Minot council rejects property‑tax exemption for child‑care centers; approves Shirley Court lighting, sets special election date

Acting Mayor Mark Janser presided over the Minot City Council’s regular meeting on Monday, April 21, where the council rejected a proposed property‑tax exemption for child‑care centers, authorized the city to fully fund replacement lighting on Shirley Court, and set a special election date to fill the vacant mayor’s seat.

The council also closed a public hearing and directed staff to proceed with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement planning process; heard a detailed presentation from Finance Director Dave Lakefield on a new, more transparent budget process; and received a report from a committee that reviewed the city’s retail liquor‑license cap.

The vote that drew the most public attention was on a proposed resolution to exempt child‑care centers from property tax. Dozens of residents, church leaders and child‑care operators spoke at the public hearing, urging the council to approve a temporary exemption to help centers cope with tight margins and workforce pressures. Opponents argued the city would simply shift the tax burden onto other property owners or that the exemption was too broad.

“Please do what I see is the right thing. Vote in favor of families, in favor of churches, and in favor of our future,” said Steve Oster, a lifelong Minot resident and church representative, during public comment. Sarah Saye, who identified herself as an owner of two child‑care centers in Minot, told the council that a sudden tax bill “would be a big burden” on low‑income families who rely on the centers and on centers’ already thin financial margins.

City Assessor Ryan Kamrowski told the council that his office would review exemption applications under North Dakota Century Code §57‑02‑08 and that the assessor would tax only the square footage used for child care if a facility did not qualify for an exemption. Kamrowski said his office would notify property owners in June, review submissions through the summer and that any change could surface on tax bills issued later in the year.

After roughly an hour of testimony and a longer council discussion, the motion to adopt the exemption resolution failed 3–3. The minutes record the failed motion as “Lehi motion failed 3 3 with dissents from Blessum, Fuller, and Samuelson.” Council members who spoke in favor described the proposal as a four‑year pilot to give child‑care operators breathing room to expand infant capacity and to measure results; opponents said the measure would shift costs to other taxpayers and risk creating an uneven playing field for small businesses.

Votes at a glance

- Property‑tax exemption for child‑care centers — Motion to adopt resolution failed 3–3 (dissent recorded from Aldermen Blessum, Fuller and Samuelson). Public hearing and multiple speakers recorded; council discussion focused on legal standards under North Dakota Century Code §57‑02‑08, likely fiscal impact to the general levy and whether the exemption should be time limited. (Motion introduced during item 7.2; vote recorded at the end of the public hearing.)

- Shirley Court street lighting — Council approved (unanimous) Alternative 2, directing the city to pay the full replacement cost rather than special‑assessing the six affected households. Council members said the poles and wiring date to about a century and that roughly $125,000 was the total project estimate; council discussion and a member’s calculation noted about $23,000 of that estimate were special‑assessment fees, leaving roughly $82,000 as the direct cost to the city. Supporters described the work as basic public safety infrastructure and argued assessments would be unfair to a small number of households. (Item 7.1; motion passed unanimously.)

- CDBG entitlement public hearing — Council closed the public hearing and instructed staff to proceed with the administrative steps to develop the city action plan for the 2025 Community Development Block Grant allocation; the motion to close the hearing and proceed passed unanimously. Staff noted the city became an entitlement community in 2023 and must hold public hearings to prepare the action plan. (Item 5; motion passed unanimously.)

- Consent agenda, including auction services using a city‑employee–owned service — Council approved the consent agenda items and separately approved item 6.14 (auction services) after brief discussion; both motions passed unanimously. The council noted staff recommended the city use the bidder that could provide on‑site live auction service. (Item 6; motion passed unanimously.)

- Special election to fill mayoral vacancy — Council set the special election date for Aug. 5; the motion passed unanimously. (Item 7.3; motion passed unanimously.)

Budget process presentation and city fiscal outlook

Finance Director Dave Lakefield told the council the city plans a new budgeting approach focused on transparency, upfront council guidance and data‑driven scenarios. Lakefield said department heads will produce a flat budget for 2026 and two alternative scenarios: a 3% cut and a 3% increase, plus three‑year projections. He described tools to publish budget details online and allow council members and residents to drill into line‑item data.

“This process will help us document what the impacts are,” Lakefield told the council. He said a flat budget for some departments would require “pain” and that a 3% cut would “greatly impact the operations of my department,” but staff would show the likely impacts so the council could choose priorities with clear tradeoffs.

Liquor‑license cap review

Council members received a report from an ad hoc committee that reviewed the city’s retail liquor‑license cap and draft ordinance updates. The committee presented four broad approaches: keep the cap; remove the cap and make no payment to current license holders; remove the cap and provide a buy‑out or credit to existing holders; or remove the cap but retain a high transfer value requirement. The city obtained an outside legal opinion that removing the cap is legally permitted and that the city’s risk is limited if it removes the cap without compensating current holders, though the committee emphasized options to protect current license holders’ expectations.

Committee chair Alderman Paul Pittner presented a compromise concept discussed by committee members that would: reduce the new license fee to a modest amount (for example, $5,000), provide an upfront, limited payment (committee example: $25,000) to existing license holders and attach a temporary waiver of renewal‑fee increases for a fixed period. The proposal is advisory; council members requested more time and asked staff to schedule additional hearings so current license holders can testify before council action.

Process notes and next steps

- City Assessor Ryan Kamrowski said assessor staff will contact property owners in June to request documentation for exemption review; review could extend into August and may affect tax notices later this year. Kamrowski advised his office would tax only the square footage actually used for child care if an exemption is denied.

- The council heard a routine mayoral proclamation declaring April 25 as Arbor Day in Minot and noted community park events.

- A number of citizens used the personal‑appearance portion of the agenda to raise concerns about police conduct, accessibility at city facilities, the proposed police station cost and other local policy issues. Those remarks were received as public comment; council members encouraged speakers to follow up with staff when factual clarifications are needed.

What the council will take up next

Council members indicated they will reintroduce the liquor‑license ordinance changes at a future meeting after additional outreach to current license holders. Staff will continue the CDBG public‑engagement schedule and will present the new draft budgeting tools and initial projections in upcoming budget workshops.

Ending

The council adjourned after motions to approve the consent agenda and set the special election date. Council members asked residents to provide written or emailed comments on ordinance drafts and committee proposals before the next readings.