Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 18, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-NOVEMBER 18, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. I 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Vacation of Easement/Sonsteby b. Preliminary Plat/Rosella's Addition c. Extension/Final Plat-Hawk Ridge East d. Hazardous Waste/Resolutions e. Public Waters Report/Designations f. Sea1coating g. Ponding Area/1980-3 h. i. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02 Amendment b. Ordinance/Earth Homes c. Probationary Increase/K.Starr d. 6. Reports of Boards, Committees, Commissions, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment , ~ 01 ANDOVER < REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 18, 1980 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on November 18, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Councilman Ortte1 stated he saw three more cases of garbage dumped in the City, in this case from residents in Coon Rapids. They were able to identify the people, but the Sheriff's Department has refused to cooperate to even call those people to remove the garbage. Council discussed the problem, with the Attorney stating that no one can be prosecuted unless they are actually observed doing the dumping. The Clerk was directed to ask the Sheriff to attend the next regular Council meeting to discuss this further. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the Agenda be approved as published with the Addition of 4h, Hazardous Waste Committee Appointment; 4i, Pumphouse Approval; and 5d, Easement Acceptance. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, the suspension of the rules for this evening. Motion carried unanimously. VACATION OF EASEMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT/ROSELLA'S ADDITION Council discussion was on the motion made at the November 5 meeting directing the Planning Commission to provide a road access to the west of Rosella's Addition, but that it was the Planning Commission's opinion that such an access is not necessary (Reference P & Z Memo of November 14, 1980). Councilman Peach expressed concern that access be provided to the west for traffic flow, emergency vehicles, and to prevent that property from being locked in by piecemeal development. Mr. Winner demonstrated the topography in the area and noted the proposed street pattern for the westerly property with accesses from the north via Woodbine and from the south once the Good Value property is developed. Councilman Peach noted that that proposal is subject to change; but if Ms. Sonsteby had been required to plat that property as is required in the ordinance, the Council would have been better able to see the overall street layout, plus the development to the south would have been required to tie into those streets. Fire Chief Palmer stated he had not been consulted about the traffic pattern through the plat. Rosella Sonsteby - stated she had no idea when she would be developing the property to the west of this plat because it is so costly to develop. Discussion continued on the most direct routes which might be taken by emergency vehicles to service the property west of the plat. Councilman Peach questioned how the Council can guess what will happen to the westerly property or tell whether or not this is a good plan when no one knows exactly what developments will be going on around it. Discussion was then on the question of parkland dedication in Rosella's Addition. Mayor Windschitl noted that on the parkland dedication proposal before the Council, according to the elevations taken by Ms. Sonsteby's surveyor, a great deal of the area is in the Règular City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Vacation of Easement and Preliminary Plat/Rosella's Addition, Continued) flood plane. He had thought it was intended to have the park on the east side which could eventually be added to as the adjoining property develops. Anything that could be added onto the proposed parkland to the west would be in the swamp. Ms. Sonsteby argued that the parkland proposed is all high ground and none of it is swamp. Bill LeFebvre of the Park/Recreation Commission stated he was not at the last meeting when this decision was made, but personna11y felt that a good place for the park would be Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1, which would be buffered by Vintage and an access to the west and which could be added to at such time that Ms. Sonsteby develops the property to the west. Council generally felt that would be acceptable, until Ms. Sonsteby stated she does not own the 40 north and west of Lot 1 adjacent to the west edge of the plat. Discussion determined that maximum parkland dedication would amount to 1.46 acres and that parkland on the east side of the plat would be acceptable as it is high enough so some structure could be constructed if desired and it could be added to at such time as the adjacent property to the east develops. Councilman Lachinski agreed with the Attorney that if Ms. Sonsteby would be required to plat all contiguous property, it should have been required initially; and he suggested to Ms. Sonsteby that the best alternative for both the City and herself would be to plat the whole area to deal with both the parkland and road access issues. Ms. Sonsteby replied that the City has a sketch plan of her proposal for the westerly property. It is not known when sewer will be available to the westerly property, and she didn't feel she should go through the expense of platting it now. Mr. SChumacher explained that to include the westerly property in the Coon Rapids interceptor would require Metropolitan Council approval since it is now in the CAB district, and he noted that it is even questionable whether that area could be serviced with the existing interceptor. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that for the parkland for Rosella's Addition that we accept Lots numbered 1, 2, 3, and a portion of 4 of Block 2 to meet the legal requirement for a plat of this size for parkland. Motion carried unanimously. It was generally felt that the remaining land from Lot 4 could be added to Lot 5 to increase the size of Lot 5. Discussion was on the question of providing a street stub to the west edge of the plat. Councilman Lachinski felt that the cross street issue should be based on the requirement of the platting ordinance, and he felt that it doesn't appear that one would be required when looking at the distance from 142nd/Vintage Street to the next crossroad to the north. After some discussion, the general consensus of the Council was to compromise by retaining the easement on Lot 3, Block 1, requiring additional footage to be dedicated to make it a full 60-foot easement. This would make Lot 3 an unbui1dab1e lot at this time; but when the area to the west is developed, the easement could be constructed for access or vacated if it is deemed unnecessary. If the easement would be vacated, Lot 3 would become a buildable lot. Councilman Lachinski objected to the proposal feeling that if a street to the west is desired, full dedication should be obtained and the stub street constructed at this time. He also felt that any extension to the west should be on Lot 2 where there would be higher ground to support it. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the Preliminary Plat of Rosella's Add1tion (legal to be inserted) with the understanding that the easement across Lot 3 of Block 1 be retained based upon the preliminary plat dated Revision 10-7-80, and contingent upon the park dedication being Lots 1, 2, 3, and a portion of 4 thereof as in the previous motion of the City Council this evening; pertaining to the right-of- way width, that we require instead of 33-foot easement on Lot 3 of Block 1, the full 60-foot wide width. (See Resolution R137-80) DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski was concerned as to the redrawing of the plat and what it will look like with the motion as presented. Other Councilmen felt that this is an effort to protect the easement until such time as it is felt it is needed or that it is nO longer needed depending on Regular City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Vacation of Easement and Preliminary Plat/Rosella's Addition, Continued) how the property to the west is developed. If it is developed as presented and the road access is not needed, it would then be vacated and Lot 3 would become a buildable lot. Ms. Sonsteby questioned why a person should have to pay for all the sewer and water going through there but then not be able to bui 1d on half the property. She stated she didn't think that was fair. Ms. Sonsteby also illustrated the existing streets in the area along with those she proposed, and felt that requiring the access to the west from her plat would be poor planning, coming through the lowland. She didn't feel it was right to build all the expensive roads for the small amount of land back there. Councilman Lachinski was opposed to the motion because it does not comply with anything the Council has done in the past and because if it is considered necessary in the future, the City would have to pay for the construction of that access to the west. Plus if the street is built, there may be some small strips of land that would go tax forfeit at some point in time. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. Discussion continued on the mechanics of obtaining the additional 27 feet to make a 60-foot easement through Lot 3. Mr. Hawkins recommended to leave the plat as shown for Lot 3 and to ask Ms. Sonsteby to provide a separate easement after it is recorded over the 27 feet that is contiguous to the existing 33 feet. It would be platted this way with an easement of record over 60 feet across the lot. Council generally felt that it doesn't really matter where the 27 feet is added as long as there is a contiguous 60-foot easement through Lot 3. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1. to raise from the table the motion referring to the vacation of easement. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach to include that portion of the easement on the James Francis property directly north of the Rosella's Addition, approximately 115 feet, north of Lots 2 and 3 in Rosella's Addition. Amendment dies for lack of a Second. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to say on that area lying westerly of the west llne of Hagen's property extended northerly to the west line of Lot 3 (Block 1) (See Resolution R138-80) VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. EXTENSION/FINAL PLAT - HAWKRIDGE EAST Sylvia Britton, representing Lawrence Carlson, stated the extension is needed to finish the roads. Mayor Windschitl pointed out that should the Metropolitan Council require the City to have five-acre lots in the rural area, it could become effective during the period of the extension. Ms. Britton stated that then they would have the option of bonding for the roads and getting approval for the final. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we allow an extension of six months for Mr. Carlson to finalize the plat of Hawk Ridge East. (See Resolution R 139-80) DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated he is voting against it because he felt the road plan was bad when the plat was presented, and he voted against it then. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1. Windschit' NO-Peach Motion carried. HAZARDOUS WASTE/RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Hazardous Waste Resolutions be held until the next Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 PUBLIC WATERS REPORT/DESIGNATIONS Councilman Ortte1 reported that the public waters map is very inaccurate, and they are not willing to use more accurate, up-to-date data. And unless someone comes forward and objects, that property will be considered public waters for 10 years, and any activity in that area at all would have to be only by a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. Public hearings will be held by the County Board in December, which he felt someone from the City should be attending. He also felt that people in those areas designated public waters should be advised to check the map. Mayor Windschit1 suggested the City go on record noting the map is inaccurate and that the City try to file the ASCS maps in its place. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we direct the Clerk to prepare a Resolution to be presented at the County Board public hearings on the public waters matter stating that the City of Andover feels that the maps are of such an inaccurate nature as to be not useful in determining public waters and that we would prefer to substitute more accurate local mapping that is available, namely the ASCS maps. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski stated that in trying to make the map more accurate by using the ASCS map, the result may mean that there is more public waters than what they are currently showing. He also has a bigger problem with the entire proposal being made as to the cost of this entire program. He expressed a desire to see the Council support that direction of concern. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we'll supply the more accurate City of Andover maps but that we do it under protest with the understanding that we do not agree with the program to begin with; but not having the ability to change it at this point, we are supplying the more accurate maps in hope of more fair treatment, but we do not agree with the program. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski felt that the City should publicize the direction the City is planning to take and hold a public hearing so those,affected~ould have the opportunity to try to correct the maps. After all that data 1S ac~u1re then pass 1t on. VOTE ON AM NDMENt: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski Amendment carried. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. Mr. Schumacher stated that using the ASCS maps might bring in properties that the DNR might not have under colored waters designation and questioned if the City would want to bring in more area to be involved in the program. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we rescind the motions made regarding public waters designation until we get a report back from Larry Winner and/or TKDA on the accuracy of the mapping referred to in the motions or .any alternatives they may suggest. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we have a public meetin gon the subject of the DNR designated public waters for the December 2 meeting and authorize the Clerk to advertise public notice. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, as he felt that if only 80-acre tracts and above are affected, those property owners could be identified and mailed notice explaining the proposal and telling them of the December 5 County meeting. Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 SEALCOA TI NG Mr. Winner reported that as of last Friday, the excess peatrock was hauled away, but they haven't yet returned to complete the sweeping. If they haven't returned by the , end of the week, he recommended he be given authority to use the money retained to have -. somebody sweep up that rock. Mayor Windschit1 recommended that next year in the sea1- ~ coating project, no money be paid to the contractor until the job is satisfactorily completed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that Larry Winner, the City Engineer, be authorized to contract other firms to finish the sea1coating if necessary. Motion carried unanimously. PONDING AREA/1980-3 Mr. Schumacher reviewed the November 14, 1980, TKDA memo on the Chutich Pond easement acquisition, noting that using this area as a storm water holding facility for Chapman's Additions was proposed; that Mr. Chutich has now decided that the City should buy fee title to the approximately seven acres of low area; Mr. Chutich also ownS the property surrounding the area in question; that the Good Value property is proposed to drain to a pond on the north of their property. Mayor Windschit1 asked who will be assessed for the purchasing of this pond; and expressed concern that with a relatively small number paying for this, the assessments for thi s storm sewer wi 11 be extreme ly high. Councilman Lachinski also asked why seven acres is needed, as he felt that was a large area. Mr. Schumacher explained that when storm water is put into the pond, the entire pond area is affected. If only a portion is purchased, the City would have the expense of putting a dike around the entire area, which is more costly than the easement costs. Mr. Schumacher also explained the drainage flow for that area west of County Road 9, with those facing Round Lake Boulevard draining into the County system, the northern portion draining directly west to a small pond which is still being considered and negotiated with Mr. Chutich, and the remainder going down Underc1ift into the County ditch, which is the natural drainage. Mr. Hawkins stated he and Mr. Chutich have hired appraisers, and he hoped to have the results of the appraisal within two weeks. If a price cannot be negotiated after that, he'll come back for authorization for a quick taking of the property. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to direct TKDA to consider a smaller ponding area such as that which was created in the Red Oaks project. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be on the December 2 Regular Council meeting to discuss TKDA's alterna- tives; the cost to residents in the storm sewer area, and which residents west of Round Lake Boulevard are affected by this pond acquisition. Recess at 9:10; reconvene 9:24 p.m. (Councilman Peach responded to a fire at this time) HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that John Ward, or his designee, be appointed as the Andover representative to the Hazardous Waste Committee as requested by the State of Minnesota, and pay for reasonable mileage and out-of-pocket expenses. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent vote. PUMPHOUSE APPROVAL Mr. Schumacher reviewed the November 18, 1980, report on Contract Award for Well Pumphouse No.1, SW Area Improvement, noting that Johnson Engineering was the low bidder with a base bid of $149,961.95. That bid includes a 750-gpm turbine pump and flouridation and chlorination equipment. Mr. Schumacher also reported that there Regular City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (Pumphouse Approval, Continued) appears to be sufficient water in the well, but sand was pumped so they will have to do some blasting and bailing to develop a cavern to pump without sand. The contractor is doing that operation at this time. (Councilman Peach returned at this time. 9:28 p.m.) Mr. Schumacher explained that an alarm system will be set up to contact Central Communications which will then call a list of City Personnel in the event of a power outage. He has not yet received all information regarding specifications and prices for a standby power unit, but the pumphouse building is not sized to accommodate any vehicles. To increase the size of the building to accommodate the unit would be a big increase in cost. A portable standby power unit would have to be housed elsewhere, but it is versatJ.lE in that it could be used elsewhere in the City as well, as it could be retrofitted to be used in the Public Services Building, future lift stations, etc. Discussion was on the Council's concern that an emergency backup system be provided and built into the cost of this project, asking that the costs for used or new units, portable and stationary, be provided. Jud Johnson of Johnson Engineering stated that the pump bid for the contract is a Peabody free flow, 6 stage, and agreed that arrangements have been made in the building for alternative power in the panel systems that were specified. Also, he sees nO foreseeable changes in the plans and specifications, as they are very complete. Mr. Schumacher stated the only item the City will have to buy for the pumphouse is several hundred dollars worth of lab equipment, which can be purchased outright at a lesser cost than including it in this bid. He also stated that no provisions have been made for iron removal equipment in the pumphouse, and he didn't think the water has been tested for iron from the well. Council discussion was that since the City of Anoka has an iron removal facility for their wells, there is a strong possibility the iron content of this well is high as well. The Council also expressed concern that without such facilities, the iron will affect the water lines in the future. Mr. Schumacher felt that such problems with the lines can be avoided with regular flushing programs, particularly on lines where there isn't a steady flow of water. Council generally felt the iron content of the water should be tested, and that Mr. Schumacher determine whether there is room for iron removal equipment in the building if it is needed and the cost of such equipment. Mr. Johnson - in answer to the Mayor's question, stated their firm has not built pump- houses specifically, but they have built almost every component in well houses, and they have done industrial dredging and water removing for eight years. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we table consideration of the matter unt1l our December 2 meeting at which time we would have a water report from the Consulting Engineers and at that time determine whether or not we would need additional space in the well house to accommodate iron removal equipment; and if we do, then we're going to have to redesign the building. If by the December 2 meeting the water samples determine that we need it, have it redesigned and the extra costs of whatever we need. DISCUSSION: Mr. Johnson stated that this would put a burden on finishing the building by March 15, but he felt that any additional requirements to the building would be less than $10,000 worth, which would not have to be rebid. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3.02 AMENDMENT Mayor Windschit1 stated that with the clarification of the chart prepared by the Building Inspector, he has no problem with the proposal. It was recommended that the table in Ordinance 8 be updated, placing an asterisk next to that which this applies to. Règu1ar City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02 Amendment, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, introducing an Ordinance amending Ordinance No.8 and Ordinance No. 8F, Zoning Ordinance for the City of Andover, as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE/EARTH HOMES MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we refer the matter of writing an Earth Home Ordinance to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. PROBATIONARY INCREASE/K. STARR MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the question of the probationary increase for Kev1n Starr be referred to the Personnel Committee. Motion carried unanimously. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT It was Mayor Windschit1's desire to get the Relief Association set up before the end of the year, to get the life insurance in force, and to establish a policy on the use of the Chief's vehicle. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to refer the matter of policy on the Chief's vehicle to the Personnel Committee. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Orttel, as he didn't feel it was a personnel matter and preferred to see the Fire Department establish that policy. Motion carried. EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE Attorney Hawkins reported he has reached an agreement with John Scherer for the purchase of easement acquisition of 25 feet by 1/2 mile for the Hanson Boulevard extension. The agreement is based on the price of $2,000 an acre, reduced by 50 percent for that part encumbered by existing easement, totalling $1,520 plus $200 for materials and $300 for labor for removing and replacing an existing fence along the entire strip. Total price would be $2,020. He also stated that it is difficult to say that everyone will be paid at the same rate for easements acquired for this project because of the different zoning classifications. But everyone within the same zoning classification was initially offered the same rate. They are paid on the fair market value through negotiation or the court appointed commissioners, which he felt would have no bearing on any future assessment for the proejct if that was so moved by the Council. Mr. Hawkins also reported on the initial Commissioner's hearing for condemnation of Mr. Vosika's and Mr. Hupp's property to be acquired for easement. Mr. Vosika's parcel is 1320 feet by 25 feet in width and was awarded $1,140 for land and $300 appraiser's fee. Mr. Hupp's property is 1320 feet by 125 feet in width; he did not retain an appraiser; and he was awarded $1865. Those figures correspond exactly to what the City's appraiser testified at the hearing. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that Mr. Scherer be paid an amount of $2,020 for the purchase of right of way on his land for Hanson Boulevard, including the fence moved; and Mr. Vosika be paid the amount awarded by the court appointed commissioners ($1,140 for land) plus the $300 appraiser fee; and Mr. Hupp be paid the amount awarded by the court appointed commissioners ($1,865 for land). (See Resolution 140-80) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the easements On County Road 9 for Jay Fortner and Doris Boie at no cost to the City. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Engineer, Larry Winner, be directed to research and report back to the next Council meeting the status of the MSAH funds. Motion carried unanimously. (The intent is the December 2 meeting.) Regular City Council Meeting November 18, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council meeting with the Park Board and Engineer be scheduled for December 4 and cancel the November 20 meeting, and have the staff notify all people involved. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bose11 stated that she and the Clerk attended a meeting at Metropolitan Council dealing with the Ag Preserve Act. In order to comply with the Ag Preserve in the City, the City has to submit a Comprehensive Plan, and within that Plan an area or areas need to be set aside as Ag Preserve property. This has to be certified as being eligible property by January 1, 1981. The next step is for the landowner to apply for an Ag Preserve designation, which is for a minimum of 8 years. She continued that because of the requirements, caution should be taken as to which land should receive this designation and strongly felt that it should not be within MUSA boundary. Discussion was on the regulations of the Act, with the Council asking Mr. Hawkins to review the Act and provide a summary of the law for the Council. Council also agreed to meet with the Planning Commission during the last half hour of the Commission's meeting On November 25. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 30, 1980, November 5, 1980: Correct as written. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we accept the Regular City Council M1nutes for November 5, 1980, and October 30, 1980, as presented. Motion carried unanimous 1y. CLERK CONFERENCE MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the City Clerk to attend the Clerk's Conference at the Americanna Inn, St. Cloud, December 11 through 12. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschit1 asked that the Personnel Committee recommend a policy for attendance of conferences by employees, feeling there should be some limit as to the number of days or number of conferences employees will be allowed to attend. Discussion noted that the Clerk is working between 45 and 50 hours a week, has attended conferences on her vacation time, and has not attended any where the agenda centers on communication as this one does. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Claims 3537 through 3617 with the exception of 3606 in the amount of $20,5U2./6. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Claim 3606 in the amount of $86. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschitl; PRESENT-Peach, as he is affected by the Claim. Motion carried. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Claims 407 through 411 from the Improvement Accounts in the amount of $724,674.88. Motion carried unanimously. MOITON by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:44 p.m. '_, Respectfully submitted, __/~ '\'~~~/éc~L Marce -la A. Peach Recording Secretary