00:00:08,230	All right. The time is now. 3 p.m.. Uh, today is August 19th, 2026. We’re meeting in the Tom Baker room for the Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Darcy, please call the roll. Commissioner Sakariassan here. Kirshner. Nodland here. Commissioner Hull here. Commissioner Perrin here. Commissioner Swanson here. And chair Engel here. All right. Moving on to the historic preservation report.

00:00:43,530	Uh, there are several that we have been. That have been reviewed. But I don’t think anything, uh, since the last meeting. Um, there’s one in June, but I think that was before that. That meeting. Um, can we review the meeting minutes and get approval on that? Also, any corrections? I move to approve. A second.

00:01:08,000	All right. Any discussion or corrections? If not. Darcy, please call the roll. Commissioner Nodland. Yes. Commissioner. Perrin. Yes, Commissioner. Hull. Yes, Commissioner. Swanson. Yes. Commissioner. Sakariassan. Yes. And chair. Engel. Yes. All right. Minutes have been approved and signed. Uh, moving on to the public comment period.

00:01:40,770	I don’t see anybody in the audience that signed anything. Is there anybody online? Shockingly not. Okay. Uh, we will move on then to the section 106. Um, FEMA, South Bismarck flood Control Project update.

00:02:08,900	Uh, chair Engel and commissioners, FEMA, uh, notified the Bismarck Historic Preservation Commission of a FEMA funded flood mitigation project proposed in South Bismarck. The city Bismarck is seeking to address flood risk from the Missouri River by implementing measures that will provide FEMA accredited flood protection to public and to public and private property. Um, a class three intensive survey was conducted based on some initial considerations of project alternatives. While defining the project scope.

00:02:33,730	Uh, at the beginning of the project, um, those two alternatives were dismissed and the project design was reduced in scale. Based on that initial, uh uh, review. Um, FEMA did discuss the design changes with, uh, North Dakota.

00:03:01,230	Uh, Shippo in November of 2025, and after reviewing uh, site forms and aerial imagery, both of those parties agreed no further field investigations were necessary. Um. However, a class one file search was completed in December of 2025. Um, the project area was also slightly adjusted in 2026. Um, to incorporate an additional area um, which was not part of those original class three or class one uh investigations.

00:03:28,130	Uh, as such as second class three of that additional area was conducted. Um, uh, at this time, staff did reach out to Shippo to determine what their determination or if they had any concerns regarding this project. Um, we have not received any information from Shippo at this point.

00:03:52,630	Um, for this, uh, a link to a story map for more information on the project was also included in the agenda for this item. Just to give a broader idea of that scope of the project. Um, based on the results of those investigations, FEMA, determined that no historic properties were present within the final area of potential effects, and that the proposed project would result in no historic properties affected.

00:04:13,830	I believe there is a map attached within the agenda item as well, just showing where that project area is. Um staff recommends reviewing the section 106 review request for the FEMA funded South Bismarck Flood Control Project, and providing a determination. All right. Thank you. Lauren. Uh, is there any discussion about this. Move to approve.

00:04:42,670	Of no historic properties affected? Second. All right. Um. Any discussion questions? No. All right. Darcy. I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Perrin. Yes. Commissioner Swanson. Yes. Commissioner Sakariassen. Yes. Commissioner. Nodland. Yes. Commissioner Hull. Yes. And chair. Engel. Yes. All right. Um, moving on to the baseball history brochure. Update.

00:05:16,270	Um, just kind of providing an overview of all our, uh, grants right now. Um, it looks a little different than how I’ve structured your agendas in the past. Um, for these items, I just wanted to call them out individually. Um, just for more clarity on some of these.

00:05:35,030	Um, so the first item that we’ll be looking at on the agenda today is the baseball history brochures. Um, the text is currently being finalized, as well as the photos for those brochures.

00:05:56,330	Um, the goal will be to have the draft brochure presented for the Historic Preservation Commission and the State Historical Society Review next month, in order to meet requirements for the 2024 Historic Preservation Grant that would be funding. Um, those brochures. Um, do you want to note that we are coming up towards the end of the life cycle for that grant in order to utilize the funds, uh, under that grant, um, the anything that would be utilizing those funds needs to occur by September 30th of this year.

00:06:19,930	Um, if that doesn’t occur on the brochures, uh, if the Historic Preservation Commission or the State Historical Society is not comfortable with how those brochures look and, um, we’re not able to, uh, uh, print those brochures. Uh, by that time, um, we wouldn’t be able to use this grant to fund the the printing of those brochures.

00:06:46,600	Okay. And we would lose the funding. Is that. Uh, that. Yes. Chair Engel. Commissioners. That is correct. Okay. Um, how close are we to those brochures at. Not close. Okay.

00:07:15,370	We will be, uh, let’s, uh, let’s target, like, September 10th, shall we? To to get a draft that we can all look at and maybe, like, finalize it can help to. If that works, uh, and give it our old college try to to get it across the finish line so you don’t lose the funding. Thank you for that update. All right. Um, on to the. Oh, sorry.

00:07:34,770	Are there any other discussion or questions about that? Any other volunteers to help out? No. Okay. Moving on to the local history education kits. Uh. Thank you, chair, angle and commissioners. So contents are still being finalized for the education kits. Um, the goal again will be to have these physically present.

00:07:56,500	We do have nice big boxes for them. Those will be presented at the next meeting. Um, for this commission’s review, in order to meet those requirements of that 2024 Historic Preservation Fund grant. Um, all the items except for the printed versions of the historic newspapers. Um, from that area have been acquired.

00:08:20,030	Um, staff’s working to to get those newspapers for those kits. Um, prior to that September 30th deadline. Um, the worksheets are finalized. Just need to be grouped together in a in the full digital format and placed online for review as well. Um, all digital components will be available for the State Historical Society to review as well. For the grant.

00:08:39,970	Um, might be more difficult if they’d like to review any of the physical contents, but all those physical items that are included, uh, correspond either to the worksheets or the overall, uh, kit content for an overview of the the era that’s being shown there. Um, I believe that’s it. Thank you. I have a question. Lauren. Yeah.

00:09:02,070	Um, if we, uh, provide photographs of the the contents that so they can see them, that might be useful. Um, and I can certainly take pictures of the stuff that’s sitting around in my basement for those boxes. Uh, commissioner. Soccer commissioner. That can definitely happen as well. Great suggestion. Thanks. Any questions about the kids? No.

00:09:30,370	Okay. Uh, we’ll move on to the south. Cap. Uh, survey update. Um, uh, chair Engel and commissioner is a presentation on the South Capitol survey was provided by Emily Sakariassan of South Fork Historical Research. Um, the project’s consultant on August 12th at the Bismarck Memorial Veterans Memorial Public Library.

00:09:57,630	Um, two flyers, one with information on the project providing some background on what a survey is, as well as what was kind of seen through that investigation that occurred in that neighborhood. Um, as well as one flyer specifically on what a National Register listing does and doesn’t do. Those were available at the meeting.

00:10:21,870	Um, staff underestimated how many individuals would like to learn more about that. So, um, we’ll be posting these on the the website as well. For any individuals who are curious to learn more about it afterwards. Um, they are also attached in the staff report at this time as well. Um, everyone was very excited.

00:10:43,030	We did have a preliminary number of close to 100 people who attended the event. Um, and Dakota Media Access was also able to record the presentation. So, um, if anyone from the public is interested in looking at that again, um, it’s available there. Um, the State Historic Preservation Office has also accepted the final report for that survey.

00:11:07,070	Um, so there are no additional items to complete under this project. It’s amazing. And it was a very good presentation I attended, and it was very interesting and very well attended. So yes, Commissioner Nodland. Um. I was out of town, but I’m really curious if there were any comments or questions from the audience that were interesting. Um, that’s a great question.

00:11:29,070	Commissioner Nodland chair. Commissioners. Um, so there were several comments. Not too many specifically. I know a lot of individuals came up to Miss Sakariassen. Uh, after, uh, the presentation just to, you know, provide more information on, you know, uh, relatives or information they had heard about those living in the area. Um, or to even ask questions.

00:11:52,170	You know what that next step would look like? Um, I know one of the questions that came up was what our public notification process was for this. So, um, I think how we went about it was a good first step, especially if we would move move forward with anything else in this neighborhood.

00:12:10,530	That was great. The only other, um, question that came up that had a bit of a bigger discussion were, um, uh, individual houses that had been moved outside of that area or moved in. There was one that actually got moved in.

00:12:29,830	Um, and several others that went, and one they found out went to wish they got moved out of that district. So, um, it was really good discussion. And I think she got a lot of, uh, good tidbits afterwards, uh, for the public comment period for people. So it was good. People seemed really interested and quite, um, if I were reading the room. Right.

00:12:48,830	I think that there would have been quite a bit of support for, um, uh, behind another historic district, um, or at least the beginning of it. I mean, that there was people were so pleased to have more information about the neighborhood they’ve been living in that they hadn’t there hasn’t been a place to find out, you know, unless you’re a researcher and you’re

00:13:10,900	looking for it. And so this was giving a really nice context that people were really grateful for. Yeah. No dissension, I guess, in any discussion about the a potential district, um, where people kept that to themselves, but also just curiosity about the time periods of significance that they were really curious about that.

00:13:31,230	So it gave a lot of good information out there. So, yeah, awesome. Um, I think we did well and I can’t wait for the next one to come through or expand the one we just did to capture everything. So. All right, um, moving on then to the downtown District survey.

00:13:52,570	Uh, chair Engel and commissioners, um, the consultant for the downtown District survey, uh, Graham Pape, submitted the first 10% of the site forms, uh, as noted in their contract for this project. Um, information regarding these initial forms, including issues and things to note about portions of the forms, was provided in the agenda.

00:14:13,370	Um, just some of those issues that they had working with those forms. Um, a table with information from the site, forms that were provided, those first 10% was included in the agenda. I’m just pulling out some of those key information points.

00:14:32,100	Um, for each of those sites, um, staff recently received updated site data from the State Historic Preservation Office as well. Um, this will be used, um, similar to what was conducted with the South Capitol Survey. Um, to identify previous sites, site leads and other cultural resources within that one mile, uh, of the project area and that will be provided to our consultant. Um, all that information.

00:14:53,470	Um, the State Historic Preservation Office has signed off on sharing that information with our consultant for the project. Um, so that information may also be useful for providing more information in those site forms that was submitted. Um staff recommends reviewing and providing feedback on the submitted site forms to the consultant.

00:15:15,300	Um, that review may include information on how to work around some of those issues with the putting information in those site forms, or anything similar to that as well. Sounds good. Do we have a deadline on when they need comments back? Um, the deadline, uh, hopefully would be soon.

00:15:34,030	I know they have started working on the initial draft of the the survey report for this commission, as well as the state. Um, if it would be possible to get any review from this commission within by Friday at the latest. Um, I did try to submit our or send over a link to those site forms prior to this meeting.

00:15:58,030	Um, if there are any issues with accessing those site forms, please let me know. Sounds good. Has anybody had a chance to review some of them? I looked at them. They they looked they looked really well written.

00:16:17,970	Um, just some I’ll say formatting or getting used to North Dakota style versus other state style of the I believe it was page five where it’s talking about access and setting. And then summary features and eligibility. Um, that yeah, I’d look at some of the older or more recent architectural forms for advice on how to do that.

00:16:37,170	But the as our call, I reviewed a sample of them and it was like, you know, immediately adjacent to an urban road. I’m like, that’s not what I was looking for. When they asked for access. It’s from nearest intersection. Um, but I can try and put together an email and send it to you. Lauren, with some more specifics on that.

00:16:50,630	That’d be great. But yeah, it was just, I think, what? Page 4 or 5. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks, Matt. Thank you. All right. Uh, I know that it came up earlier when I was talking to Lauren. Uh, does anybody have any information about the Dakota block? As far as the name of the site? Lauren, do you want to.

00:17:13,800	Uh, I can, uh. Thank you. Chair angle. Uh, commissioners. So I can provide a little bit more information. Um, as you can see in the packet, uh, in that table, there’s two different site forms. Um, with the Dakota block kind of called out on there.

00:17:34,930	Um, I can’t remember which specific site form, but I know one of them. The consultant did mention that there was an issue with how it was previously recorded. I’m not sure if that’s necessarily true or not, but I would look at those two specifically to see if there’s any information you can provide the consultant for those. And, uh. Yes. Commissioner Sakariassan.

00:17:57,230	Do they they do have access to the Sanborn Maps, which should help them with a question, at least as far if they got any issue on the siting and whether it’s actually states in the a lot of times people don’t look at the index thing that tells

00:18:12,730	you what the name of the buildings are in some of those. So it may be that they have need to look at that again. I’m different. I, Commissioner Sakariassen chair, commissioners.

00:18:35,000	I believe the comment that they had made was that it that portion of the building was referred to as a different building, and they have identified it as part of the original Dakota Block building. Um, I’m not sure if that’s correct. So I. Ask for additional information. Commissioner Engel and commissioners, I believe portion of that building burnt down. And so a portion of it is new. And maybe it’s divided that way.

00:18:56,270	But okay, I’ll do some research and get back. Okay. Sounds good. Any other discussion about that? Okay. Moving on to the historic preservation plan. Sorry, I had to sing it. It’s finally happening.

00:19:26,230	Uh, chair Engel and commissioners, the historic preservation plan is meant to be a guiding document for activities conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission and a resource for the community on all things historic preservation. Um, the draft of the historic preservation has been made available on the city’s website for review and comment. Since mid-July. Um, the the public was provided with staff contact information, as well as a form where they could provide that feedback.

00:19:49,800	Um, as of today, I have not received any feedback. Um, regarding the preservation plan, either via email or the form. Um, if the if the Historic Preservation Commission provides corrections and changes with approval to the draft plan that’s provided.

00:20:12,570	Um, the historic preservation plan would be updated prior to presentation to the city commission for that final approval. Um, staff recommends approval of the historic preservation plan at this time. I so move. I’ll second. All right. Any discussion, feedback, questions? All right. Yeah. Good job. We got it across the finish line a year and a half late, but yeah, we got it. So thank you. It looks really good.

00:20:39,900	I think it’s gonna be very useful. So thank you. Uh, Darcy, call over. Commissioner Swanson. Yes, Commissioner. Nodland. Yes, Commissioner. Perrin. Yes, Commissioner. Sakariassen. Yes, Commissioner. Hull. Yes. And chair Engel. Yes. Yes. Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Oh. Was one for every year that we worked. All right. Um, moving on to the 2026 Historic Preservation Fund grant.

00:21:11,870	Uh, chair, angle and commissioner is the city of Bismarck. Was awarded a 2026 certified local government award under the Historic Preservation Fund grant of $37,800 to conduct the following projects. One is administration. This is mainly, uh, staff. Um, donated time under that one.

00:21:35,430	Um, the funding would actually, uh, work for the the project for the historic context study of downtown um, historic district plaques. And finally a historic building maintenance brochures. Um, all the information regarding what was submitted, uh, with that application for those projects is attached in the agenda.

00:21:58,530	Um, for the historic contact study for downtown staff anticipate setting up a meeting with Shippo to discuss their thoughts on the RFP for that project. Um, to stay on track, staff plans to include a draft of the RFP at the October 21st, 2026. Uh, Historic Preservation Commission meeting for this body’s review. Um, for the historic district plaque, Shippo has requested additional information on the installation of the plaques.

00:22:21,970	Um staff will work with them to identify the best option for those. Tentative timeline for that project is identified in that attachment. Um, the next step for the project would be to begin designing the plaques and selecting buildings for the plaques. As noted within that agenda item. Um, for the historic building maintenance brochures.

00:22:42,370	Shippo has also noted that those brochures should follow the Secretary of the Interior standards. Um, with all that information, staff has recommended three actions. Um, following each of the three projects under the grant. Um, the first would be to to determine which commissioner or commissioners would like to help with drafting the RFP for the historic context Study project.

00:23:06,730	The second would be to determine which commissioner or commissioners would like to help with designing and selecting buildings for the historic district plaque project. And finally, uh, the third item would be to determine which commissioners would like to help with drafting the historic building maintenance brochures. Who wants to volunteer? Yes. I volunteer for the building review.

00:23:34,470	The building review. Awesome. Which one is that? One, 2 or 3. Don’t remember which wasn’t. Taken off. He gets all three. It’s drafting the the RFP for the historic context study. Um, helping with the design and selecting buildings for the historic district plaques? Yes. For that one. Okay. Thank you. Cool. Um.

00:23:55,900	I’d volunteer to keep going on the first one. Okay. Thank you. I would volunteer to help draft with the. Brochures. Uh, amazing. I’d be willing to help out wherever necessary. All three? Uh, yeah. If someone needs help, I’m willing to help. Yeah. Okay, cool. All right, we’ll just put you down, and then whoever is.

00:24:25,800	Batter up. That sounds great. Thank you for volunteering. I see we have coloring books on here. Is that going to be real? Yeah. No. Yeah. Well, that’s what I was thinking. But there is no dollar amount associated with it. So. Uh, Commissioner Swanson. Chair. Commissioners. So that was originally applied for.

00:24:46,830	I did include it in there just to show that we didn’t receive any funding for that project. Um, unfortunately. Um, so if that would be a project to look to do in the future, that could be something to look at on staff’s time to provide back to this commission.

00:25:05,930	We just couldn’t use the historic preservation funds for those, but we can do them. Certainly. Um, I would think, yes. In the past we’ve had many projects where we haven’t used all of our funding.

00:25:23,430	So can that just stay on our agenda so that if some other project turns up, um, of these doesn’t use all the funding, then we came off forward with that. We can ask if we can move forward with. That. So good. Yeah. Lauren’s nodding. So I’m assuming that means it’s legal. But. Uh. All right. Sounds great. Any other, uh, suggestions or people that want to weigh in on any of those? No. Okay.

00:25:48,100	Lots of good stuff happening. That’s awesome. I like spending the money that we get. Um. Let’s see. Um, for other business, does anybody have any other business to bring up? I do have one point, but. I don’t know if. Any other business. Okay.

00:26:14,970	Um, so the, um, I’m going to turn this over to Amy Sakariassan, actually, and she’s going to fill everybody in on what’s happening at the federal level. And then I’ll tell you what’s happening with us. Good things, I’m sure. Thank you. Um, because I’m, uh, an advisor for the National Trust for Historic Preservation at the national level.

00:26:33,430	Um, they alerted us quite some time ago that, um, there are proposed changes that are under review at the national level with the Advisory Council on an Historic Preservation to, um, essentially gut the section 106. Um, uh, section of the um, Historic Preservation Act.

00:27:03,400	Um, it essentially affects so many people in, in this state because that is the buzz you can see from what our first page here. All the section 106 compliance projects that we’re asked to to participate on, because that’s the law. And it should be the law.

00:27:26,800	And it’s being the the wording is being removed to such an extent that, um, there are no there will no longer be consultation with, associated with concerned parties. Um, and unless some body decides that, that they’d like to do that. So the absolute hard guidelines are being thrown out and the language is being changed. For an example.

00:28:01,370	Um, the definition of a historic a historic site requires that it has experienced, um, a manmade structure at some point. And its in its existence. So gone are the view sheds that we’ve protected over the years. Gone are a number of different, um, historic preservation. Um, frameworks by which historic preservationists, by which cultural resource managers and all that have proceeded quite efficiently for 60 years.

00:28:34,500	Um, now the rules will all be are all being rewritten. Um, in response to that, groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, um, have sent out a war room status essentially for people in the cultural resource management world for whom this is their. This is their business. This is what what they do.

00:29:03,830	Um, and, um, to remind people that we still can comment. We don’t have a very long period of time to comment because the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which is the official federal government body that can make or break a project, for instance, um, um, they could have saved, um, they have saved the Badger-Two Medicine.

00:29:34,830	Um, cultural area in Montana, culturally used by the Blackfeet and many other Indian tribes. For years it was threatened with oil and gas exploration. Um, they say they they came in and they said, nope, can’t do that.

00:29:57,000	You know, and but this group of people, the advisory council is composed of people like the secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the interior, and all that level of people are the ones that sit on that board like this. And so their staff can’t move through them to do the right thing, because the people at the top are, are trying to rewrite the laws.

00:30:23,430	So, um, in support of, um, in support of the existing rules and the existing language that we have in, in the Historic Preservation Act regarding, um, the protection of our cultural resources, um, under the auspices of section 106, um, we we feel that the benefits that we need to show them that our community, we need to show the

00:30:52,770	advisory council that we use and have used section 106 to successfully protect our unique resources. If we don’t respond in that sort of of a way, then they can throw North Dakota off the map. They don’t have to worry about it.

00:31:21,570	But if we if a body such as this where Bismarck is a CLG, you know, we’re we’re bound by, um, section 106 and by our own century code, which follows 106. So, um, it seemed an appropriate time and appropriate for, um, this Historic Preservation Commission to say, no, this is doing good for our community.

00:31:46,770	This is protecting things that would not be protected otherwise. And so, um, we have have thought to draft a letter to that effect to, to send, um, saying, yeah, Bismarck thinks it’s working pretty well the way it is. Yeah. And I’m going to step in because we did write that letter.

00:32:11,230	Uh, we cited a lot of the things that are going on in the regulation, proposed changes for the ACH. Um, we documented how this community and this body itself is actually using section 106 and not just to protect and preserve, but just to document what’s happening to these properties before they could get destroyed. We all know that progression happens.

00:32:33,700	We know development has to happen and we all have to move forward, but we need to at least document that history before it gets destroyed or preserve it if it absolutely needs to be part of the community. Um, some of the points that we raised in that was the lack of consultation.

00:32:53,400	The, um, the voices of the communities that are not going to be heard anymore through these processes. Um, including our Native American partners, um, and community members. Um, and those are those are worrisome. We try and get the public involved. We want to raise awareness by the public.

00:33:14,270	The public asked for us as a commission to say, hey, who are we? Who? What’s Bismarck’s history? That’s what we’re trying to raise awareness of right now. And that’s why we were commissioned. Um, so the mayor signed the letter with us. Um, and it went to the CHP. Um, in support of of limiting these, these rule changes or not using those rule changes that were proposed.

00:33:34,500	Um, I would say that they are limiting people’s responses and that they’re they’re not allowing form letters to go in as individual responses. They’re only considering one of those form letters, the first one. Um, if another one comes in that looks exactly the same, they’re throwing all of those out.

00:33:53,300	So it’s limiting our voices and our ability to organize as an industry. Um, and this is a nonpartisan issue. There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats, both sides, um, and independent, uh, political entities that like preservation, that want that history.

00:34:13,130	And North Dakota has lots of tourism, and that’s what people come to see as some of those sites. So it’s in our best interest to, to, um, save what we can, um, out of the regulations for section 106. Uh, so I invite any of the commissioners to weigh in now on any of that.

00:34:29,370	Um, we’re going to get you a copy of the letter that just went out. Um, and, uh, anybody in the public that wants to respond or throw in their $0.02. We’d love to hear it, because we’re here for you. Know, in, in, um, by way of context for these laws, for section 106 and the idea of consultation and the whole development of the historic preservation laws in general.

00:34:55,700	Um, came about because people, the, the people in the United States didn’t like what happened with urban renewal, because there wasn’t a voice for the people. And neighborhoods were it. Everything was routed through in in that progress thing. But also things weren’t recorded. So things were lost that can know.

00:35:25,670	We can’t even re rebuild a narrative out of those things. Things that are really were really important were lost without the participation of the community. And so there was such an outcry that these rules were were developed. And so we’re seeing those, um, removed.

00:35:55,630	Well, the only and the thing that was the most important, not necessarily the buildings or the places or anything like the people’s voice and what is happening within their community. And if we are left out of the conversation, um, it’s not what people want. And, and it’s it’s hard to get it back once it’s gone.

00:36:19,030	It’s why I always say it’s really hard to interpret a building that isn’t there, but it’s it’s really hard to protect things when the, the law behind it doing that or even to even allow us to, to mitigate to to use some of these funds to, um, help us have a better idea of what is important, help us think about what’s important in our communities and in our in our

00:36:43,830	state. So I just think that that, uh, we need to to remember that this came about because we didn’t have it once. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh, just add Franklin, you know, listening where it’s like, you know, one of the things that gutted was indirect effects.

00:37:05,430	And I used the example of, you know, Lincoln’s, you know, in Springfield, Illinois. I worked on a project. Was near Lincoln’s house, and it was like we had to be very careful in how tall that communication tower was because of its visible ruins. The atmosphere of being on that street, which they preserved many buildings. But it’s not just the buildings.

00:37:20,430	If you can see a factory, you know, stovepipe behind it. It’s like, okay, that is, I no longer, you know, breaks the breaks, the feeling of the neighborhood. Uh, or example be like Gettysburg.

00:37:35,370	If you put a bunch of, you know, wind farm and power lines and cell towers all around, like, share the battlefield is preserved, but you no longer have a sense of being on the battlefield. You’re like, I’m in a field where a battle happened. Not, you know. Yeah. It it it breaks out the the feeling of something, not just the, the practical preservation.

00:37:52,130	If it’s all about practical preservation, let’s just build a warehouse and stick everything in there, and we can develop as much as we want. One of the other changes that are is proposed is, making a historic, uh, boundary say, um, say the South Capitol, um, determining whether, um, a the boundaries of a site are changing in the wording that they use so that, um, you could

00:38:23,900	no longer have, um, oh, say a thematic, um, nomination for, um, Queen Anne houses, because if they’re not next to each other or in the same neighborhood, they’re not connected, they’re not associated. So it’s throwing out some of the connective tissue for how we actually, um, are able to, to learn about some of these things.

00:38:56,430	You can’t the framework is is gone. And so that’s very that’s very unsettling. Um, because there are a lot of things that are not necessarily adjacent, but they’re still connected. But if you can’t prove that if they aren’t right next to each other. Yep. Can’t can’t count that as part of it.

00:39:16,630	So, you know, does the railroad tracks make a break in a neighborhood here? Well, by the definition that they’re looking at now. Well, yeah. Means south of the tracks can’t be related to north of the tracks because they’re not they’re separated. It’s like. I don’t know, it’s like some, some towns that have a river going through them.

00:39:39,400	Missoula is for one, the one side of town isn’t connected to the other side of the town by a barrier. Therefore, by the language that we’re seeing, you couldn’t have a district that spans the river. So it’s a very it’s a it’s a organizational nightmare for people trying to make district boundaries and things to do..

00:40:03,170	It will definitely affect how we we are doing cultural resource management and how us as an HPC will function. Uh, we’ll have to look at, at the changes that are final, resulting um, and see once if it changes how we we proceed. Commissioner Nodland.

00:40:25,100	Um, I guess as someone who has a lifetime career in historic preservation and whose livelihood depends upon it, I’m very aware of the of the situation. Um, as the vice chair of this commission, I don’t feel comfortable speaking to the letter since I haven’t seen it yet. And so I would appreciate seeing it before. We are asked to comment on it. Sure.

00:40:45,870	We will put it in the packet for next time, and you guys can weigh in if you want. Um, we moved fairly quickly because we’re trying to get the mayor’s signature and to get it in during the comment period. That’s also been greatly reduced as to what normally would be happening in these processes.

00:41:04,300	They’re they’re moving really fast to try and limit comments. So I understand that and I apologize to the Commission for not making sure that you guys had a copy of that letter. Uh, but the mayor signed it Monday. Is that right? Maybe something close to that. So, um, all. Right. Any other business? No. Okay.

00:41:28,630	Uh, hearing none, we will be considered adjourned. And the next meeting is will be September 16th. Um, right here in the Tom Baker meeting room.