Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP September 20, 1979 ~ o¡ ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 20, 1979 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on September 20, 1979, 8:08 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, for the purpose of discussing the problems with the Stenquist Addition project, discussing the Mickels Drainage Problem, and discussing engineering matters with TKDA representatives. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineers, John Davidson, D. W. Kasma, and Jim Voyen; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents Discussion on Stenquist Addition Project Mayor Windschitl asked the Engineers to clarify the following questions relative to the Stenquist Addition improvement project: 1) Why was Potawatomi Street cut down at all because the drainage remains the same? By cutting down the road, one lot for all practical purposes is becoming unbuildable because of the enormous amount of fill that would be needed to bring the house 18 inches above grade as required. There could also be an assessment problem if left the way it is. Cutting the road may have even worsened the drainage problem. Now there is an approximate 7-foot drop off the side of the yard. 2) City staff feels ditches are being created that are unmanageable and not maintainable. 3) Why wasn't the City given the right to the excess fill to be used for City benefit? It appears as if the lot that all the fill was placed in is taking away one of the natural low areas in the area which could force water into places where there wasn't water before. 4) If the drainage plan is continued the way it appears to be developing Mr. Schumacher on 162nd and Potawatomi will be taking substantially more water than he ever had before. How can that be done without obtaining drainage easements? 5) A huge culvert is being put in a driveway on 162nd. That whole_area drains by gravity and goes in both directions from the top of that hill. Why was any extensive amount of ditching done at the top of the hill at all? 6) Mr. Riesberg has almost a one-to-one slope off his property to the roadway. How are we going to maintain that slope? Isn't there going to be an erosion problem there? The Mayor recalled that the Council was told that there would be no significant cuts in this project. Mr. Davidson asked that individuals in the project who have specific proDlems relative to the construction project leave their name and address and an Engineer will meet with them on an individual basis to try to resolve their specific problem. He explained that generally at the public hearings a typical cross section of the streets were provided showing the typical standards that would be used with 32-foot top and 2~-foot ditches. The lS-inch culvert under the driveway is a minimum design for every culvert because of the sandy soils conditions. The profile of the streets haven't changed except in those instances where minor changes are made for specific problems. At the public hearings it was mentioned that there would be some encroachment on private property and that temporary slope easements would be asked for. If the property owner does not wish to grant a temporary slope easement, there is no alternative but to work within the right of way. So in those cases, the road was cut at the right-of-way line. Mr. Davidson went on to say that a reasonable grade within the street is being maintained to meet all the conditions that presently exist. He explained the difficulty of engineering a rural design project in an established residential area and stated the design that was the least costly was used. He agreed that where a three-to-one bãckslope cannot be constructed, there may have to De some landscaping added to the backs lope to make a maintainable slope. They try to minimize the slope when the property owner agrees to allow working on his property. Mr. Davidson also noted that within the first stages of construction, it doesn't look very pleasant; but the visual concept will not be as severe when construction is completed. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Discussion on Stenquist Addition Project, Continued) Mr. Davidson also explained that the most reasonable cost for removal of the excess fill would be to allow the contractor to waste it. If the City would have to pay haul charges, the price of the project would be increased. The contractor made arrangement's with one property owner to fill the lot, but he was allowed to deposit the excess fill only in those areas approved by the City Engoneer. The Engineer did approve the fill on that lot, and it does not have any effect on the overall drainage pattern that pre- existed the fill. It was also pointed out at the public hearings that those areas that are present ponding facilities will continue to be low. They are not changing any drainage patterns. Mr. Davidson stated that on the specific problem on 162nd and potawatomi, he has asked the project engineer to meet with the property owner and to advise him of how the plan was altered. That ditch will be made shallower. The estimates at the public hearings were based on the facts that easements will not need to be purchased; and if they were, that cost would be reflected in the overall project cost. He also explained the reason for the depth of the ditch design to carryall the water to the low area, even the heavier, run-off in the spring when the ground is still frozen. On the one-to-one slope, the Engineer will have to meèt with the individual property owner; the alternative to the steep slope is to obtain a temporary slope easement to make minor adjustments. It had been contemplated all the way through the project that there would be ditch excavation, as there was a significant amount of excavation called for in the plan. During further discussion between the Council and the Engineer, Councilman Lachinski stated it was his feeling that the residents felt that the overall profile grade of the new road would not be very different from the old one. The Engineer noted that generally the grades were not changed but a 2~-foot ditch created alongside the roadbed. Discussion was on the work done on the project so far with Council expressing concern over the cuts made in the roads for the project; especially the cut on Potawatomi and 162nd, as it is the end of the street and on top of a hill; felt there was no engineering reason why that road should have been cut. Mr. Davidson responded that the property to the north of the road is considerably lower than the grade of the street and that they followed City standards in the road construction. Councilman Lachinski suggested that on that particular section possibly an urban street section with bituminous birm should be constructed there. Mayor Windschitl stated that common sense dictates that if an engineer would see this going on in a project, he would stop and look at it again. He felt the only way this type of slope can be maintained is by timbers. Why was it designed that way when the existing grade would have served just as well? Mr. Davidson stated when doing the design, they looked beyond at such things as snow storage off the street and the potential of those streets extending in the future. The design is an overall grading system. Where they can adjust the grade without a material affect, they will do that. Councilman Lachinski asked when at the top of a hill, why are ditches needed in the first one- to two-hundred feet. Mr. Davidson stated the full ditch system isn't needed but the same area as boulevard is needed for snow ,storage. In this case, the 2~-foot ditch can be materially reduced because it is at the high point. The backslope is still going to be something less than a three-to-one slope. Mayor Windschitl felt that when the system is designed, it should include something for a retaining wall if the slope is less than three-to-one in the event a temporary slope easement is not granted by the affected property owner. He felt it should be left the way it was and possibly have that area restored to the way it was. Mr. Davidson stated the engineering reason for the cut is that at the top of Potawatomi there must be a certain sight distance from both directions over that hill. They have established a uniform grade in both directions. There has been an adjustment in grade from what the original plans showed. The grade was first established based on the cross sections. If it can be filled, they will do it. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Discussion on Stenquist Addition Project, Continued) Council also asked why the fill wasn't put on the right of way north of Potawatomi. With the possibility of having to allow building permits on those lots back there, if the City has to construct the road to the north, additional fill will now have to be purchased. It was understood that the contractor wanted to put the fill on that right of way but the Engineer told him he couldn't. Mr. Davidson didn't understand what had happened in this case. Discussion addressed Mr. Schumacher's lot on 161st and Potawatomi, with Council feeling the grade plans establish substantially more drainage into that lot than was there before. Don Riesberg, 16200 Potawatomi - asked why he wasn't told that this was going to be done ln front of his property. He now has an 8-foot drop off the end of his property. Why couldn't it be left the way it was, as they never had a drainage problem with it? Ashley Brooks, across from Mr. Riesberg - didn't feel there should be a ditch on top of the grade. He talked with the contractor who indicated he did not agree with the construction plans as far as cutting 'ditches. They cut a 2~-foot deep ditch in front of his house and took out a number of trees. He's at the top of the grade. They decided not to put a culvert under his driveway and now will fill the ditch partially back up and have the water slope both ways from his driveway. Mr. Brooks stated he was asked if another ditch could be cut through to the back of his property, but he would rather that not be done. It's all sand, and he felt the water would just be absorbed. He didn't think there was a need for the ditches. Jeff Johnson, west end of 162nd, south side - has two driveways. The one closest to the deadend has a culvert; hlS main driveway does not have a culvert. He didn't under- stand why they are making a ditch there. They were told that a culvert was not going to be put in his driveway. There is about a 7- to 7\-foot drop from his fence in the yard to the bottom of the ditch. If backs loping was done, he'd loose two trees, plus his sewer is in his front yard. Dan Schumacher - has a water problem. He felt once the bottom of the ditches are saturated, water is going to run and he'll get a lot of it. The contractor has told him that nothing is going to be changed. He was in favor of the streets, but he didn't feel the need for any ditches. He's asking that he doesn't get a culvert under his driveway. He plans on having sod all the way up to the street. Bill Bush, 4613 161st - would like to be told what's going to happen on 161st prior to beglnning construction. He felt the existing road level is very adequate with minimal surface change. What they have done is completely opposite of what they had been told at these meetings. They'd like to be approached and talked to prior to construction. Art Stenquist, 3731 lS9th - has six acres and didn't want to see ditches around his place. Mayor Windschitl felt the confusion was that everybody envisioned just a gentle de- pressing to carry off the water. The question is how much of a water problem is there out there to begin with. (General reaction from the audience was that there is no water problem) The Mayor felt for a majority of the project that just a swale-type ditch that can be landscaped into a yard would have been more appropriate. Mr. RiesberŠ - stated there is no water problem except for a few minor cases which he felt could e easily solved. He felt they should have been asked if they want 2\-foot ditches, as they are the ones paying for it. Mr. Davidson stated he did not want to be responsible for putting in something that is less than the minimum standards unless the Council gives the authority. Mr. Kasma explained the necessity for culverts under driveways and why 2\-foot ditches are the minimum standard design for rural-type street systems. Mayor Windschitl suggested that in this particular case, the drainage pattern will remain the same, and he felt a lot Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (Discussion on Stenquist Addition Project, Continued) of the water could have been carried on the road within the 600-foot limit, get the swale out, get a flume on the end of it, and let it carry itself off to where it has always been going. Now we are sitting there with something from a City standpoint is unmaintainable, and it's really not accomplishing anything. Mr. Davidson explained that Mr. Schumacher of TKDA and his assistant have contacted property owners re~arding obtaining temporary slope easements. In the cases where the easement cannot be obtained to do the three-to-one backs lope, then an alternate will have to be considered by the Council. One alternate would be to eliminate the ditch and an urban section put in. At the next Council meeting the Engineers will come with the problem areas. He felt that most of this had been caused because of a communications problem. The Mayor read into the Minutes letters from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Lennex, 16120 Potawatomi, expressing disappointment on the way the road is being constructed, and from Bob McFarlan, 4755 16lst, feeling they have been mislead about the construction project in that they felt the roadbed was to be left essentially the same as it was. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard - couldn't understand how this happened. Weren't the road standards presented at the public hearing? It should have been explained at that time. They should have known if they were to cut for ditches, then slope easements are needed. Mayor Windschitl felt that the Council was told that there would be no major cuts in the project and felt that if it had been known that these kinds of cuts were going to be made they would not have allowed it. Discussion was on what course of action should be taken to correct some of the problems and prevent further problems in the project. Mr. Davidson stated that tomorrow they can walk the remaining streets in the project and determine whether these steep cuts neded to be made and possibly make minor grade changes in the field if necessary. Mayor Windschitl then asked how much of the area has to have these steep ditches as not only are they unattractive to the people but he didn't know how the City is going to maintain them. He also felt that 162nd going to the west has to be raised back up. The Engineer stated they will look at that as an option. Recess at 9:25; reconvene at 9:45 p.m. Discussion continued on the problems within the project; suggesting where there is going to be severe cutting for a rural section that possibly an urban section in that area be considered; part of the problem may be with the road standards as the road is too wide for the existing conditions in the development; that a 2~-foot ditch is not needed at the top of a hill; and that TKDA should study the whole situation prior to Council authorizing any changes. Council agreed to set a meeting date for Monday evening to meet on site to see how the problems can be resolved. Mr. Schumacher of 4681 161st volunteered to have the Council meet in his garage. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we hold a Special City Council meeting this coming Monday, September 24, beginning at 6 p.m., at 4681 161st Street. Motion carried unanimously. Mickel Drainage Problem on Navajo Councilmembers indicated they had viewed the situation since the last meeting (Reference September 18, 1979, Regular Council Meeting Minutes). Councilmen Lachinski and Peach still felt that the situation was created by building that lot and felt that it had to be vegetated. The Clerk stated that Mr. Sowada put bales of hay in front to stop the force of water, and the water pushed the bales out of the way. Councilman Jacobson suggested putting some 6x6's into the ground three to four feet, sticking out of the ground approximately 8 to 10 inches so that it will disperse the Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Mi~kel Drainage Problem on Navajo, Continued) flow of water. The way it is, the force of the water is causing the erosion. The 6x6 would stop the force of the water and cause it to go around. Also put some fill to level it on the right of way, sod the area, and stake the sod. Councilman Lachinski felt that the City has the obligation to fix the right of way but Mr. Mickel has to maintain his own yard. Discussion was on whether or not the solution proposed by Councilman Jacobson would solve the problem. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, making his suggestion in the form of a motlon to solve the drainage problem. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Windschitl Motion carried. Mayor Windschitl - didn't think it was going to fix the problem. It is just going to be spending money that will be respent again later on. Councilman Lachinski - As he looked at that problem, he didn't think it was much of a problem. But he felt there was a large problem on 175th with a large washout on the south side of the road. That should be taken care of quickly or the road will be washed away as well. Discussion with Engineers Mr. Kasma explained that his role in Andover has been strictly one of answering questions and providing background on certain projects. They are looking for some insight into possible problems as far as communication and services. Mr. Voyen, Vice President in charge of Civil Engineering and Mr. Davidson's immediate supervisor, stated his interest is how they can better staff and give support to Mr. Davidson and his staff in a timely manner. Mr. Davidson explained the purpose of the meeting is to exchange ideas and understand what is expected from one another. They like to feel they are a staff to the City, an extension of what the City wants to accomplish, an extension of the permanent staff. Mr. Davidson is the Department Head in charge of the full municipal section and responsible for 25 communities on some level of service. He depends on project engineers on projects. Mark Schumacher is under him and is a registered professional engineer. In turn, Loren Braun is an engineer in training for Mr. Schumacher, who is a graduate engineer, is not registered, but has had experience in municipal work. Because of his background in street construction, Mr. Braun was appointed on-the-job inspector on the Stenquist Addition project. Mr. Davidson also explained that in addition they have their surveying teams, their inspection teams, and their drafting teams plus their speciality areas from which to draw upon. They are hiring people with background and experience in the areas they want, and they are trying to provide some redundancy in the whole system, a backup person, so that if someone leaves the firm, there will be someone well enough trained and with the understanding of the system in Andover to take over. He explained the reason Dave Pillatzke was moved from Andover was because projects within the City had not started and there just wasn't enough work for him here to keep the job challenging. They felt it would be most cost effective to the City to use Mr. Schumacher in the City. Mobility is well known among engineers, and they try to keep the job challenging for their personnel. They expect Mr. Pillatzke will be back at the end of this construction season. Mr. Davidson went on to say the level of service is left up to the individual community, and that the level of service is somewhat controlled by the dollar. And they are trying to be responsive to that cost factor. Mr. Davidson expected that the City staff would call TKDA for assistance as the situation warrants, and they are available for that type of service at will. He felt the limitations are related to the matter of communications, and felt that the Council should make their wishes known Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Discussion with Engineers, Continued) to them. He expressed concern over having to respond to a request by individual Councilmembers and would prefer that any action he take be done as a result of full Council decision. There was further discussion between Mr. Davidson and Council relative to this point. Mr. Davidson agreed that the whole problem of engineering might be easier if the City had its own in-house engineer; it is a question of timing and whether the City can afford it. He suggested that another alternative would be to have a registered engineer from TKDA in the City full time with an office at City Hall, responding as a staff engineer, which might be an interim into hiring the City's own engineer. Where the City provides the office space, the cost would be less than the 2.5 multiplier the City will pay for engineering work. Discussion was on the way concerns have been conveyed to the engineering firm by the Clerk or Mayor when a situation warrants, and the Council generally agreed that there are no problems with the way it is being done now and should continue in that manner. Mr. Davidson explained that their response as an engineering firm to particular problems or projects relate to the City's standards, plans, ordinances, etc. He felt that in the last year when they have used those tools to make their assessment, it has indicated a lack of credibility in making original analysis. If there are going to be changes from the tools they use as guidelines, those changes should be made before, not after, the fact. He noted the problem involved with the storm drainage in the area of Round Lake Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard that he felt should have been addressed on an overall drainage district. He felt there are some limited studies that the City needs beyond the boundary of a particular plat that is being reviewed. He felt the City does have to address the basic thoroughfare plan, the overall drainage system, and the 2~- acre lots within the urban service district. TKDA is in the position that they don't know exactly what the City is expecting from them now relative to the thoroughfare plan-- what difinitive action can he follow. Council discussion was on the staffing question, expressing concern over the large turnover of TKDA personnel in the City, and at times the changeover was done without any introductions or explanations to the Council. The Mayor stated the staffing situation doesn't seem to settle down, and there is the feeling that Andover has become the training ground for TKDA engineers. The City wasn't asked as to whether it was felt that there was enough work for Mr. Pillatzke in the City before TKDA made the decision to move him. There is a tremendous amount of experience lost with each changeover, and it is especially noticeable in the plat reviews. Mr. Davidson responded that virtually 100 percent of Mr. Schumacher's time is spent on City of Andover business and he has been coming out to the City almost on a daily basis. He felt it was unreasonable as lower level people are moved from one project to another that it necessitates an introduction to the Council; and he explained how they are training backup personnel to provide services for the City. Mr. Voyen felt that possibly they were amiss in Mr. Pillatzke's case in not coming before the Council and asking if there was enough in the City to keep him productively employed a certain percentage of the time; and possibly that's something they should consider. Mr. Kasma also noted that they are cost conscious on projects as well and try to use lower-salaried personnel whenever possible to provide the service and yet keep the costs down. He indicated that Mr. Schumacher inspects the project on a daily basis. He understands that there is a communication problem with things going on in Stenquist Addition. After further discussion, Mr. Kasma indicated that they can instruct Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Braun to be checking into the City Hall Once or twice a day to inform staff as to what is going on in the project, to establish a reporting system. Mr. Davidson also stated that if the Clerk needs information, that she call him so that he can be aware of City business. Council also suggested that Mr. Braun should be introduced to the Council if he is going to be working for the City. Mr. Kasma stated it is their intention that Mr. Schumacher will stay here for the foreseeable future. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 (Discussion with Engineers, Continued) Mayor Windschitl noted several engineering matters that have not been completed in the City: 1) The problem on 141st in Green Acres where part of the road is sinking. It was asked that that area not be seal coated this year until it is fixed, and it got seal coated this week. Mr. Davidson stated they took informal bids on this project; and because the bids came in high, they purposely did not do anything with it until blacktop people are in the City to give another estimate. It is a matter of their not reporting the status of the project to the Council. The reason for the sinking is not related to anyone's fault but due to the soils condition. They have taken elevations a year ago and again this year and have determined there has been no additional settlement. Mr. Kasma suggested a master list of projects to be updated monthly for the Council would help keep everyone informed of the status of engineering matters. Councilman Lachinski felt that to keep the Road Improvement Committee functioning that there should be an engineer present at their meetings. 2) Blacktop problem at 2611 139th Avenue. The driveway approach was put in wrong when the street improvement project was done. Mr. Davidson stated that problem is the contractor's responsibility, and the contractor is on notice and they are going to repair that. He also explained the problems and frustrations they have relative to getting contractors to do what is desired. 3) An oil problem on the City parking lot that hasn't yet been taken care of. 4) Sealcoating project was bid early and was not done until just recently. If there is that leeway in the bids, the bids will have to be made such that it gets done in the summer. Sealcoating will be an annual project. Discussion was again that oneof the major problems has been a lack of communication between Engineers and City Staff and Council. Mr. Davidson suggested that some consideration might be given to an annual improvement program that may eliminate some of the problems with the perpetual hearing-type projects by establishing one cycling improvement program. It could be set up so that all petitions for improvements would be accepted by the second meeting in October preqeding the year of construction. This gives the Engineers the necessary time to conduct preliminary surveys prior to the snowfall. They can design the system through the winter months; Council can review the designs in January (utility improvements, street improvements, and State-Aid improvements); public hearings would be held in March generally all at one time, after which Council would order or abandon the project. If ordering a project, Council would also authorize the preparation of plans and specifications, authorize acquisition of easements at the same time, and authorize application for permits to the regulating agencies. They would be ready for a March 15 bid letting and at the same time set up the bond program. Some communities bond the capitalized interest approach where they carry the capitalized interest for one year and assess the year after the improvement is made. Prepayment of the assessment can be made before the City permanently bonds for the imppovement. Temporary bonds are carried through construction plus one year; permanent bonds are the third year and are for the amount of improvements which remain (less prepayments). The risk of doing it this way is that over the three-year period the interest rates may increase, but they have found that generally that has not been the case. Mr. Davidson explained some of the advantages of the annual construction program. Another recommendation was that underground improvements be done one year and that the surfacing of the streets not be done until the second year to give the project a chance to go through the frost cycle and settle out. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (Discussion with Engineers, Continued) Mr. Kasma explained that all the bidding of projects are advertised in the local newspaper and construction bulletins so there is a five-state area coverage. They send plans and specs to a specific company on!y at the company's request. If they do not get a response from an ad, they may calli ontractor asking them if they are interested. Mr. Davidson reviewed the engineering contract with the City and the changes proposed for January 1, 1980, which is specifically using the 2.5 multiplier times salary (less benefits) which is necessary to generate income to cover their increased overhead. This multiplier will be the same for field personnel as well as office personnel, and results in about a four percent increase. This specifically relates to contract projects, but does have some effect on the general engineering as well. Discussion was on the assessment policy, as the Finance Committee would like the results of the formula TKDA was to rework for irregular lots. It was Mr. Davidson's opinion that that work had been completed and forwarded to the Council on April 6. He also indicated there are a number of reports like that that he was unsure of what the Council specifically expected. The Mayor stated if they do have the final version of that policy, the Finance Committee will act on it; if they don't have it, they will ask TKDA for it. Discussion was on the Council's directive to change the corner lot assessment policy. Mr. Davidson asked if it was the Council's intent that they actually draft the policy. A majority of the Council indicated that TKDA is to actually rewrite the policy, to do the formal update to the policy. Mr. Davidson explained that in pursuing the question on whether the frontage road should extend along Bunker Lake Boulevard, the County Engineer didn't give a difinitive answer. They felt if the County doesn't need it and we don't need the frontage road as a facility, then the only reason a wider right of way is needed is to get the trunk system down the side of the roadway. However, generally looking at the continuity of the street system in that area, it becomes evident that there are nO internal continuity of streets through the subdivisions. It was his opinion that Bunker Lake Boulevard will become very trafficated in the future and that the frontage road would provide the only internal street to travel between subdivisions. He suggested the frontage road should be considered on the basis of need for continuity of streets rather than on the need for a controlled access to the roadway. He has asked the County to study the traffic flow as it relates to traffic cutting through the local streets to avoid traffic signals. Mr. Davidson also felt that establishing on a monthly basis a priority program of items to be discussed at this kind of meeting/work session is very helpful. The staff can provide a list of items and establish some priority. Depending on the complexity of the subject, it may take one meeting to several meetings to finalize the subject. It is a tool that might help the City in the planning process and would help TKDA in understanding what direction the City is heading. Discussion was on what was a feeling expressed by Councilman Jacobson that projects done within the City are more expensive than in other communities. He questioned whether the standards should be changed or whether we are over engineering. Mayor Windschitl felt that the thing driving up the costs of projects is the storm sewers. He suggested simply letting the water run where it ran before where there are natural drainage areas. There might be some water that will sit in the road, especially in the rural areas; but he asked if there is anything wrong with basically building the same road but with a lesser storm sewer system design. Mr. Kasma felt that possibly the rural standards should be looked at, exploring the possibility of not having a full-ditch system. Maybeë we have to modify the standards. Mr. Voyen Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (Discussion with Engineers, Continued) stated that by doing so you may be trading the initial cost of a project for a higher maintenance cost if more erosion is created with a lesser storm sewer system. Discussion continued on the merits of the present standards and suggestións by the Council on how it could be changed. The Mayor had no problem with getting the proper drainage on new subdivisions, but in dealing with the older areas, because of topography or the layout of the plat, there gets to be a limited amount of things that can be done that are feasible. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:11 a.m. R"p"",l1y "b,; tt",:__ - - --e>L \\ C~~// , . .- -, - ." - ,I ~ '-- fl'<J ~lla A. Peach ' Recording Secretary