00:00:06,167	S1:
Yeah. Okay.

00:00:10,100	S2:
Well. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this, uh, joint, uh, Bismarck Commission meeting, uh, for, uh, expediency. Call to order. Um, call the roll, please. Administrative.

00:00:23,100	S3:
Tympanic.

00:00:30,767	S3:
Can you hear us?

00:00:33,601	S4:
I can now. Yep.

00:00:35,868	S3:
We're calling roll administrator to monarch.

00:00:39,000	S4:
Here.

00:00:40,767	S3:
Auditor.

00:00:43,100	S4:
Here.

00:00:44,801	S2:
Here.

00:00:45,467	S3:
Commissioner Balkin.

00:00:46,567	S2:
Here. Uh, first item up is public comment. Those wishing to speak concerning the E.T.A. discussion. Please come forward and state your name for the record and sign at the podium, please.

00:01:12,367	S5:
Hello. My name is Robert Field. I think most people know me. You know, as I was driving into town. I was coming in on Main Street. I drove over the railroad tracks at about. Throw your car in the ditch. Drive down Main Street. That's in a horrible shape. Go by the AmVets where there's hundreds of homeless roaming around. Look at the park where my daughter used to live. Full of homeless. So kids can't even play. And we're here arguing about whether or not the city should be concerned about way out of town. I think the city should focus on the city. I mean, you look at the number of old people that are getting ready to freeze to death sitting on the side of the street. And we're worried about somebody having the 11th chicken,

00:02:06,467	S5:
because in the ETA, you can only have ten. I mean, don't we have bigger concerns? I mean, the streets are good out by me, but the county takes care of it all. But yet the city controls what we can do with our property out there, and that makes no sense to me. I mean, my house in town. I understand that because it's in town on Richmond Drive, but when you're way out by manakin, the city shouldn't have anything to do with us out there. And I think that, you know, the the main crux to this is when we don't have the right to vote for the people that are in charge of who's controlling us, that should be considered tyrannical. We if we don't have the right to vote, there should be no authority over us.

00:03:08,000	S5:
And I'm sure that's a constitutional issue if it's pushed because I talked to an attorney and he said, if I want to push it, he'll do it. You can't take somebody right to vote and still have political power over them. But yet we continue to do this. And this isn't a long term thing. It's what 2012 does went into effect, something like that.

00:03:30,968	S6:
Which had been in existence longer than. Yeah, the agreement the agreement that currently exists is 20 2012.

00:03:37,367	S5:
So I mean, I think that.

00:03:39,767	S2:
This goes back to the century code a long time ago. And actually what really pushed it was Fargo and West Fargo getting in a kerfuffle over some property. So but we're trying to deal with that and paying for the sins of Fargo and West Fargo right now. Um, rest assured, though, if we don't come to a resolution here, I've talked to plenty of legislators that are going to take this up at the legislation this next session.

00:04:05,467	S5:
You know, and basically, I'm out of the Oeta with the proposal that's on the table. But I still felt the need to come down here because you feel like you're abandoning 5% of the people. So and I'm not a selfish person, so I figured I would come down and let you see my smiley face.

00:04:25,868	S2:
Always happy to see you. Robert.

00:04:30,100	S2:
This is, uh, public comment. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come forward. Public comment concerning the ETA. State your name for the record and sign at the podium, please.

00:04:56,367	S7:
Good afternoon. Mayor. Mayor Schmitz and commissioners. My name is Heidi Cerrato, and I'm a Berkeley County resident, and I live in the northeast section of the ETA, which is now the proposed urban reserve area. I live off of TJ Lane, which is located in Gibbs Township. TJ Lane. TJ Lane serves as access to approximately 21 lots. It's a total of 130 38 acres. All 21 lots are in the current ETA. However, with the city's current proposal to change the ETA boundary, all have been excluded from the ETA. But for lots that total 82 acres, the 82 acres consists of a three acre lot and a two acre lot that are sandwiched between a 40 acre lot and our 37 acres. In looking closer at the city's proposed changes. Small lots are being excluded and those with larger acreage are the target. I have no issue with the smaller lots being excluded in my neighbors. I'm glad areas have been and I'm happy for those neighbors. But to lock down the land that is most advantageous to the city, like the 40 and 37 acres for the next 25 to 50 years, I feel as a land grab. The city fails to recognize that those of us with larger parcels in the Aeta have changing needs to expect a land owner to reside at that property for 25 to 50 years with no growth on that property, is unrealistic. People get older. They need to work smarter, not harder. The push behind snowblower gets replaced with a tractor and no longer fits in their house garage. More space is needed for storage of tractors, campers, animals and then comes the need for accessory buildings. Those of us with acreage in the Aeta, we have been locked down and hung out in limbo as we are allowed little to no one modifications without the city's excessive regulations. The city planning departments have an informational guide to accessory buildings within rural residential zoning districts. My property is zoned agricultural, but I'm being held to a rural residential zoning standard. In that standard, if you have one and a half acre lot, you are allotted 2400ft² for accessory buildings. That's 3.7% of your total lot square footage for a one acre lot. That equals 4.5% allowed for accessory buildings. For 35 acres, it equals one third of 1% and a half a percent if you have a special use permit. The 37 acres that I have is zoned agricultural and it is all used as agricultural. The residents in the ETAs first line of actual representation on Oeta matters are the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 12 votes are cast from the City Planning and Zoning Commission on decisions. Seven votes come from the city and only five come from the county. I don't feel that that's a fair split of representation for ETA residents. In trying to contact an ETA representative on the City Planning and Zoning commission, I went to the website. No phone numbers, no emails to be found to contact those representatives of the ETA. Not even was this meeting advertised. It makes it difficult to have a conversation or to even ask a question. In my research, I found that the North Dakota state law protects legitimate agricultural practices. The city's document called together 2045 Bismarck's Comprehensive Plan. It's an eloquently written document that states, one of the many goals and objectives of the city is to protect the rural character of existing and planned rural residential areas in the Bismarck's ETA. And then it goes on to say, to preserve the ability for rural residents to keep animals, gardens and other agricultural practices appropriate to the scale of the lot. I'm not sure how one third of 1% is appropriate to the scale of the lot for 35 acres. Another goal and objective in the city's document is to celebrate the region's agricultural heritage through support for local growers, ranchers and exempt use of lands or buildings for farming and ranching from all land use and zoning restrictions in accordance with state law. I have agricultural property and I can tell you that's not happening. I am respectfully requesting to be excluded from the ETA. Thank you.

00:09:19,000	S2:
Thank you. Any questions? Nope. Thanks, Heidi. This is public comment. Anyone wishing to speak concerning the ETA, please come forward. Sign in and state your name for the record, please.

00:09:47,601	S8:
Good afternoon, Mayor Schmitz and commissioners. My name is Caitlin Bullock. I am a Berkeley County resident, and I live in the northeast section of the ETA on TJ Lane, which is located in Gibbs Township. If I need to know a mandatory setback for a new garage in the ETA, or had a concern or property issue in the ETA, who would? Who would I call the city?

00:10:17,167	S6:
The city. As long as you're in the ETA. If you ultimately go out of the ETA, then it will be the county.

00:10:23,501	S8:
That is not correct. Actually, I live on a three acre lot that zoned for horses. Besides, me is a two acre subdivision which was created with the city. Bismarck City Planning Department. The neighbors that created the two acre subdivision moved in ten foot. Evergreen trees and planted them seven feet to the center of the trunk. Against my existing fence.

00:10:55,601	S8:
Due to the closeness of the trees of the fence, this has been an ongoing issue problem every winter.

00:11:02,667	S6:
So can I. So you asked the setback. Setback for what? So I need evergreen trees. Okay. I thought you said a setback for a building.

00:11:09,667	S8:
So I saw the difference between trees.

00:11:12,667	S6:
I mean, but there's permits for buildings, and I'm not sure if there are. I don't even know what the regulations are on trees.

00:11:18,667	S8:
Um, well, I did call the county to see if there were written guidelines or rules on, uh, proximity for trees to fences in the area due to my property being in the to the county sent me to the city. I called the city as the same questions and they sent me back to the county. Somewhere along the way, I was advised to contact the North Dakota Forestry Department. They had no idea why I was being referred to them, to call them. Um. However, they did inform me that, uh, the evergreen trees should be plant planted a minimum of 12ft from existing fences. Especially since the trees were on my west side of the fence. Since no one was able to help me from the city or the county, and there are no rules for subdivisions to follow in the E.T.A. in regards to planting trees, I have an ongoing problem of the snow buildup on my fence, tearing it down every snow and wind event, then having to worry about my horses getting out. Accessory buildings have mandatory setback requirements. Why do trees not? They pose a problem. They pose the same problem. Any snow and wind occur. We have to take a skid steer to remove the snow. To protect the fence from being torn down due to these trees. Um. There's a ton of confusion as to who you are supposed to call for issues when you live in the ETA. When referred to the city, the city sends you back to the county. The city didn't want to help us at all, so I am requesting to be removed from the ETA.

00:13:13,200	S9:
Thank you.

00:13:22,701	S2:
This is public comment period. Anyone wish to speak? Please come forward. Public comment concerning the ETA. Anyone else wishing to speak?

00:13:42,968	S10:
I've been up here quite a bit. I think you guys are well aware of my opinion on the ETA.

00:13:47,367	S2:
Um, Travis name for the record.

00:13:49,567	S10:
Travis Jensen, ETA resident. Um, what I wanted to address tonight is the time again. This 4:00 timeframe is tough for us working class individuals to make. Um, we've heard comment tonight about how these meetings are not publicized very well, but when you guys have them at 4:00, um, us blue collar individuals, it's it's tough for us to make. Um, I would formally, again, um, request that the meetings be moved back to 5:00 so that at least it gives people time to make it down here. Um, it just seems fair. You guys say you want input. You want us to feel like we're being heard, but yet if we have to take off work early, that to me, that's an undue hardship.

00:14:37,367	S6:
Trust me, I'm in agreement with you. I actually thought myself it was going to be at 5:00 today until I got here, so I, I.

00:14:44,167	S10:
So why is so why is it at four then.

00:14:47,100	S6:
It got noticed that way. I think we just didn't get our.

00:14:49,200	S2:
Count that way.

00:14:50,000	S6:
Yeah. We'll take care of that.

00:14:52,501	S10:
We'll do that okay. Okay. That's all I want to say tonight.

00:14:55,901	S6:
No, I appreciate that because I agree with you.

00:14:58,100	S9:
Yeah.

00:14:59,000	S2:
Thanks. Travis. This is public comment. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come forward.

00:15:03,801	S6:
I know we were going to change the standing meeting.

00:15:06,501	S9:
Yeah.

00:15:08,267	S2:
No, our joint city county. The full was later. So, um, this one just didn't get changed because this was this was originally scheduled. Yes. Uh, this is public comment. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come forward.

00:15:40,300	S10:
I'm Gerald.

00:15:41,167	S6:
Miller.

00:15:41,868	S11:
I live at 6455 TJ Lane and owned property at 6359 TJ Lane. I'm a retired combat veteran. I served a total of 32 years and eight months and retired as a command sergeant major.

00:15:56,300	S2:
Thank you for your service.

00:15:58,100	S11:
Thank you for your support. With almost 30 years of active duty, I spent my military career with numerous overseas tours and many in second and third world countries, with my combat tours in 2003 and four in Iraq, in Iraq, and in 2007, in Afghanistan. I became a supervisor of Gibbs Township. And just like you, when I became a supervisor, I was voted in by the people of Gibbs Township as per our federal constitution and state laws. I only represent the people with issues and matters dealing with Gibbs township boundaries and at times when necessary, to carry their message to a higher authorities such as this. We who live in the Oeta boundaries have no voting rights in any elections for any positions, measures or regulations deem fit for an action within the city of Bismarck. But yet you deem fit to dictate to the people within ETA what they can and cannot do. In 1976, the then sitting board of Gibbs Township decided to give up their zoning to the county in 1978. The Gibbs Township unsuccessfully attempted to get it back in the late 70s through the 2000, with the expansion of the city's population. Many who moved here were from the country or from small communities, and wanted to live that lifestyle where their children could ride their bikes down the streets. Or they could walk in the evening hours and meet others within their communities. Hence, subdivisions sprang up everywhere, and whoever, whomever owned that land or whatever developer purchased that land, they plotted a subdivision. During this time, Burleigh County did not have a zoning department, so the county hired the city of Bismarck to do the planning and permitting. But the city did not do any oversight as to construction of the infrastructure. Currently, in Gibbs townships, we have roads that are failing due to lack of over this oversight. The roads are called mucker roads and basically what a mucker Road is. We knew whatever was in a ditch was piled up onto the plotted road. A little bit of gravel was applied to it, and then they compressed it down with the with asphalt. And if you look at the plot guys or the plotting, a lot of times it says a four inch lift of asphalt, a compacted asphalt. In many cases, the roads that are being broken up right now in our infrastructure within our township, there might be an inch and a half again. That's lack of oversight. Until now, the county. Now the county has moved forward to assist the townships with inspection of the subdivisions infrastructure as they're being constructed. So they're getting better and better all the time. But that doesn't help us with all the ones that were built in the 70s. In 2000, I myself had a wooden granary acquired from a neighbor and had to move it onto my land that's zoned as agricultural. I had it done by contractors and being a township supervisor and knowing that my property was in it, I called the city to see what permits I needed. I was told I do not need a permit. As I was moving an ag building to ag land to cover myself, I requested that in writing and that I would accept an email, which I received.

00:19:26,100	S11:
The other issue that I see going on within the city is you've already lollipop a number of subdivisions where you bypassed areas that should be and can be developed for continuous city limits.

00:19:42,367	S11:
And then took those subdivisions and annexed them into the cities to where you could expanded your sewer and water systems. Why not fill those areas that are basically just, hey, land that are owned by developers in a lot of cases? Case in point Silver Ranch, you go west to Silver Ranch Subdivision. It's approximately a quarter of acre land that's just sitting there. It's all a land that could have been developed before Silver Ranch was ever developed. Again, Centennial road, a number of areas that are on Centennial Road that could have been subdivided and taken care of. That way, instead of lollipop alone. We all know that the city population will continue to grow, and you only have two directions to go east and north. Most of us know you can't expand quickly enough, as you don't have the manpower or the ability to maintain what's already there. As you heard, it was already talked about me. My bottom line of this statement is the city seems to be ill, appeared to handle any agricultural issues with the ETA in quick growth and expansion. And no matter what the North Coast entry code says, the ETA is federally unconstitutional as it governs without the people having the right to vote. I myself raised my hand to defend our country and our Constitution, and I think we need to take a look at that very closely. Thank you. They'll stand for your questions.

00:21:13,100	S2:
Any questions?

00:21:13,901	S9:
No.

00:21:14,400	S6:
I'm good. Thank you, sir, for all your work.

00:21:19,067	S2:
Just public comment. Anyone else wishing to speak concerning the ETA? Please come forward. Second call for public comment.

00:21:30,000	S2:
Third and final call for public comment.

00:21:35,400	S2:
Public comment is now closed. Next item up. Consider the approval of minutes.

00:21:42,567	S6:
I'll move to approve as presented.

00:21:46,267	S2:
Second motion and second. Further discussion. Hearing none. Call the roll, please.

00:21:54,467	S9:
Yes.

00:21:55,267	S3:
Mayor Schmitz.

00:21:56,100	S9:
Yes.

00:21:57,000	S3:
Commissioner bacon.

00:21:58,000	S2:
Yes.

00:21:58,701	S3:
Administrator. Tammany.

00:22:00,868	S4:
Yes.

00:22:02,901	S2:
Next item up. Extraterritorial boundary discussion. So I believe we've got some staff.

00:22:08,300	S9:
That's, uh.

00:22:09,067	S6:
So I know Daniel from city you released had the map as we had proposed. I think we should at least review that. And I don't know if your staff is gonna.

00:22:19,467	S2:
Mitch and Marcus have something to add to that, too. So, Daniel.

00:22:35,467	S6:
I think this was in our packet, but I don't know that you're the. Whatever might be coming from your staff, Commissioner. It was not.

00:22:43,000	S12:
Good evening. Mayor. Commissioner. So I don't have anything really to add much today. I can just show you the map that we did display at the previous meeting in September. Uh, it has not changed much or have been a few tweaks just to make it clear along the river in particular, we had some questions, but for the most part it remains the same. One thing just to note that this map is part of our comprehensive plan. It's our growth phasing plan. So the Planning Commission has called for a public hearing on this map. So that will be held this month. Now, their purview is not the Oeta boundaries or any of the discussion that you're having. There purview is the growth phasing plan itself in the various areas that are inside of this plan that you see here. But we do want we have to follow our comprehensive plan for anything related to zoning that would include the extraterritorial area boundaries. So that would be the proper procedure. And so we will bring it to them for their meeting in October. Um, so beyond that, I really I don't have anything to add. We did we did meet with county staff today and they may have their own map. And I think there are ongoing discussions as well. But this is what we are currently proposing.

00:23:52,801	S6:
So one thing, and this is just so because I don't know who has heard what is heard. I mean, we're we are going through a land code, land use code rewrite, which will address, I believe, some of the concerns that have been brought forward today. Can we talk about specifically rural development and accessory buildings and the coverage ratio?

00:24:13,100	S12:
Yes. Thank you for raising that. So so a lot of our code is very similar today. However, there are some differences and I think related to the accessory buildings. That is one difference. And we we do allow the size of accessory buildings to vary based on the lot size. And there is a special use permit process to go above and beyond that. But we've heard over the years and from a number of people that it's a cumbersome process to have to go through and that people just want bigger buildings than they did in the past. And and the county has changed in recent years, their ordinance to allow up to 4% of the lot in rural residential areas. And so we would propose and are proposing in our current draft to simply mirror the county in that respect. And so, so, in fact, really in every way in these rural residential areas in, in this new land development code. So we hope those issues in particular would be alleviated.

00:25:04,200	S9:
Okay. Thank you.

00:25:05,267	S6:
For sharing.

00:25:06,167	S2:
That. So, Daniel, just for the sake of those that may be at home, um, can you run through, the different colors on the map. And what? That's because it's a little hard to read from if you're on TV, but if you can walk through just so people are able to recognize what those different color codes are.

00:25:23,801	S12:
Sure. Thank. Thank you Commissioner. So you know, the green you could ignore. That's really there for context. That's the historic boundary of Bismarck. But the the yellow line is the current city limits. There's a dashed line around it outside of that hour. So the light orange area is the we call them the priority urban service area boundary. And I'm actually glad that you had a previous comment on this about the city jumping or lollipop land. That's a very valid comment. And I think we we share the desire to see those areas developed. First. We can't control when areas are developed and landowners choose. However, we do prioritize and we want to see those developed and in short order. So those are the the light orange areas. And then beyond that, the darker orange areas would be our future urban service area boundary and those areas that we anticipate to become city within the next 25 years, based on our current projected growth growth rates. Beyond that are the gray areas. These are urban reserve. These are areas that would be suitable for urban development, however, not necessarily within the 25 years if if rates hold and this but within in 50 years of growth of the city of Bismarck. Now the blue area is a little bit of a special area. It's an area around the airport. A lot of this is in Apple Creek, but there is some rural residential potential there as well. And this is an area that would be designed particularly just to protect the operational area of the airport as as the city grows. Now the areas that are shown with the hash marked, we are proposing to remove from the MTA. And those are the areas that are clear marked or or the orange hash mark, which are rural residential subdivisions which would be essentially surrounded by the city in 25 to 50 years, however, would remain simply as rural residential and would would not be annexed unless they should choose to do so. And so the basic premise is, and this this map is not new. I mean, we've had this for about five years now. And beyond that a different, similar map. Um, and so if we have a comprehensive plan that is not anticipating growing into areas even in the next 50 years as a city, then really there's no practical reason to have an ETA jurisdiction in those areas. So I think that's why we would propose to be proposing it, willing to give up those areas from the ETA if our own plan is not growing, it's showing us growing into those. So that's the reasoning for this, um, change.

00:28:01,501	S2:
Daniel, have you had an opportunity to get together with the working group yet?

00:28:07,267	S12:
Commissioner, can you? Which?

00:28:09,567	S2:
Our staff and your staff.

00:28:10,801	S12:
Oh, yes. So? So, yeah, we've met in a couple occasions. Um, Mitch Flanagan, Casey and Marcus Hall. Dan. Um, today we had a separate meeting a couple of weeks ago as well. Uh, so. So we're discussing the maps, obviously, but there's there will be a lot of logistics, if any change were to occur. Uh, we would both need to make changes to our zoning, both to our comprehensive plans. Just the question of what happens with projects that are in process. Does they do they jump over right away, or do they start where they begin or they begin where they begin? A lot of logistics we will need to work through. Uh, not years worth, but months worth of of logistics at least. Um, so we've started that conversation. Whatever the change may be, we'll have to do some work.

00:28:53,767	S9:
Okay.

00:28:54,567	S2:
Thank you.

00:28:56,567	S6:
I don't have any other questions. Thanks, Daniel.

00:28:59,400	S2:
Um, so.

00:29:03,367	S2:
Mr. mayor, our staff has come up with this. And basically, um, one of the questions I was promoted to ask last night was, would the city have any issues with just vacating everything outside of city limits? And you've heard from your staff? Our staff were all pretty much the same when it comes to planning and zoning. Um, one of the things the Century Code does allow for is a regional planning and zoning commission. And what if we were to look at going down that road? We have been developing growth for the city of Bismarck on the county side for a long time. Um, I don't see issues if the city were able to vacate the entire Oeta. We're willing to add staff. That's going to save the city money. Uh, we're willing to add staff and go down that road.

00:30:00,767	S6:
Um, I can pretty much assure you that no go from the city. We need to have some ETA. It's the only way we can manage growth appropriately. Um. And that's, I mean, I, I know where my commissioners generally stand because there's been conversation. We, um, we're pretty comfortable with the map that was proposed. There could be certainly some adjustments to that, some minor adjustments, um, probably even some adjustments that would allow us to say the map only doesn't get out beyond two miles of anywhere in the of the city boundaries, and that would certainly free up a few more spots. But, um, it's kind of this is the map. Um.

00:30:43,801	S2:
Well, I.

00:30:44,100	S9:
Think.

00:30:44,367	S6:
Or we could or we could keep the existing map, which I don't think is what any of us want.

00:30:48,601	S2:
No, because then it's going to wind up with the legislature, and I'd rather take care of something locally.

00:30:52,267	S6:
But the other alternative is we could exit the Joint Powers Agreement and then publish what our map would be, which should probably be similar to the map that we've proposed.

00:31:01,767	S2:
So.

00:31:04,567	S2:
The city's going to basically hop on board with what the county does for accessory buildings. Um, I think one of the things we should work on is making sure that our planning and zoning and our permitting processes are identical. I think there's a little bit of wiggle room. I think they're pretty darn close now.

00:31:27,767	S6:
That part I have no problem with. I think our two staffs would agree with that because I think it helps.

00:31:31,968	S2:
It simplifies a lot of things, and I think it would take care of some of the confusion that residents are having to deal with. So if we start there, let the working group work on some of that, and if we can get to that place. I think that follow up discussion might be why is the county not being able to manage growth for the city of Bismarck and save the taxpayers dollars. I that's not a not a discussion today. But if we have identical planning and zoning and permitting, I think that that could be on the table someday.

00:32:08,701	S6:
There are two different jurisdictions for one. And so, you know, the city has got to be able to manage its growth as best we can. And I agree with some people that have made the comment, why have we jumped into some areas? I, I don't like that. In fact, I have made very strong comments.

00:32:23,300	S9:
And.

00:32:23,467	S2:
It's expensive.

00:32:24,300	S6:
People doing that and and we will control our infrastructure. That's how we can control that is limit when infrastructure goes in. But developers still do play the game. Um, but we the city needs to have its ability to manage the, the growth. And frankly, a lot of our, a lot of our planning staff is busy with what's inside the city limits, not the Oeta. There is certainly some work in the ETA, but we know what our revenue is on the ETA, and it's significantly less than what was proposed as your cost. Add staff to take on the ETA. Um, so there will be a cost to the county. I will tell you that.

00:33:05,100	S9:
Right?

00:33:05,367	S2:
We know.

00:33:05,767	S9:
That.

00:33:06,367	S6:
Um, and it's not insignificant.

00:33:07,868	S9:
It's probably we know that as well.

00:33:09,167	S6:
Probably a quarter million dollars or close anyway.

00:33:12,167	S2:
Net net for our residents and our taxpayers. We're willing to take that that step, uh, because everybody, whether they're in city limits or not, our residents of Berkeley County. So we're willing to do that. Um, the discussion I'd like to have, though, and this is something that maybe the working group can work on a little bit, is the opportunity to maybe go down the road of a regional planning and zoning commission that is allowed by the Century Code, and that might be a better path instead of the current city versus the current county planning and Zoning Commission's. Um, that might be a better way to represent all residents, whether they're in the ETA or not.

00:33:51,567	S6:
So I don't know. I'd have to see what that looks like.

00:33:54,067	S9:
Yeah. So a little bit.

00:33:55,100	S2:
We can have.

00:33:55,567	S9:
The working.

00:33:56,267	S2:
Group explore.

00:33:57,000	S9:
That.

00:33:57,367	S6:
It seems a bit cumbersome to me.

00:34:01,267	S2:
Aren't they worth it?

00:34:04,968	S6:
It's only worth it if it doesn't cost us jointly and doesn't cause us additional issues.

00:34:09,968	S2:
We're all supposed to be working in the same direction. So that's that's the bottom line.

00:34:13,868	S6:
But I do know where we're at from the city right now is our the map we've proposed is it with maybe some minor modifications? Because I think my goal would be to not have any joint territorial area. And it's the two.

00:34:28,367	S9:
Mile.

00:34:28,767	S2:
Cleaner.

00:34:29,567	S6:
The two mile area.

00:34:30,968	S9:
Okay.

00:34:31,300	S2:
Well, at that point then maybe just annexing that in and being done with it might be the better path. But later discussion. Marcus or Mitch, did you have anything to add or Mitch, did you want to go through what our map looked like at least so people can see it? Um, and I know it's still a work in progress, and the working group is kind of. Oh, Absolutely.

00:34:55,000	S9:
Yeah.

00:35:06,100	S13:
Basically, it's removing the ETA back to the city limits. That was that was proposed last night. Um, when the commissioner asked the GIS coordinator to create the map, um, in response to the the previous map that the city has suggested.

00:35:26,267	S2:
So when you're looking at the differences between city and county planning and zoning, what percentage are, you know, other than accessory buildings and, you know, the obvious ones? How much of our regulations do not coincide with the cities?

00:35:44,267	S13:
Well, the city's amended some of the building codes. We don't we accept what the state as amended and adopted that. Other than that, it's very little difference. We have the same FEMA regulations, Nfip requirements. We have the same building code requirements. As I said last night, they we we identify similar, almost identical in our reviews, but administratively we may do things differently, but it's we're pretty much the same. And we are we don't ignore the codes. We don't adjust them haphazardly. It's, um, it's a pretty standard black and white a lot of times. So.

00:36:29,767	S2:
Okay. Um, as far as the working group or Daniel and staff, are you guys making good progress with that and having good conversations?

00:36:39,767	S13:
Well, we're getting closer to the directions from this commission and commission last night. So we we have some identifying places to work on. Uh, this regional planning Commission is would be a start. Um. It's the idea of continuing along the lines of the proposed city map. The problems associated with that are going to. It'd be a mistake not to think that this is not going to cost the county money and the taxpayers in the county, and it doesn't appear to me to be the the revenue from permitting, the revenue from planning is not going to be there. It's, you know, it's about $100,000 a year and the cost of doing that, it would be two and a half times then. So, um, I, I don't understand why they decided one subdivision over another, why they skipped over parcels that were undeveloped and took the subdivisions out of there. I don't understand that concept. I don't understand the justification of it either. It's going to be problems for.

00:37:55,267	S9:
Us.

00:37:56,000	S13:
If we do adopt this map. And so it's a concern. Moving forward, we're going to have to change entirely, change our planning models. We have eight zoning districts in the county compared to what there is in the city of 16. Our comprehensive plan, our future land use plan. All that's going to be changed into a more of an urban model. And so it's,

00:38:23,367	S13:
you know, it's problematic from my viewpoint. I, you know, if we work together on this, the staff working together on this concept of what you guys want to do for us, directions and that sort of thing, it's, you know, we'll come up with answers.

00:38:36,667	S9:
Okay.

00:38:37,467	S2:
Well, I'm glad to hear that the internal conversations on the working group are moving forward. So thank you for that. Marcus, did you have anything to add? Thank you. Marcus.

00:38:50,567	S9:
Um, so.

00:38:51,801	S6:
The one comment I'll make is the city has not asked for the map to be changed. The city is proposing to make a change to address some of the comments.

00:38:59,100	S9:
Right?

00:38:59,400	S6:
So again, from the city's perspective, it's a map that we've already laid out that's pretty close to what we will. We would agree to as early as Tuesday. Okay. Um, keep the map as it is. Or if we don't have anything close, I suspect my commission is going to be ready to say. Maybe it's just time to exit the Joint Powers Agreement.

00:39:22,167	S9:
Okay.

00:39:23,200	S2:
Well, looking forward to that. Any other discussion? Any other business?

00:39:28,868	S9:
Nope.

00:39:29,868	S4:
Maybe just, uh, if I may, Jason. Mayor. Commissioners. Commissioner bacon, a couple of comments from the earlier during the public comment, the gentleman talked about, um, uh, disjointed or non-contiguous Contiguous subdivisions. I get that. I think Daniel approached it or addressed it. The mayor said something to it as well. I think it should be noted that the city of Bismarck does not determine when a subdivision is created that is exclusively up to the landowner. And we've heard people talk about property rights and landowner rights. I think that's quite contrary. If someone thinks it's the city's responsibility to say when this piece of land needs to be developed and when it does not. So yes, we do have a number of subdivisions that are non-contiguous, but those were in response to the landowners request to create those subdivisions at the time. Um, in my nearly 20 years with the city, there were a few subdivisions that I think were beyond our reach. But we were we're there now. The the utilities have been extended. Yes. There's greenfield in between certain areas. Uh, we'd love to see those get filled in at this, uh, in a successive rate Rather than leaping over, because it does create a lot of confusion, not just for the residents, but also for city and county staff. And I think one more thing relating to, you know, a 20 year, 25 year growth horizon. The subdivisions that we're bumping into today, Grand Prairie Estates, for example, the north side of 43rd Avenue, it's nearly a full square mile of subdivision that was created starting in the 70s. That was 40 years ago. That's what we're talking about today. We're talking about 20, 25, 30 years into the future. If we don't have growth corridors, that we don't have areas where the city is able to grow successfully. We're going to continue to create problems for future generations of both city, county and residents when we allow these things to happen. So I guess at a minimum, what I'm saying I support where the mayor is at. I think the map is the city's best offer at this point, and at a minimum, we have every responsibility to preserve those corridors where we continue to grow. It was stated earlier, we've only really got two directions north and east, and if we're not allowed to grow successfully in those corridors, not only will Bismarck suffer, but so will Burleigh County. Because 78% of Burley County residents live in the city of Bismarck. Every time something in Bismarck is built, Burley County collects tax on that property and is.

00:42:06,667	S4:
Is gaining in that without really having to provide any additional service. I guess I'm confounded why Burley County doesn't support all urban development, because it really lessens the burden on its responsibilities altogether. You're begging for more subdivisions. You're begging for control. But really, all you're doing is taking on more responsibility into the future.

00:42:29,000	S9:
Thank you. Jason.

00:42:32,467	S2:
Any other business?

00:42:36,267	S2:
All right. Well, I look forward to the working group continuing forward. Thanks for everybody who is here tonight. Um, maps are on the websites. Um, so do you want to make sure that that gets put up on the city's as well for is the county's. And, uh, with that, this meeting is adjourned.