Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eta Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bismarck and Burleigh County continue talks over extraterritorial area after days of public comment
Summary
Residents from the Northeast extraterritorial area urged exclusion from Bismarck'9s ETA at a joint Burleigh County–Bismarck meeting; city staff presented a Together 2045 map and the working group agreed to keep negotiating changes but no boundary was altered.
A joint meeting of Burleigh County and the City of Bismarck on ETA boundaries ended with continued negotiations after residents raised concerns and city staff described a proposed map tied to the city'9s Together 2045 comprehensive plan.
Residents who live in the northeast extraterritorial area (ETA) told the commission they want to be removed from the ETA, citing burdensome permitting, unclear enforcement, and rules that restrict accessory buildings on large parcels. "I think the city should focus on the city," resident Robert Field said during public comment. Heidi Sherrado, who said she owns 37 acres on TJ Lane, told the panel that proposed boundary changes would exclude small lots while leaving larger parcels within the ETA and would "lock down the land" for decades; she asked to be excluded from the ETA. "I'm respectfully requesting to be excluded from the ETA," Sherrado said.
City planning staff presented the proposed ETA map, which is part of the Together 2045 growth-phasing plan. Daniel, a city planning staff member, explained the map'0s color coding and said the plan differentiates priority urban service areas (shorter-term growth), future urban service areas (roughly 25 years) and urban reserve (roughly 50 years). Daniel said hashed areas on the map are being proposed for removal from the ETA because the city does not anticipate growth there in the same planning horizons. "We would propose and are proposing in our current draft to simply mirror the county in that respect," Daniel said when describing a draft change to accessory-building standards that would match the county's 4% lot-area allowance in rural residential zones.
Several speakers described practical impacts. Caitlin Bolak said she was referred back and forth between county and city offices when seeking guidance about tree setbacks and fence damage and asked to be removed from the ETA. Resident Travis Jensen asked the commissions to move meeting start times later, saying the current 4 p.m. start limits working residents' ability to attend. Gibbs Township supervisor Gerald Miller recounted local planning history and infrastructure problems in older subdivisions and repeated the argument made by multiple commenters that ETA governance affects residents who cannot vote for city officials; Miller called the arrangement "unconstitutional" as it governs people who do not vote for the city.
Commissioners and county officials discussed options. County staff raised the possibility of the city vacating ETA territory or forming a regional planning and zoning commission under state law; city officials said vacating the ETA is unlikely and argued the ETA is a tool to manage growth corridors and infrastructure. County and city staff said a working group has met and will continue to coordinate details such as updating comprehensive plans and zoning and handling projects already in process; staff named participants including Mitch Flanagan, Casey Inam, Marcus Hall and Dan Triock. County-side officials warned of potential costs if the county assumed ETA administration and estimated that permitting and planning revenue would not offset those costs, citing figures in the meeting suggesting roughly $100,000 in current revenue against potential county costs approaching a quarter-million dollars.
No formal boundary change or vote on the ETA was taken at the meeting. Commissioners approved the meeting minutes by roll-call vote before the ETA discussion, and the joint meeting adjourned after staff and commissioners agreed to continue work through the established working group and to post maps publicly.
Votes at a glance: A motion to approve the minutes "as presented" was made and seconded; Auditor Splenskowski, Mayor Schmitz, Commissioner Bakken and Administrator Tamanek voted yes and the motion passed.
Next steps: The planning commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the city'9s growth-phasing map this month and county-city staff will continue working through logistics and possible map adjustments.
