Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
­Monday, November 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, November 14 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Glassheim - 1.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown introduced students from Awano, Japan who have been here for about 10 days with the Exchange Program and will be leaving on Wednesday morning; and introduced host families who introduced students living with them.

Mayor Brown commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:

He announced that Grand Forks is sending a delegation to Biloxi, MS at the end of this week, the delegation will include Congressman Pomeroy, himself, Council President Gershman, Council Member Kreun and one of our recovery coordinators Ken Vein and make contact with the Biloxi mayor and recovery team, and do reconnaissance on how they are doing and how we as a community can help now and in the long term recovery, and people from the community have made it known that we want to echo the generosity we experienced from all around the nation after our 1997 flood. It will be an honor to represent the heart of the community in conveying this message to the people of Biloxi.
Congratulations to the Central Knights for their championship season that concluded on Saturday and congratulate Coach Berg.
Congratulations and good luck to UND and area teams still fighting their way in the playoffs.
There is a public meeting re. 47th Avenue South this Thursday, November 17, at 7:00 p.m. in the city council chambers, and the main questions from previous public meetings the issues of safe crossing for children at Cherry Street, the location of the multi-use path, which phase of the project is to be completed first, whether the project should proceed and special assessment costs.
There is a work session planned for this Wednesday, November 16, at 5:30 p.m. so they can attend the MPO Land Use Planning meeting.
He stated that they made the interim appointments of Brad Gengler as city planner; and Rick Hanson as city electrician.
He stated today was the first annual Empty Bowl event at St. Michael's Church put on by the Society of St. Vincent DePaul and that he and Mayor Stauss painted bowls and thanked community for supporting this Empty Bowl event, that over 300 people attended at $10 donation, and thanked people who support that.

2.0 Canad agreement.
It was noted that materials were sent out under separate cover.
Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated he could answer question re. impact of the agreement, that there are four primary effects of this agreement should it be accepted and approved: 1) there is a new entity established and that the City is consenting to a new entity taking over the lease, and that the original tenant with Canad Corporation of Manitoba Ltd. dba Canad Inns - Alerus Center, and they have established a new entity that the lease is going to be assigned to, Canad Inns Destination Center - Grand Forks L.P; and they are consenting to that assignment to the new entity and releasing the former original tenant from any obligations of the lease. The second major effect is that we are agreeing that the lessee (new limited partnership) can assign as collateral to support the mortgage, their interest in the lease. The next simply identifies that we are approving the financing structure and in particular the lending consortium by Sterns; The third major significance to the agreement is that there are some changes in the priorities from the lease as it is originally written, and if this agreement is signed and approved the lender will have up to the point that the mortgage is paid in full certain priorities not otherwise held by the tenant, and that they are taking priority for the hotel and aquatic center improvements, rents and leases, intangibles, equipment and materials place by the tenant, insurance proceeds in the event of damage, etc. For all practical purposes this would allow the lender to step in and substitute for the tenant if there is a fault or non-performance on the part of the tenant. The fourth major change is a continuation of what he just commented on and that we are allowing the lender to maintain that priority in receipt of insurance if paid or condemnation awards. That we are agreeing that if there are any notices or defaults that have to be identified under the terms of the original lease, not only does the City agree to give that information to the new tenant, but also agree to give that information of notices to the lender.

He stated there are a few things in reviewing the document that he might ask to have some modifications but substantively thinks the agreement is in generally good form, the primary things that you do need to be aware of is the lender will take some additional rights to certify priorities such as insurance, condemnation awards, the ability to step in and conduct the lease in event of default, that doesn't exist under the current lease. Those are provisions maintained in agreement with this nature for the financing package.

Rick Duquette, administrative coordinator, reported they had meetings this morning with reps. of the contractors as well as city staff, and there is a utility relocation meeting scheduled for this coming Wednesday morning and a pre-construction meeting scheduled for the following Monday. There were details discussed about initial construction start and utility relocates.

A rep. of Canad Inns stated he had been hoping to be here for a long time to do this, and this is a step in the process of confirming their financing arrangements and echoes Mr. Duquette's comments and have been here in last several weeks getting details in place and will be here in next several days to lock it in and by Wednesday should have a firm date in mind; and introduced some of their reps. from financing as well as legal team, contractors and engineers. He also introduced their first on-the-ground employee who is doing some marketing for them. He noted that they were hoping to be substantially complete by December 31, 2006, have had some challenges recently over suppliers.

Mr. Duquette stated he would continue to update the mayor and council as well as the public.

2.1 Application for property tax exemption for expanding business by Richard P.
Stadter Psychiatric Center, 1451 44th Avenue South______________________
Council Member Gershman asked if there is any competition to this application. Mr.
Carsen stated he didn't believe there were any competitors. Mr. Swanson stated to avoid any concern even by other private psychologists that might be operating in the area, it would be best to give notice by publication; that intent is giving notice of the hearing.

2.2 Amendment to Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for seal coat of US 81 from Gateway Drive to I-29._____________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Council Update for Project No. 5675, DeMers Avenue/42nd Street Underpass.
Wayne Lembke, traffic engineer, reported that KLJ (Kadmas Lee & Jackson) consulting
engineer for the 42nd Street underpass project had prepared an updated presentation. A rep. of KLJ reported they developed several alternative designs to create a grade separation between 42nd Street corridor and the BNSF railroad and presented a brief overview of the project; and reported the field survey has been completed, cultural resources survey, a lot of the geotechnical work and had the first public input meeting on October 26, 2004, and the purpose of that meeting was to introduce the project to the public and adj. landowners and stake holders, and at that point had not developed alternatives. The traffic study has been completed and approved by the Department of Transportation, completed in July 2005. He stated the bulk of the work that has been completed since that time has been the development of alternatives, there have been 10 alternatives that have been considered, but boils down to 3 basic concepts: 1) lowering 42nd to pass under both DeMers and the Railroad; est. cost $12 to $14 million, plus cost of additional right of way; 2) lowering both 42nd and DeMers going under the railroad; est. cost is $13 to $15 million plus cost of additional right of way; or 3) raising elevation of 42nd to go over both the railroad and DeMers; est. cost $11 to $13 million plus cost of additional right of way. He noted that the numbers are current but at this stage pretty approximate, have a contingency of 30% because it is very early and in the last year costs are rising - cement costs, fuel and oil costs.

He reported they are tentatively prepared to have public meeting sometime in January, because of holidays more practical to have it in January, that would allow for development of the concept report to wrap up some time in May of 2006, with a public hearing in June and final decisions by August, and that would be in preparation for construction in 2008.

There were some questions relating to funding of the project - Mr. Lembke stated the City would have to advance fund this until being reimbursed through urban funds over the 3 years and be about 2010 before the balance would be paid off - 80% of the construction cost plus whatever is available for that year. Council Member Gershman stated to advance fund that project would be close to $900,000 or $1 million in interest, and that isn't figured into these costs, and that is something we would have to take into consideration if we move this forward and asked if this project is warranted by the State. Mr. Lembke stated that is what they are going through now, the project concept report to do all the environmental documentation and from the traffic aspect it isn't a deficient intersection other than the fact that the railroad crossing there and what looking at now is the driver delay of that intersection and looking at some justifications the Federal Highway has for driver delay due to the railroad crossing. He stated the reimbursement schedules are pretty tight and in talking with the DOT because of other projects in the state (like Devils Lake is tying up a lot of their funds) and all comes out of the same pot of money and not much of a chance of getting funds earlier.

Council Member Kreun stated the next agenda item re. the funding mechanism, and we are asking to recommend to proceed with the public hearing, but now to finish concept report, then decide which option and see if there is any additional funding other than our advanced funding and how we would want to proceed.

Council Member Brooks stated this impacts his ward and have to do something with traffic flow, and when build these things have to look to the future, and just had a presentation re. beginning of a hotel which is going to spur considerable development in that whole area of the Alerus Center, and have a lot of traffic to UND, that we are changing two major roadways - 42nd Street and DeMers - but if raise a railroad would be simpler thing but assuming there are some problems in trying to do that. A rep. of KLJ stated very difficult, grades would be very difficult for the railroad to accommodate that.

Council Member Brooks stated if they were to look at 17th Avenue but look at the Interstate and an access from 17th Avenue, what impact would that have on the traffic. A rep. of KLJ stated
that the MPO has done some study on that very preliminarily but take some pressure off but traffic analysis that was done to date basically focuses on DeMers to the Alerus.

Council Member Hamerlik questioned from DeMers to the Alerus Center, what is traffic count and how recent is it on usage of 42nd. Mr. Lembke stated they could get those figures and did do some counts this past summer.

Council Member Christensen asked if engineering had Stanford Road option as these options were being narrowed, and if the Stanford Road option could be made available at the public hearing, that the Stanford Road option requires a cloverleaf that they build around the golf course, have to take land from the University of North Dakota which goes through their parking lot and storage area, and then direct traffic down Stanford Road which is a two-lane through a neighborhood and that is not an option that should be considered any longer in this community in light of what has transpired on 42nd; and that if build a road on Stanford it will become a four-lane and will be taking yards and homes because that would be a heavily traveled road and decided that wasn't a viable option. He stated that leaves us with these 3 options, that if frontload this project with our monies and defer other projects and will have interest costs associated with that and sell bonds and pay bonds as get money from the State. It is important to address this issue to know exactly what it is going to cost us because we will have to find money to pay the interest, $1.5 million and doesn't include the right of way, and moving fibre optics north of railroad cost is $2 million; some think where they take the least amount of right of way and lower the road is probably best solution, need more discussion after the public hearing; and this is a major project for this community.

Council Member Kreun stated in the next item re. funding and prioritizing streets and working with the Highway Department and could develop up and over but not a cloverleaf at that intersection but one of the things that would help eliminate some of the traffic congestion in that area is if get up and over, have to have someplace to go, and in order to connect 17th up and over have to have 48th connected to 32nd all the way to DeMers, and that cost approx. $10 million, and that is why suggested that we go through this process and approve concept report, then look at prioritizing - may want to have staff help us do some prioritizing and which projects we want to go to so that we have enough funding, because if we advance fund this whole project and take all our regional monies for the next 6 to 7 years, would be 2011 when any monies would be available - should continue to study and look at other funding mechanisms.

2.4 Review preliminary 2006-2011 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDOT.____________________________________________________________
Council Member Christensen suggested that the time has come for the council and staff
to understand urban funds, understand front loading, cost of front loading, where we get the money and what it costs us when we sell bonds, etc. and then to begin prioritizing this $50 million worth of projects, about three times our general fund that we collect each year, and asked what we get each year in urban funds. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated on average a little over $2 million, based on census data so every city gets a share of the gas tax money. She stated that urban funds 80% and 20%; regional is 80-10-10% or 90-10%. Christensen stated if get $2 million per year, that is 25 years of projects, but that 20% generally have been able to fund with our sales tax dollars of late, and some special assessments - this is problem that staff and council and future councils will face is funding these projects, and hope when finish current items, schedule something on this in the next 2 to 3 weeks; as we have to prioritize and focus because staff needs that direction. Mr. Duquette will facilitate.
Council Member Kerian stated we also have the issue of whether we have matching funds as well and using the city sales tax for that, and other things need to pay attention to - Ruemmele Road to 34th Street as an example and is lower in the list but it is important because it depends on where our development is as well - and that priorities change as the city changes.

Council Member Kreun suggested staff group these projects into 3 different section and prioritize them to some degree, they know what the political sense is, know what roads actually need to be replaced because of condition or new roads that need to be put in, and come back with a working document, and then put funding mechanisms together.

2.5 Change Order #1 for Project No. 5745, 2005 Sanitary Sewer Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.6 Change Order #1 for Project No. 5746, 2005 Storm Sewer Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.7 Application for moving permit to move storage building from Reynolds, ND to 509 Belmont Road to be used as a storage building. [public hearing scheduled for November 21)___________________________________________________________
Bev Collings, inspections, reported this is storage shed that is old but structurally in fairly
good shape, roof structure reinforced and asked, if application approved. to re-evaluate when it is moved to the site, not the style and character of new garages they see in the neighborhood, and only concern is that it is old and needs roofing, possibly some siding, is painted, and that the applicant has some estimates that he would be willing to do some siding and shingling, re-window and door on the structure.

Ms. Collings stated when structures are moved they do shift and have some problems, could
require that it meets code requirements and make a date certain for repairs to be done. It was
noted that letters went out to the neighborhood early last week, with no responses yet.

2.8 Appointment to Grand Forks Public Library Board.
There were no comments..

2.9 Appointments to Downtown Design Review Board.
There were no comments.

2.10 Appointment to Board of Health, Public Health Officer and Deputy Public Health Officers._______________________________________________________________
The city auditor stated they will be providing council with an additional report next week,
that all of the board members have to be replaced, rather than just those named (other board members: Arvin Kvasager, Judy DeMers, Dr. Jim O'Connell and Don Shields).

2.11 Budget Amendment for Defined Benefit Pension.
The city auditor reported this will cover all the employees hired prior to January 1, 1996
that are in the Defined Benefit Plan, this is a portion that is being amended in the General Fund, and two years in a row where the performance of the investments have not been what was anticipated, and even during the budget year they talked for 2006 if they were putting a plan together to bring about $100,000 a year more into the General Fund over the next 3 or 4 years to catch up to this contribution; the Fund presently is underfunded of about 72% a few years ago, was 102%, and are interviewing tomorrow 3 investment managers to look at half of our pension funds of $38 million, and are not happy with one of the performances of one of the managers presently; and have had an analysis done, actually an audit of the actuarial report, to see where we are going to make sure our current actuary is giving us correct numbers, and also asked them to do a project for us as to the contributions and that there are so many factors in this thing that one year could be worse than the next, but the way it looks now according to that study, the contribution factor will peak out in about 2007 and start to decline and trying to get managed to that level. He stated that this is a closed plan as of 1996 so it really is more factors of the performance of the investments, that they have done fairly well the last couple years but the time line in the late 90's or early 2000's, had some horrific years, some major losses to the tune of double digits, 15% losses in the plan and are trying to recover from that.

2.12 Matter of Investment Policy for Pension Plan Assets.
Council Member Kerian asked if employees or if management sufficiently informed
about changes, and about reporting to the trustees (Alerus) seems to have a lot of responsibility and carry a lot of information but is the City sufficiently informed and getting information it needs in this policy. The city auditor reported they receive monthly reports from Alerus Trust Department on performance, and also receive a quarterly presentation to the pension committee as to how they believe items are performing, they are the ones who helped us evaluate performance for two investment managers at this point and have shown us some of the deficiencies and are working with us presently and sitting in on the interviews to help us select that manager, and from the management side we are getting significant reporting from the trustee. He stated this is the investment policy part and we have an agreement with Alerus Center that says what their responsibilities are.

Council Member Christensen asked how quick can we react to the information in reports received, how quick can we shift, that the issue to him would be if want to achieve the goal and if managing the 8%, doesn't think that is realistic in light of the present environment; the recent investment tone of the Grand Forks Herald on Saturday had article on what is reasonable to expect currently in the market and that seems to be 6 or 7%, the challenge would be show him why it would be reasonable for him to expect that he can achieve 8% in the next 5 to 10 years, the challenge for this group is that you have 25% of your staff that is going to retire in the next 10 years, and if stopped today, this is how much we would be short. Other adjustments and these questions have to be asked, what could we do to change the investment policy we have to say we are not going to give you the level of funding that you think you might have when you retire; but should we change the policy as far as the level of funding or the retirement that this group of people who are a part of this closed plan, can or should come to expect, doesn't have answers to those, but an individual asked him to raise the questions, and would like the answer to that before we get too excited about shifting managers, esp. in light of the fact that he believes that it is unreasonable to fund or expect returns of 8% inasmuch as the market for the last 3 years has barely returned 2, 2.5 or 3 %, and if telling you they can get you 8%, wants to be part of that group.

The city auditor stated that they can look at that, that they had terrible years but in 2003 we had a total return of about 12%, 2004 was down at about a 6% level but one-half of the investment had double digit gain, the other manager was terrible and drew that down, when they talked to the actuary they still tell us that managing to that 8% seems somewhat feasible, and that's why we are saying we want to change the manager so that we can get back to that level, but will research in more detail.
2.13 Declare property as surplus (Alerus Center).
Council Member Gershman stated that the Alerus has been open 4.5 or 5 years and if this
equipment is obsolete and would like more documentation as to why they need to replace these items so soon. Council Member Hamerlik suggested that staff ask Mr. Jeske and his staff to send out additional information. Mr. Duquette will communicate that to Mr. Jeske.

2.14 Request from Al Mercil for approval of a variance, Section 18-0907(2)(L)(3) for unplatted Bommer Tract, Falconer Twp., Section 31 (loc. at 2677 N. 42nd St.) for the purpose of varying access onto a minor arterial street requirement from 660 feet to 85 feet. _______________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman asked why wouldn't we do this. Brad Gengler, city planner,
stated this request is a standard request for a variance to the subdivision regulations, it happens that the subject property is the northerly most point of North 42nd Street where it intersects with 27th Avenue North, because it is a classified minor arterial they have minimum spacing requirements of 660 ft. between existing driveways so when the request first came to staff, doing due diligence they recommended denial because of the fact that it is essentially creating the hardship itself by requesting the driveway; the Planning and Zoning Commission was a bit confusion as far as the final vote turned out, first a voice vote to deny the request and failed, then to a roll call vote to approve and that failed on 7-6 vote, no specific recommendation coming out of the Commission but the Commission wanted to forward it to the city council for action. The staff in planning and engineering had to take it from the first of the principal of the matter that we have this particular rule but from time to time are allowing the driveways to go in in locations where visible results might not be seen for five, 10 years or longer but still a long term planning issue. He showed area on a map, and the proposal is to construct approx. 8,000 sq.ft warehouse building to take direct access onto 42nd and also have a secondary access onto 27th to the north, and showed the area on the site plan for the proposed driveway which essentially centerline of the driveway approx. to the northerly lot line is about 80 to 85 ft. vs. the standard 660 ft. and as has been indicated they know that there are several existing driveways on 42nd, and staff certainly isn't indicating that this is one-time request.

Council Member Gershman stated in this case not sure that the City would be right in denying it, because stacking to relieve the pressure where there is a lot of traffic and doesn't see that this is going to be generating a lot of retail traffic and to accommodate this particular business where this is going to be industrial with not a lot of traffic and should probably grant this variance to help this gentleman get his business going and doesn't see 15 years from now where that would be a problem.

Council Member Kreun stated if they could make that back far enough so that when semis come in to unload wouldn't have to hang out onto the road, because it is the length of the vehicle, and if you go back to all of our zoning questions and procedures this goes against everything that is in the zoning process but in this commercial area and the future development, probably would make sense because there is not a lot of traffic, and that he is asking for the widest exemption or variance on the width of the driveway as well.

Mr. Mercil stated he moved the building back 70 ft. off the curb, and has enough space to back the truck of the street.

Mr. Swanson stated so that the council is aware of the procedure you would need to follow on next Monday's meeting, any variance would have to be approved by a vote of 5 members and included in there would have to make four findings and those findings are that 1) there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the Zoning Chapter would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land; 2) that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the petitioner; 3) that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the variance is requested; 4) that the granting of the variance does not conflict with the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan; and if make those findings Monday night and have 5 affirmative votes, the variance is granted.

2.15 Request from Nels and Margaret Ellertson for final approval (fast track) of plat of Ellertson's First Resubdivision (being a replat of Ellertson's Addition and a part of the SE Quarter of SE Quarter of Section 31, T151N, R50W, known as Humble Oil Tract) to the city of Grand Forks, ND (loc. west of N. 42nd St between Gateway Dr. and 16th Ave.N.)________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Request from City of Grand Forks to vacate a portion of River Street as a part of the Replat of Iddings Addn. (loc. south of 4th Ave.S. and east of River Road).____
There were no comments.

2.17 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks, ND., Garry A. Pearson and Leslie A. Soine for preliminary approval of the Replat of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, and parts of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2, Iddings Addn.(loc. south of 4th Ave.S. and east of River Street)._________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development for preliminary approval of the plat of Highland Point First Addn. (loc. in northeast corner of 40th Ave.S. and S. 19th Street).___________________________________________________________
Council Member Christensen asked if the time hasn't come when we have PUD's coming
in and we just approve a portion, if we shouldn't begin requiring a sign in the area so that people that buy in that area will then know that there are areas that are being considered for future apartments or commercial, but would like staff's opinion on that and if we would have to amend our planning ordinance requiring when we have these PUD's coming in that we require a sign and show the area where the proposed PUD multi-family additional density would be located so people are forewarned. He stated a lot of PUD's are coming in and leaving a legacy for others but there will be people coming up who want to protest apartments, houses being built there but also R-4. Mr. Gengler stated it is good idea and has been discussed recently and couple different ways of doing it if it is a requirement, and could look at some sort of sign ordinance to mandate that. He stated they would want something consistent and uniform; staff could look at that, and could have that prepared and thinks local developers would be more than happy as it is a sales tool also to advertise what they are doing. Mayor Brown asked if it doesn't behoove anyone who buys property to go to Planning to see what is planned for the neighborhood. Mr. Gengler stated that is the best way to do it but that doesn't always happen as far as the relationship between the buyer and the seller so people who don't know these things but signing another tool.

2.19 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District, the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District, and the B-3 (General Business) District and to include within the Highland Point PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Highland Point First Addn., and also to include the unplatted lands lying in Section 21, T151N, R50W of the 5th P.M. (loc. between S. Washington St. and S. 20th Street, and between 36th Ave.S. and 40th Ave.S.______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.
2.20 Petition from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development for an ordinance to annex to the city of Grand Forks all of a 25.82 acre parcel of land being part of the SW Quarter of NE Quarter of Section 21, T151N, R50W (loc. in northeast corner of 40th Ave.S. and S. 19th St. (Highland Point First Addn.)_______________________
There were no comments.

2.21 Request from Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1 and to include within the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Danks Addn. and Danks 2nd Resubdiv. and to include unplatted land lying in the NE Quarter of Section 7, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. [all located between DeMers Avenue and 17th Ave.S. extended and between S. 42nd St. and I-29 R/W.___________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 2006 Special Events Program.
Council Member Gershman stated he would make one recommendation - take No. 1,
which is the Military Affairs Committee, Maury Rothkopf Military Appreciation Days, and take that money out of our surplus of $6600 and fund that for $5,000 and would have $1,600 that could roll over into next year or if someone wanted to use the $1,600 to put somewhere else in one of the other projects, but that cleans it up, and that is what he would recommend next week. Council Member Hamerlik concurred.

2.23 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-14 through GF-36.
There were no comments.

2.24 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-37.
There were no comments.

2.25 Amendment to Grand Forks City Code Section 21-0205 relating to the description of a Class 1 and Class 3 alcoholic beverage license, authority to provide samples.__
There were no comments.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Portfolio Summary as of October 31, 2005.
Information only.

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks agreed with comments re. Central High School, and also to assistant coaches and players.

2) Council Member Hamerlik stated there is a Neighborhood Concerns committee tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. in council chambers.





3) Council Member Kerian stated there is a meeting of the Alcohol Task Force on Thursday at 5:00 p.m.. She extended congratulations to Dr. Silestad and crew that received NASA DC8 here.
She stated it was fitting that the National Guard troops came in on Veterans Day, many nice stories about that as well and made that day more memorable.

4) Council Member Kreun stated re. Veterans Day, that we appreciate what they do and can't express his gratitude enough.

5) Council Member Gershman congratulated Central High School on their State championship.

7 ADJOURMENT

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor