Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Monday, November 17th West Fargo City Commission meeting.

We welcome you.

Before we call the meeting to order, I'd ask that everybody in the room please silence your phones except for first responders.

With that, we call the meeting to order.

Please join the commission in a pledge of allegiance.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, did you please call the roll?

Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Commissioner Olson.

Here.

Commissioner Dartis.

Here.

Commissioner Zondell.

Here.

Commissioners Jorgensen.

Here.

Let the record show that all commissioners are present.

Commissioner Olson is joining us by via Zoom.

Next order of business is to approve the order of the agenda.

Commissioners, it has been distributed in your packets.

Move approved.

I have a commit uh Commissioner Jorgensen moves to approve Commissioner Anderson's seconds.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

I agree.

Commissioner Olson for clarification.

Did you vote and pro to approve the order of the agenda?

Did I just rush to it, rush through it too fast?

Yes, I voted to approve the agenda.

Thank you, sir.

I'm coming from the northwest part of the state, so it may take a little while for my transmission to get there.

I'll slow down, I promise.

Next order of business is to approve the minutes of November 3rd.

They have been distributed and are in your packets.

Moving approved.

Commissioner Zundal moves to approve the minutes of November 3rd as presented.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Jorgensen seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of November 3rd as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Building permits.

The building permits as been distributed and in your packets, Commissioners.

Move we approve.

Commissioner Zundal moves to approve the building permits of November 17th as presented.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the building permits of November 17th as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Next order of business is a consent agenda.

We have items A through E on a consent agenda.

Move approved.

Commissioner Anderson moves to approve the consent agenda.

Items A through E.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Zundell seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda.

A through E as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

At this time we are now in the regular agenda.

Item number one on the regular agenda is public comment.

We have four individuals that have signed up for public comment this evening.

This is the way it was given to me.

First person to speak this evening is Joanne Allman.

Joanne.

This microphone, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you for so kindly for allowing our neighborhood to present our concerns regarding project 6060 River Bend Path.

I represent Dahl subdivision, the neighborhood on the north side of the proposed path.

We are not in favor of the path.

This includes the homeowners, condo association, and owners of kinder care.

We have numerous concerns, including cost, safety, negative effect on the neighborhoods in the area, and the environmental impact.

I'm going to mainly address environmental impact.

I walked the proposed path and saw the mainly box elder and cottonwood trees already marked for destruction.

150 trees, some likely over a hundred years old.

This is a significant destruction of the tree canopy that serves as a large nesting area for eagles, hawks, falcons, and other birds.

Per federal migratory bird treaty act, a bird survey needs to be done within five days of demolition.

And if active nests are found, you need to detour 100 feet away.

This could result in a zigzag path in increased cost.

They will replant trees, but I quote, realize this will be with four-inch twigs.

It will take 30 years before these trees can serve the environment like the ones taken down.

The construction will also displace deer, fox, coyotes, and river otters.

Living in this area, we know it will be very difficult to keep the path open in the winter as it fills in with snow.

So you will likely have a tunnel and then in the spring a flooded path.

There are other options that would be cheaper, have no negative effect on the environment, and involve no tree destruction, such as Beaton Drive.

Please look beyond the sales pitch you are being given on this $2 million, half a mile long path.

And as city commissioners, I encourage you to be good stewards of West Fargo's environment, finances, and neighborhoods.

This path is not wanted, safe, needed, or environmentally friendly.

Thank you so kindly.

Thank you, Mr.

Ms.

Hallman.

Next person that I have on the list is Ryan Haas.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening.

Thank you.

It's nice to put a face and a name together for a change.

I've lived in West Fargo for eight years, and I live at 2325 Rivers Bend Drive, which is right across the street from the proposed uh bridge.

My biggest concern that has not had a lot of uh emphasis on in the meetings that we've had is the lack of the loss of all these trees.

Now, some of the trees we've talked about have probably been there, like we just mentioned, over a hundred years.

If there's oak trees involved in this, and I have not taken a census, they could be 250 years old.

So just randomly taking a path through this, you know, even the underbrush is providing future generations with trees.

Nature has a way of replenishing itself, and this is our urban forest.

West Farbo really doesn't have an urban forest other than maybe Rendezvous Park has a lot of trees and you know is user-friendly for all the things mentioned, habitat and holding the bank and uh whatever else you can think of, recreational purposes.

Um, I just think that there's better ways because if we get rid of the existing trees, that's fine.

That takes care of what we enjoyed as a generation, but the next generation is seedlings and suckers coming up out of the ground that will be the next hundred-year-old trees.

Fifty years from now, 75 years from now for our kids and grandkids.

So I think in the impact of the bridge itself, I don't think is going to provide that much interest versus planting more trees and then people enjoying the existing paths, plant more trees around the paths that are existing.

The riversbed area has an overabundance, or not overabundance, but a lot of walking paths, and it's very user-friendly.

So we enjoy that.

And if we enhance those paths a little more, it wouldn't be such a harm on the river bank itself.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

The next individual is Mr.

David Whithy.

Good evening.

Good evening and welcome.

David with the 2421 from Cloud Drive East.

I too am here to talk about this Project 660 multi-use path.

Frankly, I don't understand why it's on the agenda, because the purpose behind it keeps changing.

First, we were told it was needed to help students get to Freedom Elementary School, except the students on the other side of the river go to Brooks Harbor, not to freedom.

Then we were told it's needed to make certain that people can access the businesses more easily among veterans.

But West Fire 2.0 says that people walk maybe a quarter of a mile to a destination, and this would be a lot more than a quarter of a mile from the other side of the river.

So then we're just making a bike path.

But I gotta be honest with you, there are a lot of people closer to Costco and other stores that could ride their bikes there, but they don't.

I don't see bikes being used currently, but people could do that.

So then we were told, well, really, this is a project that was part of West Rival 2.0.

Well, you know, it's everything about it is exactly opposite of what West Friday 2.0 asked for.0 says protect our canopy and grow it from 2.7% in 2018 up to 20% in 2030.

Right now we're at about 7.4%.

That was my last forestry department report from 22.

And cutting down 100 fifty trees doesn't help us grow our canopy.

Um it also says that we need to protect our wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Well, you know, it also tells us to protect our riverside and wetland territory.

Well, you put a path in there, what you're doing is you're disrupting that habitat dramatically in one of the few areas where we do have wildlife.

Um so this path goes against everything we're being asked to do.

And there's no actual plan for replacement trees.

We asked about what happens when you cut down all these trees.

We were told, well, there's a requirement for us to plant two for every one that we cut down.

Well, it's not a requirement.

It's a plan of it's just a standard industry practice.

I'm willing to wager it that this was never really planned for to plant 300 trees until maybe we just brought it up recently at the Rustad meeting.

Then we were told, well, you know, it's not really West River 2.0, it's actually the 2016 Metro Cog bike plant that's really behind this.

Well, statistically speaking, there was no real West Facult representation in any of that discussion.

There were four open houses, and none of them were in West Fargo.

There was a survey, but not a relevant number of people responded to the survey, but they went ahead and used it anyways.

Number of people went from West Fargo, there were only 21 people responding to that survey.

That's not a relevant number either, statistically speaking.

Should have been at least 46, preferably 56.

So they still gave us a list of 23 projects for West Fargo.

Only eight of those projects were actually presented to any group of people to vote on.

Only two of them received votes.

We don't know where the other 15 projects came from or who put them on the list.

But it wasn't West Fargo citizens.

Now we're being told what we need is another connection between Cheyenne and Veteranslash 9th.

Because 17th to 32nd is too long of a distance.

I can understand that.

But there's a better option just a quarter mile away on Beaton.

And turns out that was one of the two projects that actually got votes on that Metro Scog um study that was done nine years ago, eight years ago.

So you got votes, but that's not on the project list until 2027.

Why don't we just protect our our nature, protect our wildlife, protect our canopy by just not doing this one and doing beaten, because we really don't need two of them just a quarter of a mile away.

And Beaton already has safe um crosswalks and traffic light on the western side.

6060 doesn't have anything safe on that side.

I have a handout.

Can I give it to you?

Certainly.

Thank you for your time.

Secretary, please.

To the secretary.

She'll get it to us.

Thank you.

The next speaker that we have on the list is Pat Belmore.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you.

Yes, my name's Pat Bellmore.

My wife and I live at 2334 Rivers Bend Drive.

Our property is immediately adjacent to not only the path, but also the proposed bridge.

So we're uniquely uh concerned about the project, as you can imagine.

Uh I've been in leadership positions before.

I try to be pragmatic about these type of things when I see it.

If I would have had somebody come to me with almost a two million dollar ask, I'd be asking a lot of questions.

Um as David mentioned and others, this really stems back from a study 10 years ago.

A lot has changed at that point.

In fact, most of Rivers Bend wasn't even developed at that time.

And like they said, a lot of things have changed.

Um I'm really trying to figure out what what problem are we trying to solve here.

It seems like it's connectivity.

We have connectivity with 32nd and possibly beaten uh in the future.

I'm probably on the most northernmost part of Rivers Bend.

My wife and I routinely walk over to 32nd Avenue over to the lights.

And if an old guy like I can like me can do that, I think our connectivity and our access to commercial districts is just fine.

We'd love the path.

If it's the commission is bent on doing something to the west, there's already a multi-use path that runs on the south end of River's Bend and it stops and goes north on the Lowberg Trail, which is a nature trail, which is wonderful.

Not proposing anything to change there, but simply where that cement ends, it's a short jot to the river.

You can put a bridge there, and then it's right over 29th Street, which or 29th Avenue, which has a fully completed intersection with crosswalks.

These type of projects, what comes up is really in my mind, the law of unintended consequences.

And a lot of this stuff I don't believe has been thought about.

You're developing a secluded path down along the river.

I feel like it'd be remiss if you don't have conversations with other cities like Fargo.

They have a lot of problems in those areas.

Has a comprehensive risk assessment been done.

Things that come to my mind are the mitigation of the high risk bikes.

It'll be a racetrack back there.

The kids that I've talked to that have bikes, they've now bypassed their speed limiters and they got them go as high as 45 and 60 miles an hour.

What comes to my mind?

What's the plan for emergency access in that back area?

Is it going to be routine routinely patrolled?

Those type of things.

We're sending people right out to uh six-lane highway or street, which is very busy.

As far as the destruction of the woods, we we were taken out by the FM diversion when we decided to build in West Fargo.

We're looking for a wooded lot with privacy.

We have it.

Now with the proposed bridge, we'll be actually looking back largely, especially this time of year, at a bridge that expanses the Cheyenne.

That'll be our view that we'd be looking at instead of what we thought we were getting.

Um so I just wanted you to consider some of my comments, and I would urge a no vote on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

That is all the folks that we had signed up for public comment this evening.

So with that, public comment is closed.

We move on to item number two on the regular agenda.

The right number two is the public hearings.

Um none of the items that we have before us this evening uh are mandated by century code that we have a public hearing.

So we move on to item number three.

Item number three is the West 94 area transportation plan.

Plan presentation and approval.

We're gonna call on Aaron Nelson, the director of planning and zoning, and Mr.

Mike Bittner of Bolton Ming, and Dan Farnsworth of MetroCrog.

Gentlemen, good evening, welcome.

Thank you, and good evening.

I got all the names right.

We got the names that are on here are the gentlemen that are here.

That's correct.

Good.

Well, welcome.

Please.

So I'm just uh here to give a quick introduction and uh a little context.

So uh item three is a present presentation of the West 94 area transportation plan.

Um accompanying this presentation tonight is a request for approval of a resolution of support, which is included in your packet.

Um so, in terms of context here, this transportation plan was originally initiated by the city of West Fargo and MetroCog a couple of years back in order to plan for transportation needs in advance of the completion of the FM diversion project and associated uh development pressures that are anticipated along with that.

The uh plan tonight or the plan itself focuses on two main things.

Uh, one is uh potential for future interchanges along I-94.

Uh the other is the uh future transportation network and infrastructure necessary to accommodate uh future development within the specific study area, which will be included in the the slide deck uh shortly.

Uh the results of this plan, along with other previously completed transportation plans are intended to inform uh the transportation component of the city's growth area master planning effort, which is currently underway.

So just wanted to provide that little bit of bit of context.

So with that, um again here tonight.

Uh Mike Bittner, I think is going to be given the bulk of the presentation.

Um Mike Bittner is the project manager with Bolton and Mink who uh completed this project.

Also Dan Farnsworth with MetroCog, uh MetroCog's project manager for this project.

So all three of us and others in the audience here, including uh Dan in engineering, um, are available for questions as well.

So with that, I'll end it off.

Thank you, Mayor Commissioners.

I just want to start by giving a kudos to city staff, uh, some of the best in the business that I've had the pleasure to work with.

Great leadership and guidance throughout this entire process.

So I'm gonna start by focusing here.

Okay.

I'm not sure if that's a little bit of a this thing.

Okay, I'll just give you a point if that works, okay?

All right, so on the screen you can see our study area in yellow.

And uh so a couple of the key themes that really go into this overall process is really that the uh the Red River diversion is really the lifeblood that breathes potential into this area, but it's also kind of the primary reason why we can't access this from a transportation perspective.

It basically severs all ties.

And we know that we don't want to move traffic through Brooks Harbor where we already have land use and traffic conflicts.

The third theme we had to go through as through this process is that the North Dakota Department of Transportation has rigorous requirements and firm preferences on access spacing on I-94.

So to be able to fully unlock this area really took a lot of transportation, uh, fidess and analysis.

Next slide, please.

So the overall intent is threefold, understand growth potential, uncover potential barriers, whether that be through DOT stakeholders or the public at large, roadmap next steps, which is where we'll finish the presentation.

But then also just to understand that this plan is not a final referendum on land use, access, and overall investment.

It really is designed to be analysis to guide your next couple steps.

And so you're gonna see some concepts in here that are gonna feel fully formed, but they really are just the first step in the right direction.

So why is early planning so important?

You can really see the change, and you're all very well familiar with what uh West Fargo look like south of I-94.

And so it really is important that we start to think about the overall potential, but also start to evaluate what those potential barriers are, and so that we can learn from the things we would love to do a little bit differently in terms of getting infrastructure out there first.

We started with a variety of growth assumptions, and one of our key goals was to provide better access to commercial land use in this area.

Not only does this provide uh better tax sharing as you start to pay for the infrastructure, but it also provides a bit more harmonious land uses.

And so we've got our where people work and live a little bit more closely connected than some of the neighborhoods we have across the region.

And again, this is really just supposed to be a basis of analysis.

Uh the West Fargo Growth Plan is really designed to come through and refine the land use assumptions.

So here's a connect conceptual vision on the left and of land use potential and how everything kind of interconnects into the future of the two and a half square miles.

On the right, you can see the roadway infrastructure connected in and throughout that process.

And so you can really see the marriage between land use and transportation through these two graphics.

And so it's really important as you start to think about the different types of uses for roads, um, how that interplays with the land use.

And so a great comment we got at the public input was well, we don't want all of our schools to be along in arterial.

And so by being able to establish where the roads go first, you can start to make sure that your land use doesn't conflict in that manner in the future.

So we take all that land use information, we input it into MetroCOG's travel demand model, which is a big uh traffic model that connects where people live and where people work through the year 2050.

And so on that graphic, you can start to see growth projections that arrange anywhere from about 10,000, so something similar to what you see on 9th Street north of 13th Avenue, all the way up to some traffic volumes near I-94, similar to Veterans Boulevard or even 45th Street.

So dialing into a couple of the key locations from the plan, we call our first kind of the road in the middle, our central spine.

It's not an avenue, it's not a street, but it really bisects everything that's gonna happen through this area.

And really the vision for this was something foundational, versatile, and memorable to be the signature road that connects all the different elements of this plan together.

So, what we did is we developed a palette of potential alternatives so that developers as they come in based on their adjacent land use and their transportation demand, can pick between a variety of different approved options.

Another key component is Christians and Drive.

Um, as you can see on the right side of the screen, the connectivity of adding uh a new connection over the Cheyenne version for for all modes of travel and then interconnecting all of our trails and different uh turning lanes and elements to this area as well.

And so this will be an important element as you start to think about any short-term growth, as you're gonna find some of the bigger elements are gonna take a while to start to get developed.

If we were to look at our only interstate access that we'd have without the Christians and drive connection would be all the way west at 38th Street and I-29, which is really the western termini of this overall area.

And this will be an important interchange at some point, particularly as you think about the northwest part of West Fargo and Fargo, which is expected to have a lot of growth.

But this really was not determined to be a feasible solution to access West 94 as its sole access point, both from the lack of ability to move all the traffic, but also just all the way to the west can be pretty inconvenient.

So we started to look at some new connections.

On this screen here, you can see on the left side of the screen, this is an overpass of think, say 42nd Street and 994 in Fargo.

That's connected to 13th and 15th.

And then the right side of the screen is an interchange connections that would have ramps that connect to and from I-94.

So as we start to think about the trade-offs, and as I mentioned, really the overall document starts to provide guidance of what the benefits are for each of these things.

So we start to look at what an overpass would be is lower upfront cost and long-term costs, and then from the DOT's perspective, better from reducing potential conflicts on Interstate 94.

However, from a local perspective, most, including the development community and public, felt like this had the interchange at a much higher potential to achieving those commercial goals of development by having access to the interstate.

We also find it has better regional travel times from getting to and from the areas in and around West Fargo.

And also we kind of ended up with similar volumes on I-94 regardless.

Just a matter of where they got on the interstate.

Um through the planning process.

This is a 15th Street connection on the left with an overpass, and then on the right, that's an interchange with access to I-94.

So as you compare 13th Avenue versus 15th Street, 13th definitely has better connectivity.

13th Avenue is an arterial all the way to the Red River, whereas 15th Street does provide some simplified design and certainly some preference for those that directly abut that area as well.

We also looked at Main Avenue and 26th Street.

This is a really critical infrastructure piece as we think about the growth in the northwest part of the community.

This is designed to connect into that area while also connecting down it to West 94.

This is also an extremely challenging interchange location from a design perspective because we have five different approaches by 2050 that carry over 20,000 vehicles.

So not only do we have Maine, but we're trying to connect north via 26 and south via 26.

And so while it does achieve all of those goals, it certainly requires two Cheyenne diversion crossings and a railroad crossing if you were to zoom out and look to the north.

So we looked at a lot of different options here, and this is really the one concept that uh really met all the operational needs.

So as we start to think about whether it's 13th Avenue slash 15th Street or 26th Street in Maine, um, there's certainly pros and cons to both.

Um, 13th and 15th, it just has better access to West 94.

Um, there's a lot more developable land directly adjacent to that.

It also provides a bit more logical east to west growth patterns.

Um, 26th Street in Maine as your first kind of major feature access point is it does help kind of balance the need to the northwest plus the West 94, and also the utility connections based on where the available capacity will actually be from the West, and so you're kind of connecting a little closer to the utilities home, but those will have to move all the way through anyways.

We also looked at alternative modes of travel, um, so not just vehicles but pedestrian, bicycle, and even transit.

Um, so you can see on the graphic on the right side of the screen, we've got uh connectivity both linearly across and adjacent to corridors, but then also across busy intersections.

We also looked at ways that we could connect uh to the Red River Diversion Greenway vision, which is a pretty ambitious plan with a lot of uh trails and different multimodal hubs throughout the corridor.

We had a pretty intense public engagement process.

We engaged more than 100 stakeholders throughout the process, which is which is good considering there's not a lot that's happening directly inside it, but we have a lot of neighborhoods connected to it.

So we had developer round tables, jurisdictional oversight meetings, property owner meetings, one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders, a public open house, and interactive online website and preference surveys.

We also did a lot of marketing to try to get the word out during that process.

We had postcards to property owners in the study area, open house marketed Brooks Harbor Elementary and Westside Elementary Email newsletters, social media posts by Metro Cog in the city of West Fargo.

We uh punched marketing signs at busy intersections that we knew that the neighborhoods would all cross.

Uh for example, Cheyenne Street and 26th Avenue as they exit Brooks Harbor.

Uh posters hung in proximity businesses, uh news coverage, box app, press release.

Overall, from the engagement perspective, um, we had a variety of different surveys of how much do you support these types of concepts?

And and if you had multiple options, what would they be?

So you can see in the bottom right that is what we call our criticality index, which is just saying that 100% you think that's really critical solution zero, you don't think it's very useful at all.

Um as you can see, kind of all of our major improvements all gained uh pretty notable support uh overall, um, all well above 50 percent.

Um, and then as we start to look at preferences locally in terms of 13th and 15th, is that an interchange or an overpass?

Um, the preference locally was an interchange.

Um, there were some notable conflicts with the interchange versus overpass.

Uh Elmwood neighborhood was a little concerned about increased traffic volumes, and the North Dakota Department of Transportation was just wanted to reaffirm that there wouldn't be major safety issues with new drive with new uh access points.

So ultimately we ended with two phasing scenarios as we work through the process and work through all the stakeholders on the on the the two graphics you see on the screen, green would be short term, yellow would be midterm, and red would be long term.

And there are no specific years tied to this.

This is really you know left open-ended, recognizing that on the next slide, you'll see that there are some pretty major cost components, but also just local priorities.

And so but really the differences in the two scenarios are just designed of what's what is that key signature feature on the left side of the screen?

You can see that is Cheyenne, that is sorry, that is 26 in Maine interchange at I-94.

And then on the right graphic, you can see the the key signature features 13th and 15th.

And then they all they both also end at a different point.

Um, 13th and 15th on the scenario A is only an overpass.

That was requested by North Dakota Department of Transportation as having multiple options open as you move forward.

And so there's definitely some advantages and disadvantages that I talked through on some of the previous slides, but both of these are presented as roadmaps that you could start to move towards as you move into the future.

No, that's good.

Next slide, you you're looking ahead, you knew.

So finally, the kind of the keys to future success.

Um, really probably the most important right now is city and ND DOT collaboration.

This really was a groundbreaking plan in that it got the conversation started.

Um, but there just needs to be more coordination as you work through that process.

Um, this is a long process overall.

Um, there are two, for example, interchanges, one occurring new interchanges, one occurring at Fargo and Grand Forks, and both of those have taken when they're said and done, they'll be take 10 to 15 years to go from vision to implementation.

So it really underscores uh how much of a process this can be.

Um, and so other important elements to this would be just local leadership.

The DOT does like that these are led um to be proven that they're needed.

So thinking about grant money to help fund this, because you can see on the bottom right that regardless of which solution you take on, um, there is a significant amount of overall investment.

Right-of-way preservation, stakeholder engagement, and then commitment to growth plans or three other elements that are important.

The last thing you want to do is have a great infrastructure plan that is you know thwarted by the first low density residential neighborhood that present prevents the interchange from happening or it prevents the demand from occurring.

So, with that, I guess the final recommendation is just get started early.

All of these things will take time, um, but they will help to unlock this area if it's so desired to do so.

So, with that, I'm happy to open it up for any questions.

Commissioners, questions for the gentleman.

Commissioner Zundell.

Can you go back to the two different recommendations?

Thank you.

Um, is there a reason in scenario B that you wouldn't follow the DOT in talking about that pedestrian bike overpass on 21st Avenue West?

I think I have the things that stick out to me.

Um, and full disclosure, I live in the Brooks Harbor neighborhood, is adding any additional traffic through that area, especially you're like essentially routing it right by the school, I think would be very, very problematic in any type of expansion.

So in scenario B, was there a reason to keep that existing connection point at 21st Avenue?

It kind of came down to sequencing.

You could absolutely follow, and your final solution could be some kind of mix of these two different things.

So let's say you you want both interchanges, but you want to start at 26 in Maine, that's an option.

So I don't want to say that these are concrete options.

Um we looked at this option actually, so on the scenario B, the reason why we kept some of that open.

Um is just the idea that you might actually provide relief for Brooks Harbor if you had a new interchange.

Could some of those folks that are congested at 26 in Cheyenne?

Could they actually take a background road if they're headed west or go in some different direction?

Um again, I think that's something you could absolutely continue to evaluate if you think that that's valuable or not.

But that was that was some of the thought process that went into it.

Is there any when you were doing the traffic patterns from that?

Do you know where people in that neighborhood are kind of currently draining to?

Because basically, if they drained and they were heading west, is the thought that they would hop on the interchange at 13th Avenue then as opposed to catching a connection at Cheyenne and 94?

Is that kind of the week we can kind of track it?

We know they're going to the interchange, right?

I mean, you can see that I was like, that feels like I'm not a traffic engineer, but that'd be a traffic engineer to realize that nobody wants to be on that north lane, right?

I mean, it's everyone's trying to get onto the interstate access one way or the other.

So there definitely is less traffic to the west.

But I think even if I lived in the northwest part of uh Brooks Harbor neighborhood, I might think about taking that route if it was there and it was pretty easy to get to, or maybe if I'm coming off.

Um but again, that's hard to say perfectly how many folks would use each of those.

And then can you remind me how far is the current DOT recommendation of having interchanges?

And if we select one first, does that limit our ability?

So if we pick, for example 13th Avenue 15th Street first, are we able to also do one on Main Avenue 26th, or vice versa?

I guess if we pick the one on 26, how does that affect our ability to do an interchange at 38th Street or at 13th Avenue and 15th Street?

DOT is definitely least comfortable with 13th and 15th because it is a new access.

That is the one advantage of the main avenue.

Is there's already access onto the interstate?

Certainly we're making it more complicated by adding access north and south, but that exists, and so there's probably a few less uh procedural barriers to go through that.

Um the process to get an interchange approved is pretty arduous and it takes a lot of technical analysis.

And so while they didn't say no, you can't do that, they definitely told us you haven't proved enough to prove that you can't make it work by having just one of these other locations.

And so while I don't think picking one precludes you from the other, I definitely think it delays significantly, you know, what's gonna happen later.

So when we think about one of these interchanges, if it takes 10 years to build, think of the next one as 25 years to even start to think about it.

So there really is a sequencing element that will probably start to shape what that land use looks like based on where you pick it.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Questions from Mr.

Bittner.

All right.

Thank you.

Mr.

Farnsworth.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh I have a question for maybe Mr.

Hanser or Mr.

Wallace.

Uh in any of this discussions and these plans, has there been any discussion with the Metro Flood Diversion Authority with regarding to the Cheyenne mitigation that's coming in 27-28?

Is is the Cheyenne mitigation, which as far as uh taking the case.

As far as crying to cross the uh West Fargo diversion.

Yeah, so the there has not, um, but it with the new FM diversion going live, um, it's gonna really throttle back the flows in the Cheyenne diversion.

So we're not talking major bridges at that point in time, we're talking more box culverts, and we believe with the number of uh existing uh crossings that are already there that it should be um although is Mr.

Brittner said things are always complicated with doing that, but um it's very doable uh for us to expect that we would be able to cross both for example the 26th Street interchange option that we would have two crossings of the Cheyenne diversion.

Uh I believe that that would not uh be a hurdle that would be insurmountable.

I think that would be very doable.

With the attempt to try and get it from Corps of Engineers to the Metro Flood Diversion Authority.

Uh would we still require permits from the Corps of Engineers for box droppings?

Yes, it's still considered a bridge through the we do it definitely would need uh all of those permits.

Um but again, uh I think those permits are uh very uh achievable, especially with the lower flows that we're gonna see in that in the Cheyenne diversion.

Thank you, Dan.

Anyone else?

Any questions?

All right, please continue.

Do you have anything else?

Well, that is really all that we have, and like Aaron mentioned, we are just seeking a resolution of uh support for this just to make it more official, and then that can be your guidebook going forward.

Anything else I missed, Aaron?

Okay.

All right.

I commissioners move we approve the West 94 area transportation plan presentation and approval.

So approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sundall.

Sir, second.

Is there a second?

I have a second.

Commissioner Rolson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the West 94 Area Transportation Plan and Plan and approval and uh a letter of support.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number four is project number sixty-sixty, Rivers Bend Multi-use path and pedestrian bridge.

We're going to call on Mr.

Dan Hansen, Senior Director of Community and Development.

The purpose of discussion is to direct and approve an engineer's report.

I'd like to call on Commissioner Zundell before we start.

I am going to recuse myself from this vote.

Madam Secretary, please let the record show that Amy Zundal is Commissioner Amy Zundal is recusing herself from item number four.

Mr.

Hanson.

Good evening.

Thank you, Commissioner President Artisan.

Commissioners, um, before you is uh uh engineers report for project number 6060, the Rivers Bend multi-use path and pedestrian bridge that we've uh heard of uh from the local community earlier this evening.

Um just wanted to take us through I there I've seen a lot of the emails, a lot of the um correspondence with it.

So um I hopefully presented in this packet a little bit of a timeline of how this where this project is at uh as far as the budget goes and things of that nature too.

So um one of the questions that has come up is the amount of federal funding that we received for the project.

So wanted to touch base on that.

Uh originally uh in tw fall of 2023 and November of 2023, um we were uh approved to submit for funding for this project.

Uh and at that time it was uh called out to be submitted as TA funding, transportation alternative grant funding.

Uh there was another opportunity uh for submittal for funding, and that's through the carbon reduction program, which is the CRP program.

And ultimately it was the CRP program that awarded the City of West Fargo $848,798, uh, which was 80% of the estimated cost during the planning of the project back in 2023.

And the the thing with the the funds that were appropriated towards this project or given to the city of West Fargo towards this project, is that those funds were from the carbon reduction program based off of the 2027 allotment that was going to be created, and that is an amount that was uh that was planned for.

Uh however, it has that had not been funded yet and still currently hasn't been funded.

It still needs to be funded through an upcoming uh legislative session.

Uh there is a lot of talk that because it's carbon reduction program that the current administration likely might uh get away do away with those type of funds.

So the reason that the grant dropped from the 848,798 dollars to 746,536 dollars was that the 746,536 dollars was from the carbon reduction program's 2026 allotment, which is funded.

So that was a guaranteed uh source of funds.

So some of the questions as far as why did the grant dollars depreciate uh from what was originally presented, is that's the case was going from something that was unfunded to uh and planned for to something that was funded and planned for.

Um the other thing is uh uh you know we had a public informational meeting in April, and the consultant had on that presentation the dollar amount of 1 million and 70,000 dollars.

Uh that was the original construction estimate that was put together by uh our transportation engineer at the time uh when we applied for the original grant in 2023.

In April, uh they were midway through the design.

There was no design estimate, engineers estimate that uh had been prepared yet.

So the number that they had put up on that display at that meeting was just the construction dollars only.

Uh back in November of 2024, uh I brought this project uh in front of the commission, and the dollar amount that I had presented to the commission at that time was $1,391,000, so just shy of $1.4 million, which included uh that original construction cost estimate plus an estimated 30% soft cost estimate.

After getting through design, it was actually in late October, just prior to our October 30th public informational meeting when the consultant gave us uh more of a design uh because they're because they're basically done with the design now.

After getting through design, it was actually in late October, just prior to our October 30th public informational meeting when the consultant gave us uh more of a design uh because they're because they're basically done with the design now, they were able to give us a more accurate up-to-date uh estimate for what they figured that the project would cost, uh, which was uh 1.31 million, I believe.

And if you add in the 10 percent contingencies to that and the soft cost, that's what gets us to the current uh total estimated cost that was presented at the October 30th uh public informational meeting, which was the amount of 1,873,765.

We still do have the CRP grant funds secured in the amount of 746,536, which would leave uh city share of 1,127,229.

Now there are some opportunities to still secure additional grants towards the project, but as I stated, uh nothing is nothing is uh for sure or secured until it has been uh granted by those entities, Metricog through whatever program that we're able to secure some funds.

So planning on not getting that, but hoping to get that if the project were to proceed.

Um that uh basically I wanted to cover that piece of the information because there was also a cost of why did the cost of the project jump between presentations and it was that uh the original presentation in April was based solely off of the estimated construction costs by the original transportation engineers.

So hopefully that clears up a little bit of the questions as far as why have the project costs changed.

Um tonight before you is just the engineers' report that is reflective of the most updated costs that we do have.

Um this does not uh mean that the project is moving forward, it's accepting the report, but the anticipation would be if the report is accepted and the project is moving forward.

Our next step is to submit the project uh the signed final design to the core for those permits that we need to cross the river.

Um those permits are not uh reviewed until they receive a final designed uh set of plans.

So uh HDR, the consultant, uh they have uh basically finished the design, and if we did decide to move forward with the project, the next step would be to submit for those permits.

That can take up to six months.

If it goes sooner than that, there is a chance that it could bid out in late uh spring.

If not, if we aren't able to secure those permits in time, it would have to be likely an October 26 bid letting uh for a 2027 construction project.

Obviously, if we are able to bid it out in the springtime, it would be a 2026 project.

So uh with that, I would entertain any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Hansen.

Um aspect of it uh with all the concerns that the uh the public has had with regard to uh habitat and and that type of thing.

Yep, absolutely.

There was an environmental done.

Is that correct?

Yep.

Um part of the whole process of getting the federal funds and and things there there was uh environmental work that was done for it.

Umriginally the path had considered being right on the edge of the park district's property on the northern edge of their property.

Um, but if you if we were to have placed it there, um basically it would have been clear-cutting the outside swath of trees.

Uh it was upon uh field review uh was discovered that there's basically a fairly cleared out area through those trees uh where from the initial thought of the design being right along the park district's property line uh to move it inside the trees, and in doing so actually reduced the amount of trees being taken by um according to HDR, almost a hundred trees uh were reduced from that original design to actually moving it within the within the trees into that clearing.

Um there was a wildlife biologist that did go out and uh uh and inventory the site for any type of nesting.

There were near no eagles' nests reported back to me uh from that.

They did find some squirrels' nests and things of that nature.

And also, as uh it was mentioned before, uh, right before the project begins, before that clear cutting begins, the by the wildlife biologist would need to go out there and inventory the site again just to make sure that there is no nesting going on.

And she was correct that if there is nesting going on, it does delay the project or you need to move the project.

Um you are allowed to do a project in a nesting area if they're not nesting uh at the time.

Um so the intent, especially with there being no eagles' nests or those type of nests uh existing today, would be to proceed with the the plan as proposed.

And obviously, if we did find that there was uh challenges such as nesting birds at the time of uh right before we start the project, the construction of the project, we would have to pivot and either delay or move the project as well, as she stated.

Thank you.

One of the folks that spoke that uh today was uh apparently she's she's counted the amount the number of trees that have been marked.

I was on site this morning, as you well know, to make sure that I understood exact direct uh how the path was going to be built.

Uh is that a accurate number?

150, 160 trees.

I honestly I don't know the actual number.

I couldn't speak to that.

Right.

Commissioners, any other questions, comments.

Commissioner Anderson.

Yeah.

Um I think uh I'm gonna make a motion to uh deny the engineers report and uh to stop work on this project.

Do I have a motion?

That's a motion.

And I have a second.

I have a motion and a second on project number 6060, Rivers Bend Multi-Use Path and Protestrian Bridge.

Uh to direct and approve the engineers report.

And the motion is to deny the uh engineers report and to stop work on the project.

Is there any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

All those in favor of denying the engineers report, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Aye.

Motion carried on a three to one vote.

Again, Commissioner Zundal is recusing herself on this.

Moving on, item number five.

Thank you, Mr.

Hanson.

Item number five.

Mr.

Wallace, good evening and welcome.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Commission President.

Uh that was a difficult decision you had to make there, so I'll try to be respectful with your time here tonight.

Uh I'm here before you for improvement district.

Oh, yes, sir.

I think some of our friends that uh come this evening are are gonna exit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please continue.

Uh yes, sir.

Uh again, I'm here before you uh to present improvement district number 3008.

Excuse me.

This is a uh really boils down to uh you know we have several areas of the core area where uh we can acknowledge they're in tough shape.

Uh you know, this one in particular, uh we're looking at the Meadow Ridge portions of the Meadow Ridge neighborhood.

Um looking at moving forward with a reconstructive effort.

Uh the action I'm looking for tonight, uh pending your approval would be to approve the uh an amended engineers report.

Uh essentially what what we're looking at in this situation.

Um we've launched in that at a previous meeting.

Um we were directed to begin preparing plans and specifications.

Uh we've we've dove into that effort, and uh one of the things that became apparent was that uh there is uh Meadow Ridge Court essentially uh is uh in a similar condition to a lot of the rest of the project area, and they will be impacted by the project for uh various reasons.

Um primarily uh uh the the intersection that they're gonna be using to get in and out of uh the court there uh is gonna need to be uh improved and and impacted by the construction.

Um because of that, uh the age of the uh the uh the water main that uh sits in the in the court and uh the condition of the street.

Um we're here tonight, I guess, to recommend that uh you know that court be added to the project.

Uh we're in a unique position where we're able to take advantage of uh some uh state uh grants potentially and uh low interest loans.

Um and so uh we're confident, I guess that uh that's the right decision that uh we'd uh be comfortable recommending and moving forward with uh on that note.

Uh in your packet here is the amended engineers report, uh draft benefit methodology, uh, and the associated resolution uh should you decide to proceed with this amendment.

Uh and again the staff recommendation would be to approve the amended engineers report.

Um there will be also if we do continue to proceed, a uh public meeting uh that we have scheduled for December 3rd, and I encourage anyone who would like to to attend that.

Uh but again with that being said, uh we're looking for approval of the amended engineers report, and uh I'm available for any questions you may have.

Questions for Mr.

Wallace?

Commissioner Zondell.

I'm so sorry.

Not a traffic engineer as I had to discuss earlier.

Can you clarify by adding that court?

Were those people already getting special assessed?

So the special assessment district didn't change.

We don't have to do anything different with that.

That's correct, Commissioner.

And we are adding what in that court specifically, just redoing the pipe that's going.

Um we would be looking at uh full reconstruct.

Okay so the sanitary sewer, the water main.

Uh we would be adding storm sewer because right now there is no storm sewer.

That was another thing that kind of spurred this discussion is that in order to tie in storm sewer, um, it'd be most beneficial to be doing it under this project.

Um yeah, essentially everything, street, sure, sewer water, all that.

So to clarify, they were in the assessment district originally because the adjacent roadways would have been their way out of the neighborhood.

They were in the district solely because we just um uh created a larger district than the than the project footprint, and traditionally we've done that just because of uh oddities like this that can come up over the the project development process.

Uh there by no means is any intention of assessing anyone who's not going to be seeing direct benefit from the the footprint of the project area, but uh that's essentially what brings us here tonight.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

You bet.

Anyone else?

All right.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Anderson moves to improve to approve the improvement district number 30 oh eight, meadow ridge development reconstruction, and approve the amended engineers report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Jorgensen seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor of improvement district number 308.

Please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

I am aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Uh item number six is also yours.

That's an improvement district number 3009, a first Avenue East Reconstruction, Cheyenne Street to 4th Street East, uh conducting the determination of protest sufficiency and approve an associated resolution.

Mr.

Wallace.

Uh thank you again, Mr.

Commission President and Commissioners.

Uh, really quick, I'm I'm here before you again tonight, uh, improvement district number 3009.

This is uh going to be uh looking at First Avenue uh portion from Cheyenne Street over to uh uh fourth, and we're essentially uh looking at something similar.

Um the infrastructure is in uh pretty tough shape.

Um we're looking at uh bringing forward uh neighborhood reconstruction for the area.

Um we've launched into the process again of uh we're uh we've been directed to prepare plans and specifications.

Uh we're proceeding with that.

Um and some of our legal requirements here are uh essentially uh uh conducting the determination of of protest sufficiency uh in regard to our resolution of necessity and then uh approving that associated resolution.

Umblished in the uh forum uh in regard to our legal legal obligations there.

Um the 30-day period for uh that protest period uh has come to an end.

Uh we did actually receive one letter um that was probably uh uh call it maybe a little misconstrued.

They uh they sent a letter in that where they were protesting the amount of their special assessment.

Uh they were not by any means protesting uh the need for the project.

I can certainly share that with with anyone who would like to see it.

But uh that was the crux of that letter, and we're actually working with that resident um you know to uh address their concerns.

Um if we do proceed and continue on, uh we are also planning a uh public meeting on December 8th.

And uh once again, I would invite anyone who would love who would like to attend to to attend that.

Um with all that being said, um we have the affidavit and of publication in your packet here.

Um the mailer that was actually sent to the property owners, just uh letting them know that this this public hearing was coming up and the uh associated resolution of insufficient protest uh should you choose to proceed.

Uh staff recommendation again is to conduct the the determination of protest sufficiency and approve that associated resolution um and again with that I'm available for for any questions you may have.

Questions from Mr.

Wallace.

I move we approve.

Commissioner Zundell moves to approve the improvement district number 30 oh nine and to conduct and determination of protest sufficiency and approve approve associated resolution of necessity, I would assume.

Is that right?

Yes, sir.

Second.

I have a second.

We have a motion and a second to approve it to approve improvement district 30 oh nine from First Avenue East or excuse me from Cheyenne Street to Fourth Avenue East.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

We move on to item number seven.

Number seven is to auth authorize the RFP.

Uh request for a proposal for a new ERP system.

We're going to call on Mr.

Willie Galendo, our finance director for the City of West Fargo.

Good evening and welcome.

Evening, Commissioners and Commissioner President.

It's pretty amazing that um a year has gone by and tomorrow will be two months since I first started working here for the city of West Fargo back in September of 18, 2024.

And in that time frame, I've had an opportunity to observe and evaluate our current ERP software system.

Um I've also been able to attain feedback from team members of the finance department and colleagues from other departments as well on propositions for looking at modules and software that are include but are not limited to procurement and capital improvement planning software.

Um so in that time frame, all that data that has been collected and the feedback that I received has culminated into the document that I present before you tonight.

With this, I request and seek authorization from you to proceed with publishing the request for proposal to bid out for a new ERP software.

And I also stand before you to take any questions.

Any questions from Mr.

Galindo?

Could you move the move that up a little?

The schedule of events.

Thank you.

Um may I ask please who your committee was that did this review?

Um we're actually going to be developing an evaluation committee.

And uh the committee will be involving um the commissioner and uh uh the commissioners that does the primary and the secondary portfolio.

Uh in this particular case, it would be you as the mayor and Robin Anderson, Commissioner.

And along with that, we'd have other team members that include myself, uh, a member of public works, and a member of engineering department.

So those would be the members of the evaluation process and Nick Lee, who is a senior director for administrative services.

Very good.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any quite other questions for Mr.

Galindo?

You ready to get signed up for another committee?

You two?

Yeah.

I move we approve.

Commissioner Zundell moves to approve the authorization of the RFP for a new ERP system as presented.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Jorgensen seconds.

We have a motion and a second to authorize the RFP for the new ERP system.

Request for proposal for our new financial software.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor.

Please signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Glendale.

Thank you.

Item number eight is policies.

Call on Dustin Scott, City Administrator.

We have uh five items this evening.

The uh city employee policies for sick leave, personal leave, vacation leave, overtime and uh compensation time, and holidays.

Mr.

Scott.

Well, thank you, Commissioner President Dartis and Commissioners.

As uh Mayor Dartis just said, we've got five policies.

We are continuing our efforts to update all of our city policies.

The five before you tonight are uh updates to what is currently in our handbook.

There is a high-level summary of proposed changes from our 2025 employee handbook to what uh will be implemented in Lexi poll.

So again, these are policies relating to leave, overtime, and our holidays.

So with that, I would stand for any questions.

Questions from Mr.

Scott.

Commissioner Zondell.

It's me.

Um the only question that I had was on the use of vacation leave.

Um it would be on page three, Emily, and then 420.7 use of vacation leave.

Uh I I noticed that they must submit something at least two weeks before the requested leave date, and there doesn't really seem to be any flexibility with that.

Is there a reason?

Or I guess is that current practice?

Is that practice changing?

Well, that's an excellent question, Commissioner.

Uh I will have to look into that a little further.

Um I'm not a hundred percent sure if that language is taken from our 25 handbook, but we can certainly look into that.

And if it is too rigid, uh, should the commission want us to add some flexibility there?

We can certainly do that.

I'd say in common practice, yes, we would be certainly more flexible with our staff at the discretion of our department heads and supervisors.

Okay.

So we can certainly look to amend that language just to match the practical practice.

And then my other question, and this could be because it's in a different policy somewhere else that we're not viewing, but on page four, Emily, when it says exempt employees who work four or more hours in in a work day will be considered to have worked the full day.

Does it matter where they work from?

So, for example, are they allowed to work virtually?

Do they have to be physically in our space?

Do we have a separate work from home policy?

Or I guess again, uh thank you for the question.

Uh so predominantly, yes, they they are working from the office, but there are special considerations by which uh it they would be allowed to work at home.

Again, that is left up to discretion of department heads given the uh nature and functionality of their position.

Not all positions, in fact, most positions would not qualify for that, but there are positions that are uh productive, whether they're attending a conference or working from home.

There are some uh circumstances where they are not accumulating those four hours in the office.

And then my other question, um, you brought up conferences specifically.

One of the things that came to mind was travel.

So if they are not physically in the office but they are traveling that day, does that count?

Again, uh there can be different circumstances these things, and that's where we generally try to provide some flexibility within these policies.

Uh we rely on our department heads and our supervisors to exercise their judgment and uh ensure that we are uh really not only complying with the policies but doing what is it, you know, common or good practice.

And then the very last thing that we talked about as far as giving credit um within a year of separation from the city.

Is that what we're currently doing in practice?

So, Emily, if you went all the way down the last sentence.

So an employee who returns the service of the city within one year of separation will be giving credit for prior service.

Is that what we're currently doing, or is that yes, yes, I believe so.

I uh again I'd have to confirm the actual language in the 2025 handbook, but I believe that's current practice.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

Again, I can follow up with a confirmation after looking into that.

Anyone else?

We are looking for a motion to approve.

Oh, motion to approve.

Commissioner Jorgensen moves to approve uh the lexipol policies.

Uh item number 417, 419, 420, 422, and 433.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zundell seconds.

We have a motion in the second to approve these policies as presented.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Item number nine is the city administrators report.

Mr.

Scott.

Thank you again, Commissioner President Dartis and Commissioners.

Really just have one uh update for you, one staff update.

Uh we have started the search for a new director of human resources.

Uh we are accepting applications through mid-December with uh introduced plan for the early part of January.

Um we're already seeing strong interest in just the last 10 days of of posting the position and uh excited to see that trend continue.

Uh Nick and our HR team are uh doing an excellent job handling some additional responsibilities to keep our HR functions operating smoothly for staff.

So uh kudos to them.

Uh again, our staff are our most critical assets, so we are doing everything we can do to ensure that there's no disruption in HR services for them.

So that's really all the updates I have for you and would stand for any questions you have.

Questions for Mr.

Scott?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh all correspondence has been distributed, are either in your mailboxes or given to you this evening at your desk.

Um does any commissioner have any non-agenda item that they'd like to bring forward at this time?

Uh Madam Secretary, Emily, I would request that the uh the schedules for that Mr.

Wallace has talked about his meetings in December, that we as a commission get a notification for those uh meetings with the public.

Uh if we can make ourselves available, that'd be nice for us to be there as well.

And also uh when the final schedule comes through with regarding to the uh RFP, uh those of us that are involved in that discussion.

Uh be nice to have a schedule reminder.

Any thing else non-agenda, commissioners?

Any department ed have anything for us this evening?

Commissioner Jorgensen.

Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Zundell.

Second.

We stand adjourned.