Council Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, June 12, 2006 - 7:00 p.m._________________________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 12, 2006 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, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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 commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
The 4th Annual Grand Cities ArtFest this weekend, wonderful showcase for downtown and community, 150+ artisans and quality crafters, concessions and live entertainment - thanked organizers, sponsors and volunteers for a great event.
This afternoon in Town Square dedicated the latest in artwise plaques and thanked children and families and artwise staff .
This week Crimson Creek Collegiate Players will present production at Empire Theatre on June 14, 15 and 16 and encouraged members in community to come to see local talent.
Last week he attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual conference with Council Member Kreun, valuable effort and good way to network with community leaders from across the country. He re-issued an invitation for council members to attend these types of valuable learning opportunities when available.
This Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. the dedication of the Whopper John Little northend boat ramp.
Welcome to 200 assessors coming from 11 states later this week for the North Central Region Association of Assessing Officers, and this is the first time in the Association's 30 year history that the Conference will be in Grand Forks, great job for local organizers.
Staff is still reviewing and compiling information about potential locations for dog park, and will bring information to Park Board and city council to consider in the near future. The Safety/Service Committee will address the proposed amendments to the leash ordinance next week.
Good luck to all candidates tomorrow and encouraged everyone to get out to vote.

2.1 Respread special assessments for Watermain Project No. 5678.1, District No. 283.1. There were no comments.

2.2 Bring back future assessment district Project No. 4704.3, permanent flood protection project for newly annexed property from 2003-2006.__________
Kerian stated they are taking property that has been annexed into the city and giving them their share of the flood assessments.

2.3 Bring back future special assessment district for Project No. 5488.1, Dist. No. 418.1, sanitary sewer 1100 and 1200 blks. of 47th Ave.S._____________________________ There were no comments.

2.4 Bring back future special assessment district for Project No. 5048.5, Dist. No. 563.1, paving S. 42nd St. from University Ave. to 29th Ave.S., 17th Ave.S. from S. 35th St. to 42nd St., and 11th Avenue S. from S. 40th St. to S. 42nd St___________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Project Concept Report Addendum for Project No. 5674, Columbia Road and 24th Ave.S intersection reconstruction.__________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 5674, Columbia Road and 24th Ave.S. intersection reconstruction.____________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5988, paving 40th Ave.S. (S. 20th St. to S. Washington St.)_________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5815, Dist. No. 624, paving for Homestead Grove 1st Addn.________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Bids for Project No. 6003, 6004, 6005, and 6006, paving and utilities for Meadow Ridge 1st Addn.______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Bids for Project No. 5932, 2006 Southend Drainway Erosion Repairs.
Gershman questioned whether erosion was result of contractor's work or natural event.
Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, reported this is an on-going problem since we've done any type of grass seeding in certain areas that are alkali, that they are fixing this temporarily, and need to do this to keep the filth out of the under drain, prevent failures of the bank if get lot of heavy rain, and needs turf to keep the banks stable.

2.11 Downtown Bicycle Parking Proposal.
Brooks questioned cost for bicycle racks, $2700 for 12 racks. Ms. Voigt stated they
received estimate on the racks, and extra cost to get it mounted in two spots on frame which is preferred. They are bringing this forward from the business owners prospective and for all of downtown business owners and their employees to be able to have a secure spot for their bikes.

Gershman stated the park next to the Urban Stampede because which is the location for one of these bike racks and that there is no grass in the park, doesn't look good; and that the corner of DeMers and 4th Street which is vacant, kiddy corner from Corporate Center, is overgrown and need to get that taken care of. He also suggested more benches downtown.

Christensen stated concern if racks permanently affixed for persons that do the sweeping of sidewalks in the summer and machine to clear sidewalks of snow; issue is that they would have to take them down, store and then put back. He stated property owners who are charged with keeping sidewalks clean are concerned.

There was some discussion re. locker spaces, but to get customers before putting in.

2.12 Bids for Project No. 5954, Phase VI Landfill Closure.
There were no comments.

2.13 Riverside Pool Flood Cleanup and Future Use Study.
Hamerlik stated the recommendation out of their committee was good for the cleaning up
of the project and to have the study, but his concern about being in the pool business and forcing
the Park District to be in the business although we pay for it, concerned about cost.

Christensen stated that the City owns the land known as Riverside Park and the structures which
includes the Riverside Park swimming pool and bathhouse, and as part of the Park District's
concept plan prior to the controversy this community went through when talked about a publicly
owned and paid for water park, the Park District had suggested that the Riverside pool would be
closed - no swimming pool - but the structure would be used as a warming house, large
playground, volleyball court - issue is whether we want to have a second swimming pool in this
community; and have the possibility of redesigning the Riverside swimming pool area so that in
the event we have floods, move mechanical out of harm's way. He stated if we decide to do
that who is going to run the pool - Park District has said they will be responsible for Riverside
Park and if there is going to be a shortfall as to cost to operate the swimming facility - only issue
is what is added incremental cost to heat the water and redesign the mechanical for the filtration
process of the water.

Gershman stated the pool is protected by the dike to 45 ft.; that he toured PS Doors and they
actually construct doors for floods, water gets into that building because we have standard doors,
can buy flood doors and other gates that we can put up on that property that will stop that water
and could protect the equipment or could get that equipment out of harms way and move to roof
or higher than where it would flood. He stated we have opportunity to bring something back that
would never have again, need to look at securing the pool area and bathhouse but to work to
beautify that whole area - can bring in picnic tables, barbeque pits and move fence back and make
a beautiful green space around there and have people enjoy a wonderful pool if it works out
financially - but heating, beautifying and securing it could drive business up.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that the City has entered into an agreement to acquire the
property and have exercised control and dominion over it, the title by way of a deed has not been
transferred because the City has not completed the re-surveying and replatting of it, the City
could not convey marketable title to that property presently but it would be inappropriate to say
that the City did not have an ownership interest of some nature in that property.

Brooks questioned $20,000 to hire a consultant and thinks that Mr. Staley and his staff are experts
that could do the consulting, and get local ideas; that we need to decide whether we want to be in
the park business and run pool - would have to contract for parking district to run it for us.

Hamerlik reported at the committee meeting didn't know the exact cost to hire a consultant and
that he felt for safety and health reasons should get it cleaned up, money would come from the Greenway Betterment, and felt we should get an outside person/group to tell us what it would cost to operate it - that he agrees with comments from Christensen and Gershman, that we have the property - that we are not in the pool business and know we won't operate it and that Park Dist. has over $600,000 coming from us out of the $830,000 ($594,000) and time for us to dispose of it.

Christensen noted that we don't owe the Park District $600,000, that at the time the agreement
was negotiated the Park Dist. called and got information from Bismarck on cost of constructing a
facility comparable to the Riverside Park bathhouse and pool and determined about $830,000 and
that was how they got that figure - not an estimate but just a guess. The $830,000 was to pay the
Park District for the replacement of the Riverside bathhouse and pool, that they should be paid for
what they are losing not for what remains; that someone from Park District stated that they are in
the business of running swimming pools and although they have not said they will run the
swimming pool, would guess they would, but question is who is going to pick up the shortfall
since it is City's pool. The Park Dist. have agreed to take and run the park areas in the greenway
(Lincoln, Riverside, etc.) and they expect to be compensated for that and if they have incremental
costs or loss that should be part of the negotiations - they are in the business of providing
recreation for the community and we are not. - and this is whether we want to preserve and
protect an asset that this community has long cherished.

Glassheim stated this is not a question of expertise but a question of cost - the Park District has
looked at the cost of operating Riverside pool and they are not interested in paying that cost
given their budget structure and demands on them - the issue will be if the City interested in
paying the cost of maintaining and operating Riverside pool, whether we contract with the Park
District or with somebody else, etc. and what is before us next week is that the City needs to have
figures that it can rely on when it decides whether it is going to put money into the pool and need
to hire someone responsible to prepare several scenarios, construction cost, operating cost and
come back to the council for consideration. He stated we need to make a reasonable decision.

Kerian stated she supports the concept of cleaning it up and of a consultant and further that the
City needs to guide the process but in the City's best interest to work with the Park District, and
not be in a position of running it.

Glassheim stated that any consultant will look at what the Park District put on the table, and will be in consultation with the Park District, but didn't want to presume that the Park District will operate it for us, however, that would be his first choice.

2.14 Flood Protection Betterment budget.
Brooks stated that the recommended action was to approve the use of the Betterment
Funds, and if these issues have already been addressed and if doing transfer of funds.

Mr. Grasser noted that part of the Greenway budget had previously been approved, and that the council had previously approved items noted under "council authorized", and the items not previously authorized are the haul road restoration item, perimeter stormwater master plan, 3 ft. levee raise plan, miscellaneous items and clean-up, and the Lustron Home, and that those 5 items are new item onto the Betterment budget, and those are the ones they are looking for authorization. He stated with the council authorization and final costs are close together and running balance of about $1.8 million; and of the items proposed the running balance would drop down to $300,000, and the item of $1,826,550 is possible if State participation's in the 3 ft. levee raise and that would be a credit that would come back into our account and would bring our running balance up to a little over $2 million. The staff report includes two requests - one is to have the council authorize them to actually make this official request to the State for participation.

Christensen stated he reviewed the haul road restoration (rebuilding the roads where the roads were damaged as a result of the flood construction activities) and before agreeing to $750,000 would like to know which roads are to be repaired, the level of damage and nature and extent of repair, and doesn’t think that $750,000 is enough. He asked why we would spend $560,000 of this money which is for betterments to stockpile clay for a future flood.

Mr. Grasser explained that they were proposing $560,000 - the council authorized the $5.5 million and costs coming in at about $3.5 million on the 3 ft. floodwall raise and that is in anticipation to be able to fight a flood larger that the top of the existing levees, but only in the areas of the floodwalls, the earthen levee portions of the dike are 3 ft. lower than that and in order to bring that perimeter up to that level of protection, will have to get clay on top of the dikes.
He noted the only places with reliable dirt to fight the flood this year were places where they pre-engineered the dirt in earlier years (they took the dirt and dried it and stockpiled it so it would stay in a good moisture condition) and a stockpile that Strata had west of town which was a pre-engineered stockpile. The areas not pre-engineered were too wet to use; and they are suggesting that they need to preplace or have this material available for flood fight if we are going to be able to make an attempt at hitting the additional 3 ft. raise so defend the entire perimeter of the levee, that is about 100,000 yards of dirt and are proposing 3 different locations, two of which we already own, and one where we would have to purchase property to do that, and have to obtain the actual material so it is ready to be used during the emergency; need to be prepared to act quickly and biggest hurdle that we have is finding the right material. He stated his suggestion is that they ask the State participation in that to 45%; and if going to ask for State participation would like to get through that process before the State gets too far through their budgetary process, that the request would be made to the State Engineer who would run it through the State Water Commission for consideration. He stated that if don't take action on acquiring and stockpiling some of this soil at this time, won't have it available for 2007.

Christensen stated he wanted to make sure that we have adequately planned this, and that maybe $560,000 is enough but might not be - Mr. Grasser stated that the $560,000 is in the Betterment Funds because we don't have approval from the State to cost share and we would have to anticipate the City funding that $560,000 and is suggesting in the staff report that we make an official request to the State for that participation and in the Betterment budget we show possible State participation in 3 ft. levee raise, if they participate at 45% we could get $1.8 million out of the State for that full 3 ft. raise issue, that includes the $3.5 million for the wall and half million for the earthen levee preparations, and bring our balance back up to $2.1 million.

Christensen asked if they were going to ask the State to participate in payment of the $3.5 raise of the wall; Mr. Grasser stated they were and the reason for that is that is not covered in our current agreement with the State because it is outside the basic Corps project and they throw that in the column of betterments and actually it is a true flood fighting protection feature, and he has had discussions with the State Engineer about that and he is in support of the State helping to cost share in that because he does recognize it is a true flood protection feature for the project, and has reason to be optimistic that the State would look favorably upon that, but now it is not part of the State cost participation.

The city auditor stated for clarity, that they have looked at the State allocation and the original amount was 45% up to $52 million and this amount if added to what we have already requested, it would still remain under what their original share was, that they are not asking for additional money but money within the cap that the State authorized us.

Christensen stated he would like a listing of the streets that are going to be affected, and impacts the wards that are close to the dike. Mr. Grasser stated they will get that information out that they presented to the flood protection committee because it is important to match our budgets to our expectations; that original budget was based on doing all mill and overlay work and as they looked at some of the performance of their past mill and overlays, would like to do more of keeping concrete as concrete rather than overlaying it with asphalt; will do well with asphalt streets but not in favor for concrete.

Hamerlik stated in the material relating to the Lustron House, not all the work (electrical) would be done by the proposal as presented by NDSU, and asked if there was going to be an RFP as others might be interested, and an RFP would be in order.

Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated the intention was to hire contractors to build the foundation and to do the electrical and would be done on a regular bid, and that the students at NDSU would be assembling the house and erecting it; he noted that in the staff report it was noted that the $60,000 was for electrical and foundation, and is actually to reimburse NDSU for travel time and some equipment they would have to purchase as well as some money in lieu of wages.

Hamerlik stated that maybe others should have the opportunity to do it for the very same reasons and that is why he suggested an RFP. Mr. Walker stated that wheels are in motion and Urban Development has worked with NDSU and this is in progress, they are working to start this relatively soon. The foundation and electrical work would be done by bids.

Mr. Grasser stated that with all the constraints that we have in the agreement and everything we can foresee, not projecting going past the $52 million; and there needs to be a decision because we did fight and win the cause for some additional flood dollars, and if going to try to access those as part of the legislation in the next Legislature, and possibilities if we should ask the State to cost share to 50% rather than 45%, or in certain items that aren't cost participation now, and this is an easy one to defend because it is a true flood protection feature.

Gresham asked if we were contacted by UND on the Lustron House or did we contact them.
Peggy O'Leary, Historical Service, stated that NDSU contacted her and she put them through to Urban Development; that initially it was their History Department and that Department is not capable of putting together the Lustron House and they brought in their Architecture Department and at this point architecture is the lead and it would be their student organization that every year does a project, this is the project they are looking at doing this year and do it for course work, credit and for a flat fee, which is a fraction of what we would have to pay a contractor to put this house back up. She stated there was no outreach to anyone else, they contacted Grand Forks at about the same time the previous contractor who took apart the house informed the City that he would be unlikely to be able to put it back together, and wasn't part of his original contract and would have had to be recontracted, but he doesn't want to; and NDSU stepped forward with a process that isn't ideal in the formation but certainly can work out well for everyone because it will be a very good learning experience for their students, and fiscally responsible action on our part.

2.15 C.O.P.S. Interoperative Communications Project (grant funded).
There were no comments.

2.16 Public Works Department - Sanitation Division collection truck bids.
There were no comments.

2.17 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of plat of
Homestead Grove Second Addn. (loc. in 1000 block of 47th Ave.S.)________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Grand Forks Growth Fund for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Maier's Fourth Resubdiv. (loc. in 1000 block of S. 48th St.)____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from Cook Signs on behalf of H and H Properties, LLC for approval of an appeal to the sign code as provided in Sec. 18-0301, Appeal of Grand Forks Land Development Code, to increase max. allowable height for ground monument signs from 8 ft. to 9 ft. for proposed ground monument sign at 405 Bruce Ave. in Central Business Dist.___________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots 16 through 33, Blk. 2, Cornerstone Addn. (loc. on Bacon Circle).
There were no comments.

2.21 Request on behalf of Brown Corporation and Dakota Ag. Park II to vacate cul-de-sac lying adj. to Lot E, Blk. 1, Brown Corporation Addn., in order to continue a public road.__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Request on behalf of Al Eide for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot G, Blk. 1, Perkins Second Addn. (loc. in 3100 blk. of 32nd Ave.S.)______________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Request on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approval of plat of Southbrook 3rd Resubdiv., being a Replat of Lot 18, Blk. 1, Southbrook Second Resubdiv. of Replat of Lot 1, Blk. 1, Southbrook First Addn. (loc. in 1400 block of 48th Ave.S.)___________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.24 Request on behalf of Brown Corporation and Dakota Ag. Park II for preliminary approval of Replat of Lot E, Blk. 1, Brown Corporation Addn. (loc. in the Ag. Park on Merrifield Road)._____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.25 Request from Planning Department for discussion and final action
on request for an appeal to the city council of a decision of the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding approval of proposed billboard signs to be located at 2205
and 2909 S. Washington St.________________________________________________
Brad Gengler, city planner, gave brief summary - that in December of 2005 they
amended the entire Sign Code, mostly as it relates to outdoor advertising signs and other various related issues; and at that time it was approved that there would be a cap of 90 signs located within the city and the city's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction; since that adoption they have approved 6 new permits for billboards: at the following locations: one on the Butler property adj. to the Interstate; at the Lafarge property on DeMers, one in the 400 block of North Washington Street, one on Gateway close to the Kennedy Bridge and one at the old Westward Ho. In addition to those the Code also calls out that anything in the South Washington corridor essentially from DeMers to the southerly extension of our extraterritorial that would be allowed up to 9 billboard signs on the corridor; however those would be subject to special review and approval process by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the Commission to look at those sign proposals and deem them to be fitting and compatible with the neighborhood or not. He stated on June 7, this past Wednesday, 4 individual sign proposals were given to the Commission for its action, 3 were approved and 1 was denied.. He showed location of the signs at the following locations: 2205 S. Washington Street; 2475 S. Washington (former Planet Pizza); 2830 S. Washington; and last sign on 2909 S. Washington Street. He stated that the Planning Department according to Code sent out notice to property owners within 200 feet from area of proposed signs, that they received calls from affected property owners; that any decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission can be appealed to the city council and since then have received request for appeal on all 4 signs and brought to council, that the sign at 2830 was denied and Newman Sign Company has submitted a letter requesting the appeal be brought to the council.

During his presentation to the Planning & Zoning Commission he stated he didn't support the locations on the South Washington Street corridor, and is of the opinion that billboard signs aren't the most appropriate use of land on a developed commercial corridor vs. elsewhere either on the Interstate, highway or other areas. He stated because of sufficient opposition have 14 individuals (not all located within the 200 ft. radius), taking that into consideration and his personal views on the matter, does not actually object to billboard signs in general, but feels there is a more appropriate location for them. He noted those object to the billboard signs were James Flynn from Red Ray Lanes re. sign at 2205, Valley Vision and John Satrom on behalf of Floor to Ceiling for sign at 2909, Newman Signs for 2830; Doug Goodman opposed sign at 2475 S. Washington; Don Larson, C & R Cleaners opposed 2475 location.

Hamerlik asked which signs approved by Planning & Zoning Commission - 2205 Erickson Auto, 2475 former Planet Pizza, and 2909 Happy Joe's. He stated by our rules and ordinance we are not superceding the ordinance and 9 are within the 90, and if within the limits the only thing is the protest.

Mr. Gengler stated the way the appeal section and some other issues were drafted in Code, as it relates to the need to get special approval, South Washington corridor fell into different realm; Code calls out certain things the Commission should be looking for - creation of visual clutter, address any reduced site lines, visibility issues and the concentration of off-premise advertising signs; and Mr. Newman brought up a valid point at the Commission meeting that these billboard signs are being demanded by the business community, but had number of concerns from individuals and owners on S. Washington concerned that the signs are distracting to motorists and looking at signs rather than seeing the individual business signs.

Russ Newman, 300 North 5th Street, stated they are allowed 9 billboard locations on this stretch from DeMers to the south city limits on South Washington Street, and currently have 4 in that stretch, only 2 between DeMers and 32nd Avenue, and if signage there is on-premise signage and don't feel they have received their fair shot in that stretch and that is where the business community is demanding, that they are not allowed on 32nd Avenue, on Columbia and not allowed in PUD areas of 42nd and only less than a handful of high traffic streets where they are allowed, and feel it is imperative to allow at least a limited number of signs in this stretch where the traffic is, and that they would go out and spend time, effort and money to find locations and not come in one at a time and came in with four. He stated his company will follow the Code.

Kreun stated that part of the concern that the committee had is the way the signs were maintained, they were becoming dilapidated, council wanted billboards updated so being maintained in a proper manner, not adding to any great deal or changing but giving them the ability to take out signs to put new ones up, added about 3, and have caps for the total number of signs and have caps on Washington, and can't be more unless take some down.

Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission approved 3 locations and are appealing the fourth location that was denied; that they thought that was a viable location and had landowner approval and high demand for it. Kreun stated they have a difference of opinion of interpretation of 500 ft., that they feel that each sign has to be 500 ft. down the road, they feel it could be one on each side of the road, so could have 4 signs in that distance and we feel 2.

Greg Norman, Norman Funeral Home, 2950 South Washington Street, stated he is one of the affected property owners of signage requested to be placed at 2830 S. Washington Street, it was voted against and Newman Sign is appealing it; is next to the cemetery and doesn't want large sign in front of cemetery. He stated he is also against the large signage along South Washington, is visual clutter and hopes the council will reject the proposal. He stated the signage would block the view of the cemetery; and hope they would review the whole corridor.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary as of May 31, 2006.
Information only.

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Brooks stated that this coming Saturday is Czech Days in Tabor, MN, great parade and great
food., good cause.

2) Kerian presented question to Mr. Morken, PSAP, that has been in the news that we now have more cell phones than land lines and knows the City has been working on a call back system and when we would have the ability for cell phones to register for that system. Al Morken stated they are presently working with the IS department to put on the web page where people can go onto the internet, enter their phone information and location information; that they are trying to finish up some of the issues re. the rural mapping and once those issues are taken care of, then plan to move into the wireless side of it; and finish by the end of this year. At the present time they are trying to put some of the rural information together on the map so that they do have those locations throughout the whole rural area.

3) Kreun reported that Service/Safety meeting will meet on Thursday, June 22 at 4:00 p.m. re. leash law, landfill progress, annexation situations, etc.

4) Christensen reported that Congress has now passed a law that precludes local governments from extracting a fee from entities such as MidContinent and that we collect up to approx. half a million dollars in those fees (4.5 mils). Mr. Swanson reported this was passed by the House and is up for consideration by the Senate.

Christensen stated that they received from Mr. Duquette of briefing of the whole council as to where they are at on annexation of areas and what their plans are as of citing a landfill if not successful with Turtle River litigation. He stated he is very concerned as to what our alternatives are; that Mr. Feland is going to have some meetings with our partners in the landfill at the end of the month, June 28. This is something that this as important as the budgeting process and should have bi-weekly updates as to where we are on this; that it is going to cost a lot of money to build second landfill and if don't have people in the region helping to finance it, will cost even more, have to have a decision made by the end of 2006, because it will take a year to get through the Health Dept. and whether environmental study for the area if chose another area, and move forward as a united council on this matter.

5) Gershman stated he was in Winnipeg with Klaus Theisen, Economic Development Corp. and were on CGOB radio talk show talking about growth and economic opportunities for Canadian companies in Grand Forks; met with two companies that are interested in expanding into Grand Forks; also spoke at Rotary luncheon about opportunities and cooperation.

He stated that on Saturday Senator Dorgan came and there was a meeting with Northwest Airlines; after the meeting the gentleman from Northwest Airlines commented of how impressed they were with the number of people that came out on a Saturday morning, about 50 people there including county commissioners, city council members, Economic Development, Chamber of Commerce, City staff, Mayor and himself, and was a good honest discussion and perhaps they moved the fulcrum very slightly but they know what our target is and thanked all of those that participated.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Kerian that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor