Commission Minutes Dec 16, 1997

Mayor Deming explained that on April 15, 1997, the City Commission heard a presentation from National Trust representatives regarding a privately funded solution for saving the 10th Street North Bridge which was slated for demolition by the Montana Department of Transportation. The Commission agreed to work with preservationists to develop a public/private partnership to save the bridge. Any agreement would be subject to a public discussion. The Commission stated that any agreement would have to include the following conditions: preserve any agreements in place regarding the south end of the bridge; not to jeopardize the River's Edge Trail in any way; and not use local tax dollars for the rehabilitation and maintenance of the bridge.

Mr. Lawton over viewed the points of the proposed agreement in a question/answer format. He explained that many of the questions used were questions asked by the public.

Who will have title to the bridge? The Montana Department of Transportation requires a governmental entity to take title to the bridge. Under the concept discussed, the City would be the agency to accept ownership.

Why did the City get involved in this controversy when it didn't need to? First there is a significant portion of the community that feels the bridge should be saved and a significant portion that feels it shouldn't. It became a divisive issue in the community and would remain one if the bridge was just torn down. If a solution could be worked out that met most of the concerns of those who preferred demolition (future cost, trail access, taxpayer liability) yet preserved the bridge, then a divisive community issue would have been removed. A second corollary reason was that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction stopping the demolition of the bridge and there was no way to know how that would ultimately turn out. Even if the court went ahead and removed the injunction it was a near certainty that a new lawsuit would be filed by someone on new issues, starting the process all over again. It would be unlikely that demolition would begin in the near future and it would be better to find a solution to the issue than to drag it out in the courts for several years.

Who would be liable for injury or damage claims? Since the City would be the owner of the bridge, the City would be responsible for any such claims. It would be doubtful that the City's claims liability would change significantly with the addition of the bridge or any other facility. Liability for tort claims is for negligent acts of omission or commission, not just because the City owns a facility. Liability is hard to predict because no one knows what will be considered by the courts to be negligence. Adding or deleting a facility, unless it is exceptionally dangerous, doesn't really affect the City's overall liability picture. The City has insurance to cover all its facilities, and the addition of the bridge probably won't significantly affect the rates it pays.

Under the agreement being discussed, who will be responsible for rehabilitating the bridge and where will the money come from? Under any agreement, the City would accept responsibility for controlling the funds and letting contracts for bridge rehabilitation. MDOT would allow most of the $478,000 originally allocated for bridge demolition to be used for its rehabilitation. This money must be used for one of these purposes; it cannot be used for something else. Preservation Cascade has agreed to commit to raising $300,000 over five years, for bridge rehabilitation. This fundraising effort will be guaranteed at a level and in a form still being negotiated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation Cascade will commit to raising $60,000 annually for five years and the Trust will make up any deficiency each year until their commitment is used up. This amount and form of their commitment will be part of any agreement voted on by the City Commission.

What if the Trust and Preservation Cascade fail to live up to their agreements and there is no money after the transportation money runs out? First, the City would sign legally enforceable contracts if it goes ahead with this project. To make sure the City has no financial liability for the completion of any rehabilitation work, the work will be prioritized and then bid according to these priorities. Each priority will be completed in order and when the total budget is exhausted, the work will be considered complete, at least until more private funds are raised. The priorities will be arranged with consideration given to aesthetics and the prevention of further deterioration so that if the money runs out at some point the City will not be left with an unattractive, half finished project. The worst case scenario would be that the City would do over $400,000 worth of work to improve the bridge's appearance and durability and then it would be left as a static display with no access, no maintenance cost, and no operating cost.

How much will it cost each year to maintain the bridge including lighting? Who will pay this cost? Any maintenance cost will be paid by Preservation Cascade. This includes lighting if that is part of the rehabilitation. If there are lights, and the electricity is not paid, the lights will not be turned on.

We already have a bridge (the Milwaukee Railroad Bridge); why do we need another one? What is the historic significance of the Tenth Street Bridge? The railroad bridge, rather than being a unique historical feature, is envisioned as a recreational feature of the Rivers' Edge Trail. It is in relatively good condition, won't cost a lot to rehabilitate, and is in a good location with easy access to trails on both sides of the river. While the Tenth Street Bridge doesn't have these attributes, historic preservationists have explained that it is unique for this part of the country and that it is an irreplaceable architectural feature that should be saved for its potential beauty and uniqueness. Also, it is part of our own history and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is one of the largest spans of its type in the region.

Will there ever be any access on the south end of the bridge? No. If some future owner of the south end property wanted to grant access, however, the City would probably not object.

Will the bridge have any impact on River's Edge Trail? No. One of the conditions the City Commission consistently held to is that the trail will have first priority on the north end of the bridge. This means that getting the trail built past the north end, for the segment on the north side of the river, will receive priority over building access to the bridge from the north end. It should be possible to do both though that is not certain at this time.

What about the time the City Manager has spent on the bridge? The City Manager is paid a salary to deal with whatever comes his way and he normally puts in well over forty hours per week. As long as he gets the rest of his work done there is no additional cost to the City having him spend time on this project. Assigning him the task of trying to help resolve a community issue is not really the same as spending money on the bridge.

What if the bridge needs to be torn down in the next few years, who will pay? It is highly improbable that the bridge will need to be torn down any time soon. It will probably last for decades and could last for centuries. Engineers have determined that the bridge is structurally sound but that it does need repair to halt the deterioration that has occurred because of road salt. If the repairs are made, and no more salt is used, it should last indefinitely.

Why can't there be a vote on this issue? This idea had been raised before and the County Attorney's office ruled against a vote because it would conflict with a lawful demolition contract and the initiative power doesn't extend to matters that would require local governments to spend money or incur debt. Since the time the County Attorney ruled a federal court injunction was imposed that could complicate the matter.

Following the conclusion of Mr. Lawton's comments, Mayor Deming invited those in the audience to participate in the public discussion. Mayor Deming asked those who opposed the City Commission from entering into an agreement to save the bridge to share their comments first. Those who spoke were as follows:

John Koslosky, 38 Treasure State Drive, stated that the City Commission should not use taxpayers money to save the bridge. He added that the bridge does not offer an amenity to the community and agreed with the Montana Department of Transportation's initial decision to demolish the bridge.

Mark Humphrey, Fort Shaw, stated that federal taxpayers would be forced to underwrite the costs of rehabilitating and maintaining the bridge. He added that saving the bridge was a pet project by a few people in Great Falls. He concluded stating that what never gets mentioned is the fact that the construction company awarded the demolition contract was getting a bad deal.

Roger Pitkins, 726 1st Avenue North, stated that City officials say that rehabilitation and maintenance of the bridge would not cost taxpayers any money. He added that may be true today, but asked what about ten years from now? He also asked why didn't people put just as much effort into saving the downtown?

Jerry Evans, #2 Prospect, stated that he had several questions he would like to ask rather than speaking against saving the bridge. The first question asked was who was going to pay the contractor? City Manager, John Lawton, explained that the Montana Department of Transportation indicated it would take care of the contract with the demolition contractor.

Mr. Evans also asked if the money used to settle with the demolition contractor would be deducted from the money dedicated to the demolition and/or rehabilitation of the bridge? Mr. Lawton stated that the Department of Transportation would deduct a portion of that amount from the $478,000, however the bulk of that money would be given to the City for rehabilitation.

Mr. Evans asked if the City Commission would know the exact dollar amount available prior to voting on the agreement? Mr. Lawton stated they would.

Mr. Evans also asked who would bear the liability during the rehabilitation of the bridge? Mr. Lawton explained that liability such as that would be passed on to the contractor hired to do the rehabilitation.

And finally, Mr. Evans asked how much of the $300,000 has Preservation Cascade raised to date? Mr. Lawton stated that approximately 10% of the money had been raised.

John Sturgin, 121 2nd Street NW, stated that the City did not need another tax burden. He suggested that the City use the money to fix the streets and the water systems.

Martin Jakubowski, 3004 5th Avenue South, suggested that the money would be better spent on the deteriorating infrastructure.

Jim McMann, 3100 block of 2nd Avenue South, suggested that City officials can't say that tax dollars are not being spent. He added that the district court case is unfair as it is denying him the right to vote on this issue.

George Husterman, (no address provided), stated that this is an emotional issue in the community and that the costs will eventually fall back on the taxpayers.

Victor Tacke, 2308 9th Avenue South, stated that the money could be better spent and that people would not use the rehabilitated bridge for picnics.

Mayor Deming read into the record the letters received from people opposing the saving of the 10th Street Bridge. They were as follows: A letter from Betty R. Canoy and a faxed copy of a petition against saving the bridge signed by eleven citizens of Great Falls.

Lee Pate, 718 3rd Avenue North, stated that the 10th Street North bridge is an eyesore and suggested that the bridge should be torn down in order to show the beauty of the new bridge.

Bud Moore, 2600 47th Avenue SW, stated that a special interest group was getting their way. He suggested that the people be allowed to vote on the issue. He also stated that the Commission won't be able to convince people that local tax dollars are not going to be used. He added that tax dollars are being used whether they are local or not and it's the people who pay the taxes. He stated that the City Commission are the stewards of the tax dollars and they need to ensure that they are spent wisely and for the benefit of all. He stated that a special interest group such as the "Save the Bridge" group does not represent the opinion of the majority of the people in Great Falls. He suggested that the City Commission focus on projects that will enhance Great Falls. He concluded stating that saving the bridge will not provide employment opportunities for our children.

Lyle Meeks, 3509 8th Avenue South, stated he was concerned with the ultimate comprehensive cost estimate. He stated to rehab the structure and amenities could cost much more than the $700,000 that has been said is available for the rehabilitation. He suggested that there will be other costs that have not been mentioned such as parking and resolving the problem with the River's Edge Trail route. Mr. Meeks stated he heard the demolition contractor wanted $250,000 which would take up the majority of the demolition funds available for the rehab. Mr. Meeks added that perhaps CDBG or CTEP monies could be used if the Commission approved the agreement to save the bridge. He also suggested that any approval of an agreement could be interpreted by the public as the Commission opening the door for other revenue sources such as CTEP and CDBG.

There being no one further to speak in opposition to the City Commission approving an agreement that would save the bridge, Mayor Deming called for those who supported the agreement.

Roy Anderson, 137 Riverview C, stated that if the bridge were saved it would be a nice historical amenity to the City.

Bill Morris, (unknown address), stated that it was time to preserve historic elements of the City. At that time he presented a $100 check to Preservation Cascade.

Norma Ashby, 3233 3rd Avenue South, read letters of support from Gineva Collins and Cindy Kittridge. She stated it was time for the City to have a vision for the future so that in 100 years, the people in Great Falls would thank this Commission and the community for saving the bridge.

Ann Ellen, #20 3rd Street North, stated she appreciated the decision before the City Commission. She added that saving the bridge would be the greatest recycling effort this community could make.

Dona Stebbins, 811 8th Avenue North, commended those speaking in opposition for their civility. Ms. Stebbins suggested that the community learn to live in the solution and not in the problem.

Dorothy Bohn, Glacier Apartments, stated that the Save the Bridge Committee is responsible for a new historic awakening in our community. She added that people have mourned the loss of the smokestack; let's not mourn the bridge.

Elizabeth Hughes, P.O. Box 436, member of the Student Committee for Save the Bridge, asked what would the community lose if the bridge was demolished?

Elizabeth Merritt, National Trust for Historic Preservation, encouraged the City Commission to go forth with this unique opportunity for a public/private partnership. She stated that the Historic Trust pledged to work with the City and Preservation Cascade and that the Historic Trust is proud to be a partner in this issue. She explained that this partnership is a model for a community based solution for a community asset. She stated that cultural assets are what attract people to a community.

Mayor Deming stated that Adolph Peressini and Carol Ecke called to express their support for the proposed agreement.

Herb Sobeczek, 121 11th Street, Black Eagle, stated he supported saving the bridge.

Al Clark, 2221 1st Avenue South, stated that the Trust will back up the fund raising efforts; that the bridge is an icon for the community; and that the Save the Bridge Committee deserve a lot of credit for their efforts to save the bridge.

Arlene Reichert, 1409 4th Avenue South, stated that the bridge was Paris Gibson's vision to the City. She added that she has over 5000 signatures on petitions to save the bridge and that the City now has a unique opportunity for a unique partnership.

Cheryl Reichert, 51 Prospect Drive, stated that the choice was clear and that the City Commission could see the bridge as garbage or an opportunity. She added that this is a great recycling opportunity for the City by discovering an adaptive use for something that has outlived its original purpose.

Ellen Seivert, 1602 3rd Westhill Drive, stated that the goal of Preservation Cascade was to save the bridge. She added that there have been no regrets in any other communities that saved their bridges.

Gary Olds, 616 Doris Drive, stated that he supported saving the bridge because it helped the image of Great Falls to be positive.

Randy Knowles, 3017 9th Avenue South, suggested that the bridge should be saved out of respect for the craftsmen who made the bridge.

Art Goldman, 3016 Central, stated the bridge was a significant historical piece in Great Falls and asked not to destroy the craftsmanship.

Michael Yeager, 211 4th Street SW, stated that the bridge is a beautiful amenity to Great Falls and that we should preserve our past.

Richard Dohrman, 925 1st Avenue North, concurred with the previous speakers.

There being no one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Deming declared the public discussion closed.

	PUBLIC DISCUSSION
10th Street North Bridge Public Discussion.	1. Mayor Deming explained that on April 15, 1997, the City Commission heard a presentation from National Trust representatives regarding a privately funded solution for saving the 10th Street North Bridge which was slated for demolition by the Montana Department of Transportation. The Commission agreed to work with preservationists to develop a public/private partnership to save the bridge. Any agreement would be subject to a public discussion. The Commission stated that any agreement would have to include the following conditions: preserve any agreements in place regarding the south end of the bridge; not to jeopardize the River's Edge Trail in any way; and not use local tax dollars for the rehabilitation and maintenance of the bridge. Mr. Lawton over viewed the points of the proposed agreement in a question/answer format. He explained that many of the questions used were questions asked by the public. Who will have title to the bridge? The Montana Department of Transportation requires a governmental entity to take title to the bridge. Under the concept discussed, the City would be the agency to accept ownership. Why did the City get involved in this controversy when it didn't need to? First there is a significant portion of the community that feels the bridge should be saved and a significant portion that feels it shouldn't. It became a divisive issue in the community and would remain one if the bridge was just torn down. If a solution could be worked out that met most of the concerns of those who preferred demolition (future cost, trail access, taxpayer liability) yet preserved the bridge, then a divisive community issue would have been removed. A second corollary reason was that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction stopping the demolition of the bridge and there was no way to know how that would ultimately turn out. Even if the court went ahead and removed the injunction it was a near certainty that a new lawsuit would be filed by someone on new issues, starting the process all over again. It would be unlikely that demolition would begin in the near future and it would be better to find a solution to the issue than to drag it out in the courts for several years. Who would be liable for injury or damage claims? Since the City would be the owner of the bridge, the City would be responsible for any such claims. It would be doubtful that the City's claims liability would change significantly with the addition of the bridge or any other facility. Liability for tort claims is for negligent acts of omission or commission, not just because the City owns a facility. Liability is hard to predict because no one knows what will be considered by the courts to be negligence. Adding or deleting a facility, unless it is exceptionally dangerous, doesn't really affect the City's overall liability picture. The City has insurance to cover all its facilities, and the addition of the bridge probably won't significantly affect the rates it pays. Under the agreement being discussed, who will be responsible for rehabilitating the bridge and where will the money come from? Under any agreement, the City would accept responsibility for controlling the funds and letting contracts for bridge rehabilitation. MDOT would allow most of the $478,000 originally allocated for bridge demolition to be used for its rehabilitation. This money must be used for one of these purposes; it cannot be used for something else. Preservation Cascade has agreed to commit to raising $300,000 over five years, for bridge rehabilitation. This fundraising effort will be guaranteed at a level and in a form still being negotiated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation Cascade will commit to raising $60,000 annually for five years and the Trust will make up any deficiency each year until their commitment is used up. This amount and form of their commitment will be part of any agreement voted on by the City Commission. What if the Trust and Preservation Cascade fail to live up to their agreements and there is no money after the transportation money runs out? First, the City would sign legally enforceable contracts if it goes ahead with this project. To make sure the City has no financial liability for the completion of any rehabilitation work, the work will be prioritized and then bid according to these priorities. Each priority will be completed in order and when the total budget is exhausted, the work will be considered complete, at least until more private funds are raised. The priorities will be arranged with consideration given to aesthetics and the prevention of further deterioration so that if the money runs out at some point the City will not be left with an unattractive, half finished project. The worst case scenario would be that the City would do over $400,000 worth of work to improve the bridge's appearance and durability and then it would be left as a static display with no access, no maintenance cost, and no operating cost. How much will it cost each year to maintain the bridge including lighting? Who will pay this cost? Any maintenance cost will be paid by Preservation Cascade. This includes lighting if that is part of the rehabilitation. If there are lights, and the electricity is not paid, the lights will not be turned on. We already have a bridge (the Milwaukee Railroad Bridge); why do we need another one? What is the historic significance of the Tenth Street Bridge? The railroad bridge, rather than being a unique historical feature, is envisioned as a recreational feature of the Rivers' Edge Trail. It is in relatively good condition, won't cost a lot to rehabilitate, and is in a good location with easy access to trails on both sides of the river. While the Tenth Street Bridge doesn't have these attributes, historic preservationists have explained that it is unique for this part of the country and that it is an irreplaceable architectural feature that should be saved for its potential beauty and uniqueness. Also, it is part of our own history and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is one of the largest spans of its type in the region. Will there ever be any access on the south end of the bridge? No. If some future owner of the south end property wanted to grant access, however, the City would probably not object. Will the bridge have any impact on River's Edge Trail? No. One of the conditions the City Commission consistently held to is that the trail will have first priority on the north end of the bridge. This means that getting the trail built past the north end, for the segment on the north side of the river, will receive priority over building access to the bridge from the north end. It should be possible to do both though that is not certain at this time. What about the time the City Manager has spent on the bridge? The City Manager is paid a salary to deal with whatever comes his way and he normally puts in well over forty hours per week. As long as he gets the rest of his work done there is no additional cost to the City having him spend time on this project. Assigning him the task of trying to help resolve a community issue is not really the same as spending money on the bridge. What if the bridge needs to be torn down in the next few years, who will pay? It is highly improbable that the bridge will need to be torn down any time soon. It will probably last for decades and could last for centuries. Engineers have determined that the bridge is structurally sound but that it does need repair to halt the deterioration that has occurred because of road salt. If the repairs are made, and no more salt is used, it should last indefinitely. Why can't there be a vote on this issue? This idea had been raised before and the County Attorney's office ruled against a vote because it would conflict with a lawful demolition contract and the initiative power doesn't extend to matters that would require local governments to spend money or incur debt. Since the time the County Attorney ruled a federal court injunction was imposed that could complicate the matter. Following the conclusion of Mr. Lawton's comments, Mayor Deming invited those in the audience to participate in the public discussion. Mayor Deming asked those who opposed the City Commission from entering into an agreement to save the bridge to share their comments first. Those who spoke were as follows: John Koslosky, 38 Treasure State Drive, stated that the City Commission should not use taxpayers money to save the bridge. He added that the bridge does not offer an amenity to the community and agreed with the Montana Department of Transportation's initial decision to demolish the bridge. Mark Humphrey, Fort Shaw, stated that federal taxpayers would be forced to underwrite the costs of rehabilitating and maintaining the bridge. He added that saving the bridge was a pet project by a few people in Great Falls. He concluded stating that what never gets mentioned is the fact that the construction company awarded the demolition contract was getting a bad deal. Roger Pitkins, 726 1st Avenue North, stated that City officials say that rehabilitation and maintenance of the bridge would not cost taxpayers any money. He added that may be true today, but asked what about ten years from now? He also asked why didn't people put just as much effort into saving the downtown? Jerry Evans, #2 Prospect, stated that he had several questions he would like to ask rather than speaking against saving the bridge. The first question asked was who was going to pay the contractor? City Manager, John Lawton, explained that the Montana Department of Transportation indicated it would take care of the contract with the demolition contractor. Mr. Evans also asked if the money used to settle with the demolition contractor would be deducted from the money dedicated to the demolition and/or rehabilitation of the bridge? Mr. Lawton stated that the Department of Transportation would deduct a portion of that amount from the $478,000, however the bulk of that money would be given to the City for rehabilitation. Mr. Evans asked if the City Commission would know the exact dollar amount available prior to voting on the agreement? Mr. Lawton stated they would. Mr. Evans also asked who would bear the liability during the rehabilitation of the bridge? Mr. Lawton explained that liability such as that would be passed on to the contractor hired to do the rehabilitation. And finally, Mr. Evans asked how much of the $300,000 has Preservation Cascade raised to date? Mr. Lawton stated that approximately 10% of the money had been raised. John Sturgin, 121 2nd Street NW, stated that the City did not need another tax burden. He suggested that the City use the money to fix the streets and the water systems. Martin Jakubowski, 3004 5th Avenue South, suggested that the money would be better spent on the deteriorating infrastructure. Jim McMann, 3100 block of 2nd Avenue South, suggested that City officials can't say that tax dollars are not being spent. He added that the district court case is unfair as it is denying him the right to vote on this issue. George Husterman, (no address provided), stated that this is an emotional issue in the community and that the costs will eventually fall back on the taxpayers. Victor Tacke, 2308 9th Avenue South, stated that the money could be better spent and that people would not use the rehabilitated bridge for picnics. Mayor Deming read into the record the letters received from people opposing the saving of the 10th Street Bridge. They were as follows: A letter from Betty R. Canoy and a faxed copy of a petition against saving the bridge signed by eleven citizens of Great Falls. Ralph McGillivray, 4605 Diane Drive, stated he opposed saving the bridge. Lee Pate, 718 3rd Avenue North, stated that the 10th Street North bridge is an eyesore and suggested that the bridge should be torn down in order to show the beauty of the new bridge. Bud Moore, 2600 47th Avenue SW, stated that a special interest group was getting their way. He suggested that the people be allowed to vote on the issue. He also stated that the Commission won't be able to convince people that local tax dollars are not going to be used. He added that tax dollars are being used whether they are local or not and it's the people who pay the taxes. He stated that the City Commission are the stewards of the tax dollars and they need to ensure that they are spent wisely and for the benefit of all. He stated that a special interest group such as the "Save the Bridge" group does not represent the opinion of the majority of the people in Great Falls. He suggested that the City Commission focus on projects that will enhance Great Falls. He concluded stating that saving the bridge will not provide employment opportunities for our children. Lyle Meeks, 3509 8th Avenue South, stated he was concerned with the ultimate comprehensive cost estimate. He stated to rehab the structure and amenities could cost much more than the $700,000 that has been said is available for the rehabilitation. He suggested that there will be other costs that have not been mentioned such as parking and resolving the problem with the River's Edge Trail route. Mr. Meeks stated he heard the demolition contractor wanted $250,000 which would take up the majority of the demolition funds available for the rehab. Mr. Meeks added that perhaps CDBG or CTEP monies could be used if the Commission approved the agreement to save the bridge. He also suggested that any approval of an agreement could be interpreted by the public as the Commission opening the door for other revenue sources such as CTEP and CDBG. There being no one further to speak in opposition to the City Commission approving an agreement that would save the bridge, Mayor Deming called for those who supported the agreement. Roy Anderson, 137 Riverview C, stated that if the bridge were saved it would be a nice historical amenity to the City. Bill Morris, (unknown address), stated that it was time to preserve historic elements of the City. At that time he presented a $100 check to Preservation Cascade. Norma Ashby, 3233 3rd Avenue South, read letters of support from Gineva Collins and Cindy Kittridge. She stated it was time for the City to have a vision for the future so that in 100 years, the people in Great Falls would thank this Commission and the community for saving the bridge. Ann Ellen, #20 3rd Street North, stated she appreciated the decision before the City Commission. She added that saving the bridge would be the greatest recycling effort this community could make. Dona Stebbins, 811 8th Avenue North, commended those speaking in opposition for their civility. Ms. Stebbins suggested that the community learn to live in the solution and not in the problem. Dorothy Bohn, Glacier Apartments, stated that the Save the Bridge Committee is responsible for a new historic awakening in our community. She added that people have mourned the loss of the smokestack; let's not mourn the bridge. Elizabeth Hughes, P.O. Box 436, member of the Student Committee for Save the Bridge, asked what would the community lose if the bridge was demolished? Elizabeth Merritt, National Trust for Historic Preservation, encouraged the City Commission to go forth with this unique opportunity for a public/private partnership. She stated that the Historic Trust pledged to work with the City and Preservation Cascade and that the Historic Trust is proud to be a partner in this issue. She explained that this partnership is a model for a community based solution for a community asset. She stated that cultural assets are what attract people to a community. Mayor Deming stated that Adolph Peressini and Carol Ecke called to express their support for the proposed agreement. Herb Sobeczek, 121 11th Street, Black Eagle, stated he supported saving the bridge. Al Clark, 2221 1st Avenue South, stated that the Trust will back up the fund raising efforts; that the bridge is an icon for the community; and that the Save the Bridge Committee deserve a lot of credit for their efforts to save the bridge. Arlene Reichert, 1409 4th Avenue South, stated that the bridge was Paris Gibson's vision to the City. She added that she has over 5000 signatures on petitions to save the bridge and that the City now has a unique opportunity for a unique partnership. Cheryl Reichert, 51 Prospect Drive, stated that the choice was clear and that the City Commission could see the bridge as garbage or an opportunity. She added that this is a great recycling opportunity for the City by discovering an adaptive use for something that has outlived its original purpose. Ellen Seivert, 1602 3rd Westhill Drive, stated that the goal of Preservation Cascade was to save the bridge. She added that there have been no regrets in any other communities that saved their bridges. Gary Olds, 616 Doris Drive, stated that he supported saving the bridge because it helped the image of Great Falls to be positive. Randy Knowles, 3017 9th Avenue South, suggested that the bridge should be saved out of respect for the craftsmen who made the bridge. Art Goldman, 3016 Central, stated the bridge was a significant historical piece in Great Falls and asked not to destroy the craftsmanship. Michael Yeager, 211 4th Street SW, stated that the bridge is a beautiful amenity to Great Falls and that we should preserve our past. Richard Dohrman, 925 1st Avenue North, concurred with the previous speakers. Mayor Deming then read a letter of support from Wendy Whitehorn. There being no one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Deming declared the public discussion closed.
	OLD BUSINESS
Reconsider Action on Res. 8915, Create SLD 1289. Approved.	2. RECONSIDER ACTION ON RESOLUTION 8915, CREATION OF SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICT 1289. On Wednesday, December 3, 1997, Mayor Deming was contacted by Deloris Russell, a property owner in the proposed special lighting district, who stated that the required fifteen day protest period for the creation of Special Lighting District 1289 had not been met. She explained that the notices were dated November 19, 1997, and the protest period ended on December 2, 1997. This would mean, then, that the protest period was actually 14 days instead of the required 15 days. In researching the City's records, it was confirmed, that the required 15 day protest period had in fact not been met. Therefore, Staff recommended the City Commission reconsider the motion made at the December 2, 1997, meeting and direct Staff to do what was necessary to restart the creation process for the special lighting district. Further, Staff recommended the City Commission reset the public hearing for the creation of Special Lighting District 1289 to January 6, 1998. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Bennet, that the City Commission reconsider the motion to adopt Resolution 8915 made at the regular Commission meeting held December 2, 1997, by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Downer and carried unanimously. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioners Bennett and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission direct Staff to restart the process, as required by State law, for the creation of Special Lighting District 1289. And further, to reset the public hearing for said creation for January 6, 1998. Commissioner Gray stated he was troubled that residents of the County were being assessed in this lighting district. Motion carried 5-0.
Reconsider Action on Res. 8916, Create SLD 1290. Approved.	3. RECONSIDER ACTION ON RESOLUTION 8916, CREATION OF SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICT 1290. On Wednesday, December 3, 1997, Mayor Deming was contacted by Deloris Russell, a property owner in the proposed Special Lighting District 1289. Ms. Russell stated that the required fifteen day protest period for the creation of Special Lighting District 1289 had not been met. She explained that the notices were dated November 19, 1997, and the protest period ended on December 2, 1997. This would mean, then, that the protest period was actually 14 days instead of the required 15 days. In researching the City's records, it was confirmed, that the required 15 day protest period had in fact not been met. Because Special Lighting Districts 1289 and 1290 were done simultaneously, Staff recommended the City Commission reconsider the motion made at the December 2, 1997, meeting and direct Staff to do what is necessary to restart the creation process for the special lighting district. Further, Staff recommended the City Commission reset the public hearing for the creation of Special Lighting District 1290 to January 6, 1998. Commissioner Bennett moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission reconsider the motion to adopt Resolution 8916 made at the regular Commission meeting held December 2, 1997, by Commissioner Downer, seconded by Commissioners Bennett and Rosenbaum, and carried unanimously. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Bennett moved, seconded by Commissioner Downer, that the City Commission direct Staff to restart the creation process, as required by State law, for the creation of Special Lighting District 1290. And further, to reset the public hearing for said creation for January 6, 1998. Motion carried 5-0.
	NEW BUSINESS
	ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
Res. 8917, Prairie Ridge Addition. Adopted.	4. RESOLUTION 8917, MINOR PLAT OF PRAIRIE RIDGE ADDITION. Resolution 8917 annexes a two lot subdivision immediately north of North Riverview Terrace Addition. The annexation agreement addresses the limited remaining public roadway improvements in the abutting portion of 7th Street NE. Commissioner Gray moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8917 and approve the minor plat of Prairie Ridge Addition and the accompanying annexation agreement. Motion carried 5-0.
Consent Agenda Approved as printed.	CONSENT AGENDA 5. Minutes, regular Commission meeting held December 2, 1997. 6. Claims over $500. 7. Contracts List. 8. Set public hearing, Law Enforcement Block Grant and appoint Ad Hoc Committee. Set public hearing for January 6, 1998, and appoint seven members to the Law Enforcement Block Grant Ad Hoc Committee. 9. Set public hearing, leases with the Americans, Westside and Riverview Little Leagues, for January 6, 1998. Sets public hearing to receive public comment on leasing park property to the Little League Associations. 10. Set public hearing, leases with the Great Falls Youth Soccer Association and Electric City Soccer Club, for January 6, 1998. Sets public hearing to receive public comment on leasing park property to the soccer clubs. 11. Set public hearing, lease of Sandhills Park to the Great Falls BMX Association, for January 6, 1998. Sets public hearing to receive public comment on leasing a portion of Sandhills Park to the Great Falls BMX Association. 12. Addendum Agreement, Architect Services, Anaconda Hills Golf Course Irrigation Project (OF 819.5). Increases the architect services fee $2,000 in order to accommodate the rebidding of the irrigation project. 13. Change Order 1, Acacia Way and Park Garden Road Improvements (OF 1183). Provides compensation for additional street reconstruction that was not included in the original bid quantities. The additional work increased the contract price $56,269.70. 14. Contract Award, Gibson Park Concessions. Award Gibson Park Concession contract to Jim and Carol Gamel. The contract will be in effect from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2002. 15. Final Claim, Ella Water Tank Exterior Paint (OF 908.2). Final payment to Coatings Unlimited and the State Miscellaneous Tax Division in the amount of $3,839.25. 16. Final Claim, 24th Street SW & 2nd Avenue SW Water Main Replacement (OF 1184). Final payment to Ed Boland Construction and the State Miscellaneous Tax Division in the amount of $140,950.36. 17. Final Claim, Site and Foundation Improvements for City/County Health Building (OF 1195). Final payment to Volk Sand and Gravel in the amount of $878.94 and the State Miscellaneous Tax Division in the amount of $8.88. Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, that the City Commission approve the Consent Agenda as printed. Motion carried 5-0.
	BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
Appointments, Civic Center Advisory Board.	18. APPOINTMENTS, CIVIC CENTER ADVISORY BOARD. Ordinance 2729, adopted by the City Commission on October 21, 1997, created the Civic Center Advisory Board. The Board will advise the City Commission on all matters related to the successful operation of the Civic Center facilities. Commissioner Gray moved, seconded by Commissioner Downer, that the City Commission appoint the following members to their respective terms: Jim Flaherty, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000; Roberta Demarest, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000; John Gilbert, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000; Bill Larsen, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999; Jackie Wren, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999; Gary Baron, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999; Marlene Ann Byrne, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998; Roger Pikens Jr, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998; and Charles Sherwood, January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. Motion carried 5-0.
Appointments, Park and Recreation Board.	19. APPOINTMENTS, PARK AND RECREATION BOARD. Terms for James Lenzmeier, Andrea Parrott, and William Roberts expire December 31, 1997. All members were eligible and interested in reappointment. The Park and Recreation Board recommended reappointing the members. The term for Doug Wicks expires December 31, 1997, he was not eligible for reappointment. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission reappoint James Lenzmeier, Andrea Parrott, and William Roberts and appoint new member George Page, to the Park and Recreation Board for a three year term, beginning January 1, 1998 and expiring December 31, 2000. Motion carried 5-0.
	CITY MANAGER
Audit Report. Accepted.	20. AUDIT REPORT, FY 1996/97. Hamilton Misfeldt & Company, Certified Public Accountants, conducted the City's FY 1996/97 Annual Audit. At a meeting of the City's Audit Committee on December 11, 1997, the Audit Committee reviewed the CAFR and recommended the City Commission accept it. Coleen Balzarini, City Controller, reviewed the CAFR document for the City Commission. She stated that this year the City received an unqualified opinion without a management letter. The City Commission praised Staff on the audit findings. Commissioner Downer moved, seconded by Commissioner Gray, that the City Commission accept the FY 1996/97 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and audit report. Motion carried 5-0.
City Manager miscellaneous reports and announcements.	20. The City Manager had no other reports or announcements.
	CITY COMMISSION
Future meetings.	22. Mayor Deming reviewed the Commission calendar for the next two weeks.
	PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Pollution Monitoring.	23. Randy Knowles, 3017 9th Avenue South, requested the City Commission support Bill Wiseman's efforts to relocate the pollution monitor located on 10th Avenue South..
	ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn	There being no further business to come before the Commission, the regular meeting of December 16, 1997, adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

JOURNAL OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGSDECEMBER 16, 1997

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

JOURNAL OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS
DECEMBER 16, 1997