JOURNAL OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS
JANUARY 20, 1998

Regular City Commission Meeting

Mayor Bennett presiding

CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM

ROLL CALL: City Commissioners present: Joan Bennett, Bill Beecher, Bill Downer, Randy Gray and John Rosenbaum. Also present were the City Manager, City Attorney, Directors of Community Development, Public Works, Fiscal Control, Management Information Services, Library, Human Resources, Park & Recreation, Acting Director of the Fairgrounds, Planning, Fire Chief, Police Chief, and the City Clerk.

PROCLAMATION: Mayor Bennett declared January 28, 1998, as Work Safely Day.

	PUBLIC HEARINGS
CDBG/HOME Grant Consolidated Annual Plan Community Issues	1. CDBG & HOME GRANT CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN COMMUNITY ISSUES PUBLIC HEARING. The purpose of the Consolidated Annual Plan Community Issues public hearing is to allow the citizens, especially lower income citizens of Great Falls, an opportunity to advise the City Commission on community issues and present ideas of how federal grant funds can be used to address these issues and help eliminate needs. The comments heard at the public hearing will be considered by the City Commission in allocating the 1998/1999 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Grant funds. The forum to obtain public input as to the needs of the community is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in order for the City to secure federal grant dollars. Kim Johnson, Grant Administrator, gave a brief overview of the time line established for the CDBG/HOME Grant process. Mayor Bennett declared the public hearing open. Those addressing the City Commission were as follows: Dave Dobbs, City Engineer, stated that there was a need to use CDBG funds to meet public infrastructure needs. He explained that one of the primary mechanisms for funding infrastructure improvements was through special improvement districts. However, for those areas of town where low and moderate income residents primarily reside, it is difficult to fund those improvements through the special improvement district mechanism. Therefore, CDBG monies were necessary to fund those improvements. Mr. Dobbs encouraged the City Commission to remember this need while completing the CDBG allocation process. Julie Trosper, 800 3rd Avenue North, stated she was concerned about parks in low income neighborhoods. She encouraged the City Commission to allocate money to improve those parks. Bill Fitzgerald, member of Neighborhood Council 7, explained that Whittier and Longfellow Schools will be applying for block grant funding to pay for amenities to the gyms and playgrounds at the two schools. Mr. Fitzgerald also suggested that additional policemen were needed to patrol the areas surrounding the schools. Laura Barbee-Rygg, 1317 1/2 13th Street South, Headstart Program, stated that there was a need for additional money in the Down Payment Assistance Program which is a program facilitated through Neighborhood Housing Services. She added that another need in the community was full day daycare for working parents. Bill Jones, 2733 Greenbriar Drive, Accessible Space Inc., stated that more funds were needed to construct homes that meet the needs of the disabled community. Bob Gillas, 1836 Beech Drive, Great Falls Housing Authority, requested the City Commission continue support of the loan program. Phyllis Hemstad, 106 6th Street NW, member of Neighborhood Council 2, stated that the Police Department needed additional officers and requested that CDBG monies be used to offset the costs of hiring these additional officers. More specifically, she requested that several police officers be assigned to the west side of town to begin a horseback patrol. Sheila Bowen, 220 2nd Street North, YWCA, thanked the City Commission for supporting the homeless programs in the community. She added that there was a need to continue those programs in order to meet the community need. Linda Daggett, 415 6th Avenue South, Headstart, stated that the needs determined through the Headstart surveys include: quality child care, medical costs, auto insurance, affordable housing and stress management classes. She also stated that there was a need for an elevator in their building. Donna Stebbins, 811 8th Avenue North, asked that the City Commission support the programs offered through the Neighborhood Housing Services. Tom Jacobson, 2211 5th Avenue North, Gateway Recovery, thanked the City Commission for their past support. He added that Gateway will need assistance to continue the upgrading project in their facility. Virginia Oeleis, 10th Street and 1st Avenue North, stated she has been experiencing some problems with people who live near her. She added that the City has a terrible weed problem. There being no one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Bennett declared the public hearing closed. NOTE: A letter was received from Sharon Odden, VP Vocational Services at Easter Seals, who requested the City fund projects which will continue the progress toward making Great Falls safe for and accessible to its citizens with disabilities. Another letter was received from Melinda Gopher, Director and Founder of Loud Thunder International, Inc. In the letter, Ms. Gopher, requested the City Commission use CDBG funding to promote job creation specifically for the Native American population in the community.
	OLD BUSINESS
SLD 1289. This item was pulled off the agenda.	2. RESOLUTION 8915, TO CREATE SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICT 1289. Coleen Balzarini, City Controller, explained that there had been several developments regarding the creation of this special lighting district which required additional Staff research. Mrs. Balzarini requested the City Commission pull the item from the agenda. The City Commission concurred.
Historic 10th Street Bridge Agreements (OF 979). Approved.	3. INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT W/ THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AN AGREEMENT WITH PRESERVATION CASCADE/NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGARDING THE HISTORIC 10TH STREET BRIDGE (OF 979). In March, 1986, the Great Falls City Commission and the Cascade County Commission jointly requested the Montana Department of Highways to investigate the design and alternatives to realign and relocate the 10th Street Bridge North. Nearly a decade later, in 1994, the Montana Department of Transportation advertised the bid openings for the construction of the new bridge and demolition of the old 10th Street Bridge. In 1995, construction of the new bridge began. In the meantime, during 1994, a grass roots movement began to save the old 10th Street Bridge. Both the County and City Commissions were approached to accept ownership and responsibility of the old bridge. Both Commissions declined. On June 29, 1995, the "Save the Bridge" group filed motions in the State and Federal court to block the demolition of the bridge. Judge Thomas McKittrick referred the issue to a federal judge. On June 10, 1996, Federal Judge Paul Hatfield denied the request for an injunction to stop the bridge demolition. The Save the Bridge Group, now in partnership with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In December, 1996, a hearing was held before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to consider saving or demolishing the bridge. The judges gave the parties 90 days to try to reach a settlement. On April 15, 1997, the City Commission heard a presentation from National Trust for Historic Preservation representatives regarding a privately funded solution to the bridge issue. The Commission agreed to work with the preservationists to develop a public/private partnership to save the bridge. The City Commission instructed the City Manager that any agreement could not involve the use of local tax dollars; could not jeopardize the expansion of River's Edge Trail; and could not reverse any previous action taken regarding access to the south end of the bridge. On November 18, 1997, the City Manager reported to the City Commission that tentative agreements had been reached and met the criteria established by the City Commission. The City Commission held a public discussion regarding the agreements at their meeting on December 16, 1997, and set January 20, 1998, as the date to formally consider the agreements. The Agreements: Two agreements were presented to the City Commission for formal consideration. The first agreement was between the City of Great Falls and Montana Department of Transportation. The substance of the agreement involved conveying ownership and responsibility for the Bridge to the City of Great Falls and provided for the transfer of funds earmarked for the demolition of the bridge to the City to be used for rehabilitation of said bridge. The agreement specified that $400,000 of the $478,000 demolition budget be transferred to the City within 45 days of the agreement. Additionally, that the Department of Transportation would transfer the remaining $78,500 (to the extent it is available) to the City only after the Department of Transportation has satisfied any and all claims made by the demolition contractor. The second agreement was among Preservation Cascade Inc., the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the City of Great Falls. This agreement provided for the public/private partnership to preserve the historic bridge. The agreement stipulated that the City will take ownership of the bridge and would be responsible for all contracting, insurance, and all other responsibilities arising from the rehabilitation of the Historic Bridge. The agreement also provided for the creation of a construction advisory committee charged with the responsibility of advising the City on the rehabilitation plans for the bridge. The second agreement also outlined the financial obligations of Preservation Cascade and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation Cascade must deposit $50,000 in a trust account upon signing of the agreement and within a five year period, raise another $250,000 in order to meet their $300,000 commitment. The National Trust for Historic Preservation would guarantee the private fundraising commitments of Preservation Cascade with a total cash outlay not to exceed $100,000. The primary features of both agreements met the requirements stipulated by the City Commission. Those requirements were: no local tax money would be spent on the bridge; there would be no access to the south end without the permission of the property owner; and the River's Edge Trail would receive priority on the north end. Mayor Bennett asked that City Manager, John Lawton, summarize the issue before the Commission. Mr. Lawton stated that the question was broader than "should the bridge be saved or demolished." The deeper question was, "should the City get involved to help make a difficult situation as good as it can be under the circumstances, or, should the City wash its hands of the matter and let the courts decide the issue." He added that there was a case to be made for either side. Mr. Lawton clarified that the assumption these agreements was based on was that this matter was currently before the courts and was likely to continue to be before the courts. If no agreement could be reached, the question would go back to the 9th Court Circuit of Appeals. Mr. Lawton stated that it could take several years to get to demolition if the courts are left to decide the fate of the bridge. Contrarily, the courts could decide for the preservationists and preserve the bridge. As for the issue of a public vote, Mr. Lawton understood the desire for wanting to put it to the vote of the public. He added that a public vote could determine community sentiment with some decisiveness. However, on the other hand, as long as this issue was before the court, a vote of the public could not determine the bridge's future. The court action would take precedence over the results of the public vote. The agreements before the City Commission could determine the bridge's future. Rejection of the agreements would put the decision back before the court. Mr. Lawton stated there are good arguments to either support or deny the agreements. Mayor Bennett asked for the direction of the City Commission. Commissioner Downer moved, for discussion purposes, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the agreements with the Montana Department of Transportation and Preservation Cascade/National Trust for Historic Preservation regarding the Historic 10th Street Bridge and authorize the City Manager to sign after further negotiations with the State Historical Preservation Office to resolve final issues pertaining to the north end of the bridge. Mayor Bennett asked those seated in the audience who wished to address the City Commission to do so. Those addressing the City Commission who opposed the approval of the agreements were as follows: Roy Aafedt, Cascade County Commissioner, presented a letter signed by the Cascade County Commission, requesting the City Commission put the matter to a vote of the public. Greg Kecskes, 1204 5th Avenue South, stated that anything historical should be saved. However, the City should take initial ownership and then deed it to the highest bidder for rehabilitation and maintenance. Joe McMahon, 3121 2nd Avenue South, stated he was resentful that he could not voice his opinion through a vote. He added that he did not understand why the City was in the middle of this issue. Roger Pitkins, 126 2nd Avenue North, stated that the biggest issue was the taxes. He suggested that the bridge be given to Preservation Cascade and that the voters should determine whether or not the bridge should be demolished. Shirley Jacobsen, 2721 8th Avenue South, stated she had never seen the petition initiated by the Save the Bridge group. She asked if these petitions that were circulated requested a vote on whether or not to save the bridge. She suggested that those who supported and who opposed the saving of the bridge, meet to develop language that could be placed on a ballot and put before the voters at the June, 1998, primary. Warren Moore, 2600 47th Avenue SW, stated that the residents do not feel it is an issue of saving an old bridge or not. Rather, the issue was self-determination by the voters. He added that voters had the right to determine if tax dollars would be spent when the bridge begins to fall down. He stated that no engineering drawings that clearly lay out the restoration for the bridge exist. He said that the City Commission was being asked to approve an agreement when all the facts were not known. He concluded stating that the citizens of Great Falls did not want the financial obligation unless they determined they want it through a vote of the public. Ron Black, 3219 4th Street South, asked if the local government should be involved in this process. He answered no to the question and suggested that the City Commission has other more pressing needs to fund. Victor Tacke, 2308 9th Avenue South, stated he there was a life expectancy for concrete bridges which meant the bridge had a built in destruction period of its own. He added that we could keep the bridge but it will cost the people in the future. Clayton Braden, 2708 4th Avenue NW, stated that the bridge had served its purpose and if the Save the Bridge people want the bridge, let them buy it. He reminded the City Commission of the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution which states, "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." He suggested that these last four words are ignored and insinuated that the people in Great Falls have the right to vote on the bridge. Those addressing the City Commission who supported the approval of the agreements were as follows: Arlyne Reichert, 1409 4th Avenue South, stated that the Save the Bridge group asked if the bridge could be turned over to that group. She stated that the Department of Transportation stated no, it could not. She added that the Save the Bridge group initially petitioned to have the fate of the bridge on the ballot. However, they were told that could not be done. She added that the State, City and County, all said that if the group wanted to save the bridge, to find the funds to do it. She announced that upon the signing of the agreements, Preservation Cascade was prepared to turn over $50,000 to help meet their financial commitment to saving the bridge. She concluded stating that regardless of how the City Commission votes, she thanked the Commission for their concern. Gary Olds, 616 Doris Drive, stated he did not like negativity. He suggested that the City do something positive and if everyone does their part, the City can get the job done. Donna Stebbins, 811 8th Avenue North, urged everyone to support the saving of the bridge and through some sweat equity, the rehabilitation can be done. Hart Dolman, 3016 Central Avenue, reminded the audience that all the members of Preservation Cascade are taxpayers. He added that people opposing the agreements represent the core group who don't support the school tax levies. He added that he missed the smokestack and he didn't want to miss the bridge, too. Benita Wheeler, 1804 16th Avenue South, stated she thought saving the bridge was the right thing to do. Michael Yeager, 211½ 4th Street SW, stated that the Save the Bridge group brought in a world renowned bridge expert who stated that the bridge is structurally sound and would have a long life if it were rehabilitated. He added that plans have been developed to restore the bridge and that the arches will last hundreds of years. He said that the law required Preservation Cascade to have a local government partner in order to use the funds earmarked for the demolition for rehabilitation. Mr. Yeager suggested that the Department of Transportation could exercise the liquidation clause in the demolition contract that provided for $2,500 in liquidation damages. Cheryl Reichert, 51 Prospect Drive, stated that the bridge was Paris Gibson's last gift to the City. Ms. Reichert reminded the City Commission of all the efforts put out to save the bridge. Michael Witsoe, 2612 1st Avenue South, applauded the Reicherts. He added that we have an old bridge and it's not pretty now, but it could be. He asked the Commission to think about our history and what was missing that we used to have in the community. He suggested that we make something of the bridge and to give the bridge a chance. Richard Doorman, stated that we cannot bring back what was destroyed and that the bridge means something to many people in Great Falls. He asked that the City Commission give a lot of thought before they make a decision that could result in tearing down the history of our community. There being no one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Bennett asked for discussion among the Commission. Commissioner Beecher disclosed the fact that Falls Construction Company has a business relationship with Norwest Bank. Commissioner Beecher is employed by Norwest Bank. He added that he wanted to thank and commend Mr. Lawton for laying out the issues of the bridge as well as he did. However, he stated he had concerns about the cost estimates for the rehabilitation, that perhaps more money was needed than was available to complete the rehabilitation. He also stated he was concerned that it may be difficult to raise additional money due to other preservation efforts in Great Falls. Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that after listening to the testimonies offered, he understood those who were opposed to the agreements were afraid the dollars needed to rehabilitate the bridge were not available and there was fear regarding the integrity of the groups involved in preserving the bridge. However, according to the information he had, the bridge will last for many years and that the purpose for the agreements was to allow Preservation Cascade to raise additional funds for the rehabilitation. Commissioner Rosenbaum concluded stating that people with vision and a positive attitude will get the job done. Commissioner Downer stated he could argue both sides of the issue and that he really didn't care what the fate of the bridge was as long as his taxes didn't go up. He stated he had some concerns about how people would use the bridge. He reminded the Commission that there was no parking available that would accommodate the bridge users. He suggested that this was the right bridge in the wrong location. He stated that a vote on the bridge would not mean anything because the issue was in the courts. He added that if the Commission did not get involved, the decision would be made in the courts. He added that we have a representative form of government. The City Commission was elected to represent the interests of the community on this issue. He added that the community needed to give Preservation Cascade a chance to raise the necessary funds. He added that we need to get this issue out of the courts and do the best job we can to restore the bridge. Commissioner Gray stated that he read the petitions turned in by those who oppose saving the bridge. He stated that he was not particularly wedded to the bridge and that he noticed there was a prevailing negative attitude in the community. Commissioner Gray explained that the role of Mr. Lawton was to bring about a solution to a divisive issue in the community; to construct a framework of peace. Commissioner Gray asked what was the City Commission doing here? He answered by stating that the resolution of this issue was currently in the federal courts and the City had zero input on what happened on this issue unless they approved the agreements presented. Mr. Gray added that he would like to see an end to the litigation, that the community needed to put this issue behind them. Commissioner Gray stated that Mr. Lawton put together a framework of peace which included approximately $700,000 to rehabilitate the bridge. In conclusion, he stated that what spoke loudly to him was the fact that Preservation Cascade was willing to put $50,000 up-front to preserve the bridge. There being no further discussion, Mayor Bennett called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1, Commissioner Beecher dissenting.
	NEW BUSINESS
	ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
Res. 8918, Nuisance Weeds Lien, East Lands Add B1 L4 and GF 3rd Add B121 L3. Adopted.	4. RESOLUTION 8918, RECOVER THE COST OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF NUISANCE WEEDS LOCATED AT EAST LANDS ADD B1 L4, AND GF 3RD ADD B121 L3. Weed violation letters were mailed to the owners of the properties on June 5, 1997, and June 23, 1997, respectively. Reinspections confirmed the weeds had not been removed and were subsequently cut by City crews on August 4, 1997, and August 22, 1997, at costs of $31.67 and $29.00. Property owners were billed for the charges five times and payment had not been received. OCCGF 8.44.040 provides for the process necessary to place a lien against a property for charges incurred for nuisance weed removal. Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8918. Motion carried 5-0.
Res. 8920, Off-street Lease Parking Rates. Adopted.	5. RESOLUTION 8920, OFF-STREET LEASE PARKING RATE INCREASE. The Community Development Department, along with the Parking Advisory Commission studied the existing monthly off-street lot lease rates in an effort to determine if the rates should be increased. Based on current usage levels, it was recommended that the present lease charges at four of the off-street parking facilities be raised effective February 1, 1998. At its November 20, 1997, meeting, the Parking Advisory Commission passed a motion recommending an increase to the monthly off-street parking rates at the Parking Garage and City lots #2, #3, and #5. The proposed rate increases are as follows: Lot 2, located at 1st Avenue South and 2nd Street South, from $15/month to $18/month; Lot 3, located at 2nd Avenue South and 4th Street South, from $15/month to $18/month; Lot 5, located at 1st Avenue South between 3rd and 4th Streets, from $22/month to $24/month; and the Parking Ramp from $25/month to $27/month. Jonathan Balyeat, P.O. Box 61, Sand Coulee, MT, appealed to the City Commission not to raise the rates through e-mail correspondence. Michael and Fonda Henson Workman also wrote to the City Commission requesting that they deny the rate increase. Commissioner Gray moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8920. Mr. Rich Harp, stated that the City Commission needed to review the contract for parking enforcement and suggested that the parking enforcement was costing the City too much. Mr. Harp added that if the City lowered the costs of parking enforcement, the proposed rate increases would not be necessary. Commissioner Gray asked several questions regarding the bidding process the last time the City bid out parking enforcement. Mr. Lawton explained that the City would provide that information to him. Motion carried 5-0.
Res 8921, Golf Course Bonds. Adopted.	6. RESOLUTION 8921, RELATING TO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1998: AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND PRIVATE NEGOTIATED SALE THEREOF AND DELEGATING CERTAIN DUTIES RELATED THERETO TO THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND CITY CONTROLLER. Resolution 8921 begins the process of issuing new golf course revenue bonds by terms of a negotiated sale with Piper Jaffray. The proceeds will be used to a) refund outstanding bond debt of $815,000, b) fund the costs of issuance of the new debt, and c) fund costs of new construction for irrigation and miscellaneous improvements at both golf courses. The bond proposal was presented to and recommended by the Golf Advisory Board and the Park Board. City Controller, Coleen Balzarini, provided a brief explanation of Resolution 8921. Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Downer, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8921. Motion carried 5-0.
Res. 8923, Changing Community Development Council Areas. Adopted.	7. RESOLUTION 8923, CHANGING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AREAS. The Community Development Council (CDC) was established to provide representation by neighborhoods for recommending use of the Community Development Block Grant funds. The boundaries for the CDC corresponded to the neighborhood council boundaries in existence in 1979. Resolution 8923 changes the CDC boundaries to correspond with the new neighborhood council boundaries approved by Resolution 8895, on August 5, 1997. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8923. Motion carried 5-0.
Consent Agenda Approved as printed.	CONSENT AGENDA 8. Minutes, regular Commission meeting held January 6, 1998. 9. Claims over $500. 10. Contracts List. 11. Set public hearing on Resolution 8922, Water and Sewer Rate Changes. Sets public hearing for February 17, 1998. 12. Final Claim, Fire Station 3 Re-Roof Project (OF 1194). Final payment to McLees Inc., in the amount of $39,542.08, and the State Miscellaneous Tax Division, in the amount of $399.42. 13. Contract Award, AS/400 Computer Upgrade. Award contract to Windstar Group, Inc., in the amount of $28,753, to upgrade the City's AS/400 computer storage to RAID-5 technology. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Gray, that the City Commission approve the Consent Agenda as printed. Motion carried 5-0.
	BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
Community Development Council. Appointments.	14. APPOINTMENTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. The Community Development Council area boundaries were changed by resolution to coincide with the Neighborhood Council boundaries. Because there are nine neighborhood council areas and ten Community Development Council members, it was recommended that one member be appointed as an at-large member. Terms for Paul Petersen, Dave Sutinen, Robin Seelye, and Jackie Wren expire January 31, 1998. Therefore, it was necessary to make appointments to this board. Mr. Petersen and Mr. Sutinen were both interested in, and eligible for reappointment. Staff also recommended reappointment for Mr. Petersen to represent Area 5, and Mr. Sutinen to represent the community at-large. Ms. Seelye and Ms. Wren were not interested in reappointment. Commissioner Gray moved, seconded by Commissioner Downer, that the City Commission reappoint Paul Petersen to represent Neighborhood #5 and Dave Sutinen to represent the community at-large and appoint Brett Stene to represent Neighborhood #1 on the Community Development Council for three year terms beginning February 1, 1998, and expiring January 31, 2001. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission appoint Kathleen Welloffman to represent Neighborhood #7. Motion carried 5-0.
Police Commission. Reappointment.	15. REAPPOINTMENT, POLICE COMMISSION. The term for Fred Thiel expired April 30, 1997. Mr. Thiel served one three-year term and was interested in, and eligible for, reappointment. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Gray, that the City Commission reappoint Fred Thiel to the Police Commission for a three year term beginning May 1, 1997, and ending April 30, 2000. Motion carried 5-0.
Neighborhood Council Report(s).	NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REPORT 16A. Neighborhood Council 1: Gordon Dahl reported that the NC #1 had concerns regarding liability insurance. City Attorney, David Gliko, reiterated a memo that he had drafted and their request regarding this issue. 16B. Neighborhood Council 2: Phyllis Hemstad asked if NC #2 had a representative on the Community Development Council. Cheryl Patton, Community Development Director, stated she would research it. Mrs. Hemstad also asked what process should be followed in order to make the Westside Community Center ADA accessible. Mr. Lawton explained that she merely had to call and request for ADA access to that building. He added that the City accommodates these requests to the level it can. Finally, Mrs. Hemstad stated that the westside needed additional police officers.
	CITY MANAGER
	17. Mr. Lawton did not have any miscellaneous reports or announcements.
	CITY COMMISSION
	18. The City Commission did not have any miscellaneous reports or announcements.
	ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn	There being no further business to come before the Commission, the regular meeting of January 20, 1998, adjourned at 9:55 p.m.