Committee Minutes

Grand Forks City Council Service/Safety Standby Committee
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 5:30 p.m.____________________

The Service/Safety Standby Committee met on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 at 5:37 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Chairman Kreun presiding. Present at roll call were Kreun, Bjerke, Grandstrand, Gershman (ex-officio).

Others present included: Howard Swanson, Hazel Sletten, Jane Williams, Steve Burian, Chief Packett, Al Grasser, Don Shields, Todd Feland, Dean Rau, Mark Walker, Council Member Christensen.

1. Matter of ordinance relating to prohibition of texting while driving and amending
sections re. definitions and penalty.________________________________________
Chairman Kreun reported we have an ordinance that has been proposed and passed at
first reading by the council and was brought back to this committee for further review, have had one or two ordinances revamped to look at and several people present who wish to speak.

Grandstrand stated that with two police departments that will enforce these laws and not having
any direct control over the UND Police Department is in favor of passing the law re. texting, and in the future would like to look at dealing with distracted driving (reading newspapers, etc.)

Duaine Espegard stated that there is no point in the City legislating this law as it is not
enforceable, that he doesn't believe that it is safe driving while texting - that we have liberties in
this country and some of those liberties aren't safe but doesn't think the City ought to be taking them away; his stand on this is that you shouldn't put straight ban on texting - that a $30 fine is not going to stop anybody from texting. He stated another area that he is concerned about is the liability issue - that when you do get stopped, maybe an accident and may have to prove that you weren't texting. He stated that his blackberry can do 10 things (e-mail, look up address, find our where Mpls. is, do navigation, etc.) and making a law that there is one thing he can't do, not enforceable, that if texting and he is stopped, shut it off and no record of that - point is that education is the only way to stop people from texting - City can take lead in doing that.

Gershman stated he acknowledges that it is difficult to enforce, and that this is educational, - that
if the City passes an ordinance that prohibits texting that will get more news and City will say it doesn't condone this, that $30 is not punitive but if get a few of those, affects your insurance rate. We have a lot of laws that don't get obeyed but doesn't believe that shouldn't pass laws just because we think people will break them, pass them because we know that people are doing things that are endangering others.

Chief Packett stated need probable cause to make a stop vs. just stopping somebody for educational purposes but if observed somebody with the hand held device and using it and doing some type of receiving or sending message, etc., and if observe that and make a traffic stop, either do warning, verbal or cite to Municipal Court - need to get legal counsel as to whether we would seize the device or not. He stated would want some basis for actually stopping otherwise get into somebody's constitutional rights if stopping them and warning them on something that is not a violation of a law.

Christensen stated that they do have procedures where they set up sobriety checks and stop all
vehicles that come through, and where is probable cause. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that the courts have held that sobriety check point is not an individualized suspicion or impropriety and that can be done; the difference here is if going to stop an individual vehicle, believes do need at least a reasonable suspicion of some traffic violation. He stated we have a care required ordinance on the books. Christensen stated he was asking for advice as to how we could establish a policy and rather than pass this law, why wouldn't council have a resolution asking our legislative reps. to move for the passage of a State law. Swanson stated that the ND Legislature declined to adopt a texting ordinance in the last session, (also 2005).

Carma Hanson, coordinator for Safe Kids-Grand Forks, stated this law is enforceable, need to say its illegal, often times our laws set a guideline for what is a safe practice and lot of people who look to that behavior. There is not another distracted driving activity that rises to the level that texting driving does. This is an activity that rises to the level of driving while intoxicated and to not pass this law because you can't agree on this ordinance because whether it should include reading a newspaper, etc. would be travesty to the community. If there is a law and defined, it makes it easy campaign to educate the community - simple to put up signs, posters or programs re. texting within the city limits is illegal and easy way to make an educational campaign. She urged the council to pass this ordinance.

Relating to enforceability of the ordinance, Mr. Swanson stated if the question is can the police department legally stop somebody, write a citation and can the City prosecute a texting while driving violation, the answer is yes; that will we be 100% successful in all prosecutions, the answer is no. That when you hear the phrase that it is not enforceable, may be true from a practical level, and question is if there is enough evidence for an officer to come in, give the testimony and for a court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a violation, that will be very factually dependent upon the case.

There was some discussion whether stopping somebody and taking phone was invasion of
privacy - or if violation of a city ordinance go on their record and cause any points. Swanson stated that if they adopt the ordinance with the fine as he recommended of $20.00, would not immediately go on the record; but the council's recommendation for a $30.00 fine may go on record. He stated that if find that texting supposes a risk either to the driver, the passenger, the pedestrians or other drivers, you have the authority and believes there is a factual basis to adopt an ordinance that simply prohibits texting while driving - the difference in the level of proof between the two types of ordinance are in texting while driving prohibition, you have to prove that one was operating a car and texting while operating; under the distracting driving, you have to prove they were operating the vehicle, doing some activity and that activity is likely to lead to injury to person or damage to property. From that thinks it is a policy question as to whether you think it is warranted or not.
He stated his office is not recommending the broad distracting ordinance - that he doesn't believe that every violator is going to simply pay a fine and ignore what occurred; and their recommendation was to keep it below $20 so that it didn't impact the prosecution of traffic offenses by allowing a jury trial to be demanded; that not everyone that appears even in a jury trial necessarily has an attorney. Christensen stated his issue is if someone violated so there is consequence and second time, more of a consequence, convicted first time $30, second $50 or $100 and that is what the State laws do. Swanson stated going beyond the normal scheme of fines in State law poses risk so it will all depend upon what level that you are going to impose it. - non-criminal offense if under $20.00, anything over $20.00 is quasi criminal offense which allows a jury trial, etc. If want to have a more expended penalty for a second time that is a policy decision and there is a reason for us to defend that.

Swanson stated by passing the law if you think that there is reason to do so, the police department will in good faith enforce the law based upon their discretion which doesn't mean that everyone gets pulled over and believes his office will prosecute where warranted regardless of what the sentiments are publicly and will follow the direction of the council.

Motion by Grandstrand to move the ordinance forward making a recommendation to
change the fine from $30.00 to $20.00. Kreun seconded the motion to approve and move
forward to council. Motion carried 2 to 1, Bjerke voted against the motion.

2. Amendment #1 to Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 6144, Federal Proj. SU-6-081(068)940, Storm Station 187 Replacement, 32nd Ave.S. and Columbia
Road.__________________________________________________________________
Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, reported this is amendment to consultant's agreement
for design work, there were number of changes to the scope of work, and the work was approved
by staff during the project and their opinion that the work was justified and recommending approval. Bjerke raised some questions re. piping and used reinforced concrete pipe and if that was normal material; Walker reported they specified reinforced concrete only because proven to be reliable and durable; however, the DOT required them to consider alternate pipes, but the project was bid and the bidder was allowed to use different pipe types but in end the contractor selected the reinforced concrete pipe. During construction there were some problems with bank stability and that there was not a change order issued for that as contractor did not ask for any additional compensation, he rectified the problem at his expense. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve the recommendation and refer to council. Motion carried.

3. Bids for Project No. 6493, English Coulee Cutoff.
Walker reported that this project to eliminate or minimize some problems at the English
Coulee pump station, there are some large sluice gates, 10x12's, that need to be closed and continually get a buildup of silt under the gates and important that we be able to close gates during a flood event. Intent is to make a small cutoff on the Coulee that would reduce the slope of the coulee and should eliminate or minimize the deposit of silt under the sluice gates. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve the recommendation and refer to council. Motion carried.

4. Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement for Project. No. 6581, Federal Proj. SU-6-002(102)910 and SU-6-986(104)108 Downtown Signals Upgrade.__________
Walker stated this is proposed agreement with an engineering firm to do beginning
engineering work on a federal aid project to upgrade the traffic signals in the downtown area. Whenever they use federal money they are required to do a concept report so there is some preliminary engineering work that is required to be done and that is the purpose of this agreement - first step in establishing the project funds and getting this project underway and view for federal funding. Gershman stated concern with issue - that we can move the traffic through Grand Forks and then gets bottled up in East Grand Forks and can we address that. Kreun asked if they could work with MPO and EGF and GF to see if any connection between the two. Walker stated he wasn't able to answer that now but can do some research and provide with an e-mail, but cautious about tying that into this project because we are working with DOT. Bjerke moved that there be a consensus that we want to have that and work with that because it does defeat the purpose, and because of the amount of money we are spending. Bjerke and Grandstrand moved to approve the recommendation and refer to council. Motion carried.

5. Resolution authorizing mayor to sign Notice of Intent and Adopt Resolutions
to create DeMers Ave.West Wye Quiet Zone and DeMers Ave. East Wye Quite Zone._______________________________________________________________
Jane Williams, traffic engineer, reported this is their third and fourth quiet zones, that
originally had looked at these two crossings and also N. 55th St. crossing but when received
information from the Federal Railroad Agency that these crossings are on three separate lines and have to be three separate quiet zones and are proceeding with the west wye and east wye; and not proceeding with the N. 55th Street as still waiting for BNSF to give us a cost estimate on the equipment. Originally were told that they were going to have install some equipment at these two crossings, however, the MPO had requested and they concurred that a peer review which required the Federal Railroad Agency that BNSF and the State to look at our request that we did not have to install additional equipment at those two. MPO is continuing with the other study and also with the Mill spur. This is basically the same as have seen on the downtown and Glasston and will proceed with the notice of intent and proceed with each of the crossings

Bjerke stated they have $200,000 set aside for quiet zones and following years and would like
more information, and what is source of money. Al Grasser, city engineer, stated they are anticipating that when they receive the numbers from BN about what it is going to take to initiate all the quiet zones in Grand Forks and probably access the State money; but things keep moving every week and when did the budget a few weeks ago may not be current as of today. The intent is and they are trying to pick up all the quiet zones now that they can do without costing the City any money. They are trying to identify the ones that will cost money and how much it will be, and then go to first priority which is to access all of the State money that we can but that is limited to $75,000 per intersection so if it costs $130,000 or $150,000 to upgrade an intersection will still cost the City another $75,000 per intersection. Our second priority is to finish those that we can access the State money. He stated that even though they are able to get the quiet zone going at no cost, still have to review those annually by the Railroad and the State and trying to build some redundancy so we gain points so that a little bit of change in traffic flow doesn't knock us off the quiet zone list and having to come to the council in emergency basis that we need x-money to get our point ratings back up and that is what is reflected in the budget to build in that redundancy.

Williams reported the State money that is available is $225,000 but that you can only make
one application for it, and they are doing whatever they can now until they get all the numbers together and submit one package so it is in the State as far as what we need at each crossing and then go forth.

Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to approve and move forward to city council. Motion
carried.

6. Specs. and sole source purchase for total station upgrade, Police Dept.
Chief Packett stated this is sole source request, that they purchased a Total Station Tripod
a couple years ago that allows them to do 2D mapping of crime scenes and traffic accidents, etc. basically a laser device that helps in measuring and photographing, and the upgrade will allow hem to do 3-D which will allow them to present 3D animation for court and do recreations of crime scenes and traffic collisions, etc. Reason for requesting sole sourcing is that this is the same company that manufactured the original tripod and 2D software and this would be a match. Funding source, received JAG grant in the amount of $9,400.00 and the quote from the sole source is $6,845.00. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

7. Specs. and sole source purchase for copperhead robotic system - Police.
Chief Packett reported this is sole source request and allows SWAT team, which
is a regional response team, to purchase an infrared camera system that is mobile and would allow the SWAT team to move the device after dark into tactical situation and make observations that would be wireless to signal back to a TV screen to ascertain what the issues are. There is $17,000 available via Homeland Security grant and purchase through the Copperhead Robotic System Company as they do the compatible equipment for the hookup for their existing equipment and bid is $16,995.00. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

8. Specs. and sole source purchase - outdoor range knee wall covering - Police.
Chief Packett reported that with the recent paving of the range the curb berm in front of
the knee wall was removed and now have a solid concrete wall that wouldn't be conducive to a safe range that protects the basis of the target line and any electronics that would have for turning targets, and this would put up panels in front of the knee wall and request sole source through the same company that manufactured the current target systems. Funding source is $300.00 out of GFPD General Fund equipment account. Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

9. Public Works - Streets Div. bids for salt and sand for ice control.
Todd Feland, director of Public Works, asked that they accept the low bids for salt, North
American Salt Company out of Golden Park, KS, $30,495.00; and for sand, R & R Dirt & Gravel,
Grand Forks, $45,000. Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

10. Public Works - Streets Div. bids for tandem truck, box and hoist.
Feland asked that they accept low bid for truck from Nelson International, Fargo,
$92,642.69, and as part of the bid specs. asked to replace 3 trucks they use during the summer to
haul sweeping debris and misc., and in fall use them for leaves and in winter haul snow; and rather than this have a tandem truck with monies in budget. Motion by Grandstrand and Bjerke to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

11. Public Works - Streets Div. bid for trailer mounted air compressor.
Feland reported they use air compressors for street maintenance projects during the
summer and asking to accept bid of Acme Electric in the amount of $11,100 (including
trade-in of 1979 air compressor). Motion by Bjerke and Grandstrand to approve and move forward to city council. Motion carried.

12. Progress overview of Water Treatment Plant Project, funding and pilot testing - Information only.______________________________________________________
Kreun stated that this is a huge project for the city, and wanted to keep this group as well
as full city council informed of where we are at and what doing.

Feland stated last update was last spring when going into piloting, are starting to pilot, update on
funding and get some input. He stated their team includes Steve Burian, CEO, and Sean Gaddie, manager, of Advanced Engineering, local consultants on this project.

Hazel Sletten, water superintendent, presented progress report on where we are at as of today
relating to the Water Treatment Plant Project, will review timeline, pilot testing that has
been started at the plant and will end presentation with information re. funding. She stated they did update in March and briefed council committee on plant tours that they did in looking at other treatment plants and their technology, that they came back in May with the contract agreement for the pilot testing, and this is our quarterly report and will be seeing them again in November and in February and wrapping it up in May. She stated they are on schedule.
She reported they did the pilot study kick-off and reviewed goals with water treatment plant staff as wanted full buy-in from everybody that is going to be involved with it during the pilot process as well as those who might be operating it in the future. She reported their Project Team: includes City of Grand Forks, 24/7 operation, and operators involved in monitoring things at night; graduate student from University of North Dakota Civil Engineering and his professor; Advanced Engineering and Malcom Pirnie which is a national engineering firm - all providing insight.
She reviewed Goals of the Study including seasonal variability and affects on treatment technologies they are testing, get good information on demand for chemical in this process as well as use that information to size a feed-system in a future plant and good numbers for operation and maintenance forecasting. They wanted to verify the effectiveness of the treatment technologies they have chosen to pilot, evaluate the upstream treatment and what is happening in intake and pretreatment and how it might affect downstream, and evaluate disinfection by-products in future regulations. They reviewed goals with the ND Dept. of Health, they approved our process and procedure and said to make sure you pilot test for a long enough period of time. She also reviewed technologies they have decided to test.
Regarding the pilot study kickoff had everybody on site at the plant and went through background, treatment process objectives, defined members roles and came up with plan and established schedule. They will test through the four seasons and testing continually through three phases and do each of these three phases in each of the seasons outlined, effort to test and go through the variability of Grand Forks' source waters. Phase 3 is challenge testing and they are going to be checking for taste and odor removal, will be changing some of the chemistry in this treatment process and not cause any damage to our distribution system, maintain our water quality and distribution.
Moving forward with pilot study, which started on August 12, flow is going continuously through the skids, doing monitoring and testing, daily checks, weekly data and analyses by the ground team and then do monthly progress team where they bring in experts to look at what they are doing, and then be back with quarterly report and culmination is to come up with water treatment plant preliminary design recommendations and cost estimates.
She stated they would like to open and offer tours, there are a number who question the need for a treatment plant, schedule tours when convenient for the public and make arrangements for groups who might want to come in, and the other part is the challenge test where they will spike some taste and odor causing compounds into our pilot water, not the treatment plant and are looking for volunteers to come to the plant when they are doing that and check our effectiveness (won't taste but will sniff).

Todd Feland reviewed funding - that the $103.4 estimate has increased from $102.8, and breakdown of the number: Pilot testing, $800,000; Facility Plan/Prelim. Eng. $1 million; Eng.Design/Legal/Adm. $10.4 million; and Construction est. $76 million; including 20% Contingency, $15.2; for total of $103.4 He stated as going from pilot testing to prelim. engineering and estimate will become more refined. He stated when approved funding agencies tried to escalate what cost was over time and increased that 4% compounded to the middle of construction period.
He reviewed funding agencies as follows: 50% local, $62,332,216; 25% State and 25% Federal, $31,212,294 each for total of $124,756,804, escalated amount. They have submitted to the State and are on the list, met with the Governor, and have a $1.7 million ask in the next biennium and 2011 and 2013, and amount requesting will be higher. He stated they also met with Senator Dorgan as part of funding request and asking $2.29 million, and approx. month ago heard that we did get an appropriation from the committee that he chairs of $1.5 million. He noted that those requests also escalate over time, things are changing in Washington and will see how successful we are. In 2012 would ask for the $793,694 which is balance of the $2.3 minus the $1.5 million; and ramp up in construction from 2014 to 2017. He stated they have been in contact with Rep. Pomeroy and Senator Conrad, that Senator Conrad's office has contacted them and wants to be kept involved and informed about our projects; and will continue working with Senator Conrad and who replaces Senator Dorgan.
He stated that when City worked on expansions at the water treatment plant in the past has used utility rates, sales tax measure. He stated there are issues of wastewater coming up, stormwater with new detention ponds, streets where there are a lot of needs and this is significant project for the city, and as continue telling Congressional delegation and Governor's Office this is a 100-year project - our current site is over 100 years old. The next step in 2011 is funding development, and part of Advanced Engineer's contract is to work on funding development with us - have been successful so far on federal level and will continue to work on State level, and part of that was to work on rate analysis, assumption analysis - have talked with Mr. Burian about what other cities are doing to help fund infrastructure issues (Fargo, Sioux Falls, Minot, Bismarck).

Ms. Sletten reported that she had attended the Joint Meeting of the State Water Commission and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District Board , that they meet to discuss municipal, rural and industrial funding allocations for the state. She presented copy of the agenda for the meeting which lists partial requests and the City has made the official list that was in front of the committee. There is money available, $198 million and of that $192 million had been approved and only $39 million had been spent but the rest was allocated. The agenda showed a number of projects and Grand Forks' Water Treatment Facility is on the agenda and presented it as a phased project. One project is the West Area Water Supply where proposing $128 million worth of projects and if state oil development continues that could reach as high as $150 million. There were couple projects that are going to come out of the $5 million that is left over, one for Tri-Valley a link to City of Lakota and Trail Water Users to complete project in their area. The next Water Commission meeting September 1, Thursday, but not sure if funding will be on that agenda but they are continuing to meet on funding.

The question was raised that if there is any chance that as a part of the Devils Lake project, the downstream communities will get additional dollars to deal with whatever impacts are from that water. Sletten stated there is potential and knows there are a lot of needs and Grand Forks is more distant than some of the immediate downstream users - that Valley City, Lisbon and Enderlin might have more immediate needs and in addition Fargo is upstream of us as well. We do have two water sources, Red Lake River and Red River, and that is something that she monitors and watch comments. Currently we use about 80% water from the Red Lake River and 20% from the Red.

Kreun stated that drought conditions will be more of a concern per salinity than if we have normal conditions and if it comes to point that they are releasing water from Devils Lake through Sheyenne, that is where our main concern would be as low level water and drought conditions. Sletten stated she has been utility superintendent since 1991 and we have had rainy seasons since 1993, and drought experience is still outside of our window of operations.

Kreun stated this is one of the biggest projects other than the levee system that the City is going to be involved with and from his aspect as chair of this committee is to keep this group informed of these types of changes but doesn't think there is anything that is off the table on how we want to look at this project. As indicated in the budgeting process we are close to our rate schedule that we set up 8 years ago, and we anticipated some of this but numbers are going to change to some degree and wants this committee to keep that in mind and if have ideas on funding mechanisms, Todd is willing to listen.

Feland stated that when they met with the Governor's Office and delegation we emphasized that if we had to pay for this ourselves as a city, would be impact on our rates - any doable partnership that we can offsets that; that in Grand Forks we do have a significant user, J.R. Simplot, and on water and wastewater they are 25% to 30% of our enterprise in both of those. We do have large enterprises from the State, i.e., North Dakota Mill, University of North Dakota, and in any case if the State can do to help offset some of those costs of the state-run entities would be beneficial. We also have a contract with the Grand Forks Air Force Base and supply water to them and that is one area in the funding development we want to look at that agreement. They assisted in some of the costs of expansion of our treatment plant and want to bring them in as partners, too. Kreun state that we have reached out to East Grand Forks as well and doesn't know where we are with that at this point in time and will continue to do that, also with the change in members of the rural water system, we may want to reach out to that group as well and see where we can partner up and if ability to do some of that as well., and will continue to explore those avenues.

Sletten stated that they have been planning since 1996 on different components of the water system, addressed the intakes, distribution tie-backs, water storage and soon the water treatment plant is the one piece of the system that is our current bottled - been working on this for long time. And when other monies came in after the flood and because we were ready with our plan, were actually able to build some of the storage and upgrade the intake from those funds.

Kreun stated in the funding some of the components that were installed, i.e., transmission lines for the clearwell and those issues will be coming off. Feland stated the City probably invested little over $15 Million after the flood in intakes, reservoirs and water infrastructure, most of that was done between 2000 and 2004 and City had about 50% share on that and even if this project is over, we're saying 2017. Part of our funding analysis and data and looking at our debt service, working with finance and our consultant to see how we can smooth this out and into the future; that smoothing qualities have been in place and continue with budgeting process; once get behind in capital budgets it takes years to get back on track just as with equipment at public works department and take just as long or longer with our buildings and our water treatment, wastewater, lift stations, transfer stations, etc. that we have to maintain and that is why he wants to keep this group very well informed of what is taking place with this project.

Bjerke asked who from the City is going to be involved in discussion at the State level and assumes we need to have discussion of that as that will impact what we do here because of the oil money plus surplus the State is sitting on - that it is not too early to begin a plan of how we are going to fund this over time because we're going to have some massive rate increases - and would like to see where we are going to go this year with the legislative committee, etc. - need to start putting things in order as far as timeframe.
He asked when the last big water plant was built in ND - and it was noted that Fargo built one in mid-90's, Minot is collecting one-cent sales tax paying for new water treatment facility or addition. Bjerke asked if have cost figures, trying to get handle on the $124 million and if we can find out how many gallons they treat and cost and what we are doing.
He asked question re. Devils Lake, make sure we have a plan if we get that water and feels we will get that water. Feland stated if we were going to predict the Devils Lake water were going to come here - that we have the Red Lake River and can blend - Valley City has committed over $10 million to provide an augmented treatment system in their city because of the impacts of Devils Lake water, and suspects Fargo is going after something, West Fargo is going to ask for something in that regards and we do have some benefits in Grand Forks that other cities don't have, and on the other hand treatment and the quality of treatment is big issue throughout the whole state and can see that on the list and thinks we need to be part of the discussion on this whole issue and when the State Legislature meets they see those demands and can shift and start spending money that we have and invest in long term assets of which the water treatment system is one of the best long term assets the State could invest in, and hopefully we can be part of that solution as we are only asking for 25% from the State and thinks other entities are asking for lot higher percentage than we are trying to.

Kreun stated good question was who is going to represent us because we have to have representation at the State Water Commission, and that along with Hazel, Todd's and Steve's company and Al, somebody from our council should be involved in these meetings and at least be there; we will have representatives from the Grand Forks area and extremely important but also the City has to be represented at just about at every one of these meetings by an elected official. That having been there and watched what takes place, comments that are made, we have to be at the table - that we are going to get the quarterly update on this; official meetings are monthly. Feland stated that Advanced Engineering is well connected on a lot of these projects that you see on the list, and are a full service firm that can get us to the table and run the financial on that and have been very good at that. Bjerke stated that if give him notice and script will try and stay on that. Kreun stated that you don't have to make a big presentation but a few comments to support either Steve's group or our staff that you are there supporting them, or anyone of our council members, have to set a precedent of being there..

ADJOURN

It was moved by Bjerke and seconded by Grandstrand to adjourn. Motion carried. (Meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.)

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk