amelia. Questions or comments? for the applicant or for staff. This is a million no comments or questions for me. OK, Joe? I’d lose approval. That’s presented. Moved and seconded that we approved the remodel plan. Uh, Joe Joe moved it, I believe. Um Further discussion Right.

00:06:09,430	Um, and if there’s no further discussion, then we’ll call the roll please, Sandra. Uh, sorry, sorry, Steve seconded. Ah, Greg, um, Steve Bakkan. Yes. Do you think? Yes Emilia Doll. Yes. Kirsten Dvorak. Nancy Guy, yes. Is Kate with us? Yeah. No, no. John Lee, yes. And Cha Christiansen. Yes, so that motion carries. Thank you.

00:06:41,530	Thanks, Kelsey. Good luck on the project. Item 2B on the regular agendas. Depot window cling signs. And that’s another Downtown design review item that Isaac is going to present.

00:07:01,830	Yes, so, uh, Christensen and authority members, this one is a little more unique, uh, and we’ll get to that in a moment, but this comes to us from fanatics events, uh, with the consent of the current property owner of the the Bismarck depot. We’re requesting Downtown design review approval of some Windling signs on the east side of the Bismarck depot at 4:01 East Main Avenue. So normally, uh, signs would be reviewed.

00:07:22,500	signs in the downtown would be reviewed administratively by community development staff, both planning staff and uh building inspection staff and normally window cling signs. Such as uh what we’ll see in a second are like they don’t even need a a building permit.

00:07:41,230	Uh, however, there is a little nugget in the sign code as shown on the screen before you hear that all Windows signs on a building may not occupy more than 25% of the total transparent window surface of each window or door opening unless the interior space is either unoccupied or the window signs are used for an

00:07:59,600	appropriate screening function and are approved by the Downtown Design Review Committee. Which is you, uh, so in this case, uh, as we can see here, uh, this is the rendering provided to us by the applicant.

00:08:21,900	We’re seeing, you know, about 2/3 of each uh each window face being occupied by the window cling signs there and according to the applicant, this is to help provide some shade from the morning sun, uh, since this is on the east facing side of the building while also doing a little bit of advertising here and it is clearly more 25% here. Uh, the requirements.

00:08:39,870	Uh, in the, in the code does not differentiate between different building types, whether or not that building is directly adjacent to a right of way or set back from a right of way, whether or not it is the part of a building that has an entrance to the building or or not.

00:08:58,770	So there’s A little Well, staff would like some clarity from, from the uh authority here, and we give full deference to the RZA on this matter as to whether or not this should be approved. So as you maybe saw in the staff report, we are not providing a recommendation to you on this.

00:09:15,670	We’re treating this a little more like a variance almost or an appeal to this particular part of the code, so we have also provided this one to the technical advisors for their input, so they have certainly been well aware of this as always and certainly Uh Encouraged to provide their input on this, so, uh, the staff recommendation in this

00:09:34,030	case, I guess, is that you review the the product and act as you see fit, so I will just add though that if you choose to approve the project, it would carry the fairly standard condition that, you know, any substantial changes could either be considered by the authority yourselves, or you

00:09:50,400	could delegate that um since it is, it would normally be an administrative sort of approval you could delegate that authority to community development staff in. with the design advisors as necessary. Let’s start with any comments or questions from our technical adviser who’s here.

00:10:08,070	Yeah, I’m happy to provide some additional, um, insight from the dialogue we had about this. Um, I think the kind of the thing to hone in on in the, in the existing guideline is, is, uh. Window signs are used for an appropriate screening function, um.

00:10:26,170	So I I think that’s kind of the question that’s being asked of you is, is this an appropriate screening function, um, my, some of my feedback was is if we’re going to approve this, maybe we should just update the rule, um, I don’t know why this, I guess my thoughts were I’m not sure why this would at least my initial feedback was why this would Rise to the

00:10:46,930	level of getting a variance, um, one suggestion by staff, and I, I thought it made sense was that because this is set back from the street, it’s not right up at the sidewalk. That might be a basis for giving some.

00:11:04,070	Further lenience here, um, the, it, it’s described as, as, as a serving a screening function. I, I did notice walking around, um, downtown today, uh, kind of with an eye out for it.

00:11:25,600	There’s plenty of storefront windows that have window shades pulled in front of them for various reasons, um, and that I think is allowed, um, so if they’re really just going for the shading part of it, they, they do have a reme. for that. I think this is more of a signage application, I guess the way I’m looking at it, um, and so, um, Yeah, I, I think that’s more or less what the dialogue was.

00:11:42,530	I don’t, I don’t know if I have a strong recommendation, but it does. Based on the provided material seems to be more of a signage thing than a screening thing. I think there are some ways to get the sun sunshade, if that’s really what it’s about, um, through other methods, so.

00:12:08,670	Uh, questions or comments from the authority members of staff or David Steve? Ben, correct me if I’m wrong, but, uh, when we were going through the sign code and updating that, um, if I remember correctly, the reason we landed on the 25% was, So there was latitude to cause nobody really Was concerned about. Using your Windows as as advertising.

00:12:30,670	Um, it was more about the aesthetic side of it, so, um, the 25% threshold, if I recall correctly, was that number was arrived upon so that there was a review process to go, does it fit in with the aesthetics of the building and does it, does it fit? So that’s why that 25% was put in there, if I remember correctly, Ben.

00:12:53,000	Ben, Thank you chair and authority members. I will not contradict that statement that if I, if I remember correctly, that’s why that 25 was in there, and Then it was going to default into just an opportunity to To make sure that it fits into the aesthetics of The building, so.

00:13:14,900	Nancy. I, uh Kind of agreeing with our technical advisor and I, I’m not So sure that this is as much shade as it is advertising and it really in my mind doesn’t. Compliment the historic nature of the building either. Um, you know, I think they could easily.

00:13:43,830	Have shades that pull up or down for the shading and Yeah. So I’m, I’m just not. Excited about it. You can put the logo on the shade on the back of the shade too, so it’s, it’s that that’s actually a cleaner look and I think that does meet the intent of when we updated the sign

00:14:00,900	code, so. So Isaac, if I may ask a question, what, what if another a storefront, 25 ft storefront wants to do something similar in their window when they’re on the sidewalk or up to the property line.

00:14:20,000	And they want to have Uh, something like this that has obvious advertising as well as sun shading, uh, capacity. Sure, so, uh, what’s the answer there? Chair Christianity members, in that case it would be treated the same way here as I mentioned earlier, we don’t differentiate between where uh this would be in terms of a building type or if it’s set up against the sidewalk versus set

00:14:37,600	a little further back from a right of way sidewalk, so in that case, if it were a 25 ft storefront trying to do something similar, uh, like this.

00:14:57,870	It would basically be the same question if it’s above that 25%, it would come here and I did double check one thing in the uh sign code with the question of just using other shades or things like that and my reading of this, and I would invite Daniel to correct me, but he is not here right now, so he cannot correct me or or or tell me that I’m wrong, is that if it were a, a

00:15:13,400	shade of some kind. curtain with no advertising or logo on it, that is, uh, would not be considered a sign, but if there were a logo or something on the shade or the curtain, that it would still follow the 25% sort of rule, even if it is within,

00:15:29,330	you know, you know, a foot or less than 1 ft away from the window on the inside. So basically if there was a sha or curtain that still had advertising on it, it would still be considered a Window sign for the purpose of this section, just throwing that out there buildings around town,

00:15:44,500	including in the Central Business District that have signs hanging from the exterior of the building, right? Not behind the window, not behind the plate glass, uh, Prince Hotel comes to mind.

00:16:00,070	They’ve got a large for rent type of a sign that’s been along the alley side of the Prince for many, many months, right? I think it’s still up there. Um, what if the applicant or anybody else wanted to just hang a sign over the outside of the. this building.

00:16:16,400	Certainly, so if, if they wanted to do something like that, we would look at that most likely as a regular sign that would most likely be a wall sign in that case. There would be a signed permit for that, that would be reviewed by building inspection staff and community development planning staff, most likely myself, and then we would make sure it would meet other areas of the code such as um The, the total area of signage allowed

00:16:35,070	for any given property or parcel is dependent on the street frontage that it is adjacent to and you know, certain things like that. Is there an expiration date or a limit on those, I’m think, let’s say like the historic Bismarck Tribune building there has for sale or lease sign

00:16:51,670	that’s been up for over a year or longer. I’m not aware of a, you know, if a sign Ben might be aware. I’ve been informed that real estate signs are permit. And even if a permit is given, I’m not aware of that permit expiring after a given time. OK, thank you for that.

00:17:10,500	Other questions? John, um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I do think, you know, it’s used. For an appropriate screening function, but it’s not lost on me that, you know, there’s advertising here, there doesn’t necessarily need to be, uh, I, and I agree with Ms.

00:17:27,400	Guy that it doesn’t necessarily go with the building, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s obnoxious. I think the 25% rule is good to have eyes on it to see what they’re doing and to me it, you know, I, I can see both sides, but I would, I would rather default to, you know, if the building owner’s

00:17:43,430	OK with it and it’s not, uh, um, something that’s completely in your face that it’s That it be approved, but my thoughts. Kristian. Um And I’m gonna kind of, I kind of agree. I, I don’t mind this as much because it’s not on, right on the sidewalk, right? It’s not right on Main Street.

00:18:02,600	It’s not, and I’m afraid if it’s a slippery slope if we open it up too much, then you just get cluttered and that’s, it’s gonna look cluttered, but this just being on a sidewalk area or, you know, on the, on a parking lot isn’t so bad. Sure Yes, Mr. Bakken, you know, on the other.

00:18:24,930	with the example like this is, uh, Are you going to add a sign to a historic building like this on the outside and you’re gonna. drastically change what that presentation of that building is from a historical perspective.

00:18:40,470	It’s like Somebody want to take down the Northern Pacific logo and put a sign up there, um, I would hope not. So this is far less obtrusive for the historical. fabric of the building to me, so I, whether it’s a variant form or Yeah The language of the sign code that we just had eyes on this, I would move to approve.

00:19:03,470	There was a, I’m sorry, David, can you hold on to add here on just some, some further technical things in the code that might be worth considering. For you guys, um, the, if the signage isn’t totally opaque. Um, and I’ll just read the part of the code here, um.

00:19:25,330	Any Wind sign or part thereof that does not completely impede visibility by a standard given, uh, uh, provides transparency between individual letters or designs shall be counted as 50% of the Wind signed for the purposes of measuring maximum coverage. So it only counts for half if uh if it’s semi-transparent, if I’m reading that correctly. So if this were a little bit semi-transparent that.

00:19:49,930	25% I think could Increase to 50, um, I don’t know if that is how it has been designed, um, but it might be fit within that 50% or come close to it if it has that. Semi-transparent quality to it, um, thought that was worth pointing out as, as I was reading the code here. Thanks.

00:20:08,170	Did Joe have a comment? I was just gonna ask Joe Amelia if they had anything. Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I could, um, Isaac is the only reason we’re, we’re seeing this in front is because it staff considered this to be more than 25%.

00:20:31,470	Uh, authority member Fink, yes, that is correct, because each individual sign window face, uh, it would be more than 25% of each of those that triggers that, uh, that part of the sign code that was referenced earlier. So yes, that is correct, aware that they had the option of just Removing some of the material so that it doesn’t encompass 25% and be done with this.

00:20:50,800	Yes, so we did communicate with the applicants, uh, the reference part of the the code which I’ve just put back up on screen here. So we did uh inform them about this and sort of Uh, talk with them a little bit before they submitted an application to bring it before this board.

00:21:08,030	And their response was, was to know we wanna, we wanna cover more. Yes, that’s OK. Yes, their application was for uh this specifically here after some discussion. OK As it matters for the group, I Code’s code, you can either change it or we can, we can hold everyone accountable to the same rules.

00:21:32,930	But making rule changes because we don’t mind this design is a bad precedent to set, either commit to changing the rule. You don’t approve it. And I think that’s a bigger question that we’ll we’ll discuss after we act on this request is how much of this should be delegated, Steve, what’s the material? Do we know if it’s, uh, the perforated opacity.

00:21:54,900	I, so yes, uh, authority member Bakken and authority. I am not aware of the specific material or the opacity of that, um. But I can, I can try find that out to see if it’s in the application, but I don’t remember off the top of my head. I didn’t see it, so. Yeah, I don’t either.

00:22:13,230	Joe, other questions? and Amelia? I would just echo what Joe had to say. I think it, uh, sets a dangerous precedent if we um Say that we’re OK with it because the design’s OK, and I agree with, um, Nancy as well about the historic nature of the building. OK.

00:22:37,030	Steve, you’re to comment? We still have, there, there was a motion made and then we got sidetracked. Is there a second to Steve’s motion, or do you want to withdraw it or? he moved approval, right? Yep. So, is there, is there a second for that? Can I, uh, We should, there’s a seconded by Kristen.

00:22:57,130	Any further discussion? Isaac looked like he had something to add. Yeah, oh, I’m sorry, Isaac, please. If I may, chair Christiansen and the members, I just have two quick notes as well for your consideration. So this particular portion of the depot is not original to the building. It is a later edition. I don’t know what year exactly, uh, but it was.

00:23:15,000	Sounds like it was 2008. I have it on good authority now and So then the, the second thing I would just add is that, uh, as a reminder to you all, we community development staff are in the process of redoing our zoning code holistically, including downtown related items and Downtown design review related

00:23:33,600	items. So if you do believe that this would warrant either further discussion or if you have direction, you would want staff to move in terms of how to handle things like this, we would certainly be receptive to any feedback and we can try and incorporate that into the the new code when that is ready.

00:23:46,930	OK, and you had another point? That, that, that is all. OK. Any further discussion on the motion and the second. John, did you have, I was just gonna say I do think the opacity matters and I think most of these are uh are perforated so you can see outside and it, it, and it does.

00:24:04,000	It does kind of make a difference, so it’d be nice to know that, um, but I’m fine with the motion as is. Further discussion Joe or Amelia, any further discussion before I call the. Vote for me. All right. Would you call the roll, please, or call the, yeah, the rule. Sandra. Authority member Amelia Dah. No.

00:24:29,130	Kirsten Dvorak. No. Nancy Guy, no. John Lee? Yes. Steve Bakan. Yes, Joe Fink. No Chair Christiansen, so that motion fails. So Next steps I think it’s a it’s just a matter of order I’d encourage the applicant to just. bring this down to 25%. And let staff approve it. Just follow the rules we have on the books. OK.

00:25:01,200	Other, other thoughts or discussion on the matter? I don’t know if that requires a motion, but. If it’s a consensus, John, a little confused about the 25% because as Mr. Bakan pointed out, it was more to trigger that to come to us and look at it.

00:25:18,200	A lot of these things are, um, Pretty subjective where we whether we like it or not, you know, whether it’s on the street, off the street, um, what it looks like, so I, I, I’d like to know if the, if the 25% is a hard and fast rule.

00:25:31,130	It looks like it’s just kind of uh something that triggers it being brought to us is that Correct. So authority member Lee chair Christian and authority members, it is a hard and fast rule in the sense that it would come to you every time, it would be above that 25%.

00:25:49,800	Again, it doesn’t differentiate as of right now between different building types or or where on a building it would be if that answers your question. Well, I probably should have phrased it differently.

00:26:08,430	The 25% isn’t a no if it’s over 25%, it just means that it comes to us for Approval, which is, which is much different than holding someone accountable to the 25% in my mind, right? So even if we changed it, it doesn’t really change anything, just my, my perspective. OK. Yes, yeah, in my experience though, when you I don’t like these trigger things because You know, once you say, well, OK, you know, we’ll let this one go.

00:26:30,870	Then when the next one comes, it’s impossible to say no. It just is because you let one slide by, so either. You know, either we, when we redo these, either we have a rule about this that we can stick to or we don’t.

00:26:51,300	You know Otherwise, it just makes it super hard to enforce, and it makes it even more subjective. You know, the the rest of our design questions that we have are pretty well. Um, fleshed out in our in our design. Standards, um. And so maybe this one should. I don’t know, have some more.

00:27:13,170	Teeth to it. Well, the, the buck has to stop somewhere, and I think we can delegate everything to staff, I guess, if we want, if we’re comfortable doing that, or they may not be comfortable with that accepting that responsibility and that’s what we’re for, chair, if I may.

00:27:27,930	Yeah. Um, I think, I think this might be a, a, a case where having some additional guidelines for you guys to apply some some judgment with would be helpful, um, because, yeah, as it stands now there’s really no basis to judge whether it’s worthy of approval with those considerations, um,

00:27:49,370	I think that there may be something to look for just in the new zoning update, uh, for all along those lines or maybe even make a request to consider that as one of the things that gets considered, um, Or another option would be to direct staff

00:28:07,070	and to work with us to come up with some. Guidelines and then Maybe reconsider this application in light of some additional guidelines that would give you guys a chance to Have a basis for saying it, yes or no.

00:28:26,200	I, I don’t actually have a good idea about what those would be at this time, but You know, I I’m observing the struggle here and and and I think some additional. Uh, guidelines that would give a basis for yes or no, so it’s not always a yes cause you gave somebody a yes, you know, so.

00:28:41,600	Remember Buchan? Uh, the example that came up when we were going through the sign code was, uh, there was some, um, you Basically what one and why the opacity in there, why? It was 25% to come back here because there were the example that came up that we’re trying to prevent was, hey, somebody just slapped a big sticker up their sign and there were some

00:29:00,970	law firms that had done that, had put up some signs. They were good signs, but They blocked the entire window, so that was the intent of the language that was used in this, if I recall correctly.

00:29:19,130	So, um, Maybe one of the things to look at is, um, You know, maybe it needs to be 30 or 35%. I don’t. See if that’s been working or if it does work or should work in a little different direction, so that might be a little bit direction for staff to, uh, be one of the things that they

00:29:33,530	review. OK. Other comments or suggestions, so well. Well, our staff and our technical staff work on Some potential suggestions for the new design guidelines for signage in Winds, but the applicant, you’ll, you’ll go back to the applicant and tell them they need to go back to the drawing board on

00:29:52,130	this one. That’s what I’m hearing, so. That was the But somebody else wants to make another motion. Who gets out the slide rule and make sure it’s 25%.

00:30:11,330	That is something that typically we, we measure when they give us an application if this particularly if there’s a scale provided, we can then measure it using some software to see just the lettering and then. Minus if it’s, things like that. These people have college degrees.

00:30:28,530	Um, but I know historically there, there’s been some heartburn buildings were built a long time ago, one was a bank that had totally reflective bronze glass, like a mirror at street level, and it was decided a long time ago, we don’t want that and, you know, at street level, you know, don’t you want some visibility through the glass, so we wouldn’t want someone putting in an all black. Right, just a blackout window on Main Street.

00:30:44,430	So Right? Am I correct? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I’ll kind of echo the if I, if I could just, um, as far as Whether staff cares to change it. I don’t, I don’t particularly care what the rule is. Uh, I care that we, we hold them accountable to it.

00:31:00,000	Uh, I like the design. This looks good. It’s not, just doesn’t follow the rules, and I’m, I’m not willing to just waive rules because I don’t mind the design. Just hold everyone to the easiest standard possible, and then we publish what the rules are. If you want to change it, change it. OK, good comment.

00:31:18,600	Others, anything else? I think our role here is not to try and stifle. You know, uh, occupancy or development of buildings that are partially empty and have been for some time, but It’s all good points. So Does that answer your question, Isaac, or do you believe that is enough for staff for now. OK.

00:31:37,270	Thank you for that. We’ll move on to item 3 on the agenda, which is other business, um, I believe the Director of Community Development has some comments, and it’s my understanding just for uh everybody’s clarification, item A has been pulled. That is correct. The, uh, boundary inquiry, OK. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

00:31:58,870	Chair, and, and members of the authority. Uh, this is more just a heads up, uh, in terms of, uh, some procedural changes that will need to occur for all, uh, Advisory boards of the city of Bismarck, uh, there was a recent, uh, in the latest, uh, North Dakota legislative session, uh, basically a, a, a state law was passed that all

00:32:22,130	jurisdictions, uh, provide governing bodies of jurisdictions provide public comment, a public comment period, uh, immediately as one of the first items uh on the agenda on the city of Bismarck just adopted their public comment policy on Tuesday of this week, and it’s been confirmed by the city attorney that that will apply to all of

00:32:45,070	the advisory bodies which provide recommendation to the city commission. So, um, the, the language, there were some changes in the, the language that we’re, uh, suggested, uh, at that at that meeting and, and the final language hasn’t been published yet.

00:33:03,800	Once that is published, we’ll get that out to the various advisory bodies, but I can give you kind of a sneak peek of what it will generally include, which is A public comment period opportunity that will, that will essentially be the first agenda item on the agenda in this case for the Renaissance zone Authority, um, it will

00:33:21,400	allow a minimum of 5 minutes perpe they might not take all 5 minutes, but it will allow, uh, each speaker to speak at least 5 minutes, that time period can be extended upon the discretion of the chair if they so choose, and a total public comment period of 30 minutes, which can also be Extended at the

00:33:42,330	discretion of the chair, if, if they so choose. It is, uh, it is specific to uh non-public hearing items on the current agenda and any item from the immediately previously, previous agenda of the regularly scheduled meeting.

00:34:07,330	So this would not apply to sometimes you all have, um, working groups that are established, uh, smaller subsets of this group to, to work through various items. It’s our understanding those are not considered regularly held meetings, and it would not apply to those types of meetings, but if you are publishing an agenda that’s uh meets at regular intervals, it would apply to those those meetings.

00:34:29,300	Um I think that’s probably the, the, the, the high points of, of the policy, but more, more to come on that and happy to answer any questions that you might have that Ben Joe or Amelia? Anything on that one? OK. No, thank you. OK. Thanks, Ben.

00:34:49,570	Um, I B, the last time I’m on the agenda in case there’s, if there’s no other business would be. Project Status spreadsheet update Isaac, Is there any change in the last. 1 year, 6 months or. Any update.

00:35:10,800	Sure, so, uh, Christian Senate authority members, the only sort of major difference, uh, even this one is perhaps a few months old at this point, is that the uh Jomo House, which was a previous Renaissance zone project has been moved from a sort of approved to the completed phase, it is considered to be closed out of the Renaissance zone uh program and its exemption has started, um, but other than that, no, uh, updates for the spreadsheet there. OK.

00:35:30,230	Any questions of Isaac on that. Any other business? Does anybody have anything else for the good of the order? Joe or Amelia? Nothing here. Right. Um, if there’s no objection, we stand Adjourned until the next meeting, August 14th. If we have some business to conduct.