HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP March 27, 1980
~ 01 ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 27, 1980
~1!tWTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by ~1ayor Jerry
Windschitl on March 27, 1980, 6:18 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota, for the purpose of interviewing and selecting an
engineering firm for the City.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
The Council met with representatives from the following four consulting engineering
firms: Kirkham, ~1ichae1 & Associates-Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.; ~1cCombs-
Knutson Associates, Inc.; Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc., and To1tz, King,
Duvall, Anderson & Associates, Inc. Representatives gave a brief background of
their firms' experiences and qualifications. Afterwards the Council discussed
various questions including billing, the feasibility study for the proposed utilities
improvement project in the southwest portion of the City, staffing, etc.
Kirkham, Michael & Associates - Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Kent O. Landre of Kirkham-Michael and Larry Koshak of liakanson Anderson represented
the firms.
* Kirkham-Michael has 34 years experience in/architectu~nd engineering, with
civil and sanitary engineering being their prime strengths. Hakanson Anderson
was incorporated slightly over a year ago, with their partnership in existence
three years before that. Larry Koshak has had experience in private engineering
- and also served as consulting city engineer for the City of Andover previously.
* They suggested a joint venture between the two firms for this project because
their experience, Kirkham-Michael from the design standpoint and ability to provide
experienced personnel in water, storm drainage, etc., coupled with the abilities of
Hakanson Anderson and their wealth of personnel and experience in field coordination,
could provide the City with the best available talents.
* They suggested the City could also negotiate a contract with one of the firms,
with the other firm being the subcontractor.
* Mr. Koshak would serve as the project manager, meeting with the Council and
citizens.
* They gave an overhead presentation detailing the project procedure, the joint
approach to it including considerations of the project team; involving the public;
evaluating the project; reviewing the long-range plan; preparing the feasibility
report i nc 1 udi ng recommended rout i ng and location of facil it i es, data gatheri ng, site
evaluation, cost effective analysis, public hearings; basic services; and role of the
project engineer. (The Council was also presented copies of the presentation)
* They also gave an overhead presentation showing the proposed project area,
overlay of sanitary sewer trunk and laterals, overlay of two water system alternatives,
and an overlay of storm sewer system according to the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan.
* For the southwest area utilities improvement project in Andover, they estimated
the feasibility report in draft document could be prepãred within 6 weeks of notice
to proceed.
* They proposed a feasibility report at $24,950. Should each element of the
project, sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, be done individually, the
costs of those feasibility reports would be higher.
. . ~
Special City Council Meeì.,.lg
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 2
(Interview with Kirkham-Michael and Hakanson Anderson, Continued)
* They proposed that the standard NSPE document be utilized in developing the
feasibility, the design, and the construction phase.
* Three-four weeks after the feasibility report, the public hearing could be
held. Plans and specifications could then be prepared by September or October with
bid letting late October, with late fall, 1980, construction and through the winter,
phased through the summer, 1981; assessments in the fall of 1981. They envisioned
the project to be about $4~ million including legal, engineerin~ and construction.
* They then gave a slide presentation of what the feasibility report contains,
projects completed, and areas before, during and after construction.
* After the feasibility report when the scope of the project is defined, they
would be willing to work either with a curve as a percentage of a project or on a
fixed fee. The Federal Government is requiring more and more that once the scope of
the project is defined, that they work on a fixed fee. A fixed fee basis provides the
City with a fixed cost no matter what the cost of the project is. The cost of the
feasibility report would be credited toward the engineering costs of the ordered
project.
* The 2.5 multiplier would be used times existing salaries of personnel involved
in the project, plus employee benefits. The going rate for representation is around
$40 to $45 an hour. The State is currently using an upper limit of $40 an hour, and
they would be comfortable with that limitation.
* Costs for meetings on an on-going basis would depend on whether the individual
represented the city as the city engineer on numerous items, which could be on a
retainer basis or a flat fee basis.
* Secretarial costs are generally in the overhead costs. Salary costs would be
based on those costs in each individual firm. This would depend on whether the City
would want a joint venture or a subcontractor venture. Mr. Landre proposed hiring
one firm as the prime consulting engineer, with the other firm as the subcontractor,
in which the costs of the subcontractor would be passed directly to the City through
the consulting firm. Most of the work to be done with Kirkham-Michael would be
negotiated on a fixed basis or a curved basis. Most of the day-to-day routine would be
done by Hakanson Anderson and would more likely be on the hourly basis.
* Hakanson Anderson has 16 emp 10yees on payro 11 presently.
* Mr. Landre stated as a city engineer, he would not do the designing for
developers, but he would do the design for the City of Andover working for the City if
it is directed by the City.
* If the project were done on a fixed-fee basis, that fee would be determined
before proceding into the document stage. They would enter into a supplemental
agreement following the feasibility report. If a curved-fee basis were used, it would
be negotiable whether the percentage would relate to the entire project as a whole or
whether it would relate to individual segments of the project as they are let. The
fixed fee follows the curved fee fairly closely.
* Mr. Koshak preferred that inspections be done when it goes into the ground to
catch any errors. That doesn't always happen to be a steady job. There are critical
times during construction where inspections are necessary.
* Kirkham-Michael is a larger firm with greater insurance capabilities and Mr.
Lundre suggested the City contract with them and have Kirkham-Michael subcontract with
Hakanson Anderson; however, that decision would be up to the Council. Hakanson Anderson
has one municipal client, but also does work for the City of Anoka. The two firms have
not worked together previously, but Kirkham-Michael has worked on many joint ventures
in the past.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 3
McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
William (Skip) McCombs, Richard Sathre, and Alvin Schendel represented the firm.
* The firm was established 14 years ago; employs 70 people.
* They gave a slide presentation on various projects the firm has done, the
various phases of construction of a project; and functions they would provide for
the City.
* Mr. Sathre and Mr. Schendel would be relating to the City of Andover directly.
* They will not work for any individuals within the City of Andover if they are
selected as the City's consulting engineering firm.
* The firm represents 36 communities, most of them about the size of Andover.
They felt they have been successful in municipal work and enjoy relating to the
communities. They also feel helping residents understand projects is important.
* They feel the biggest problem in the southwestern grea improvement project is
the storm sewer in the area. Before the Council can make/ ecision on the project,
they would study the extension ·of the utilities in the area and use the building block
technique in studying the system. They would have to look at each of the individual
neighborhoods and the presently undeveloped areas to determine their problems and tie
it together into one area. They would help the Council to choose the most cost
effective solution to the improvement project.
* Their hourly rate is the hourly rates plus fringe benefits times 2.25 for services,
using fringe benefits comes out to 2.85 times the hourly rate.
* Exhibit "CO, the,rate shown is the hourly rate plus the multiplier, the cost
the City should see on an itemized statement, and are the maximum rates.
* All government work is on a cost plus a fixed fee basis, in which they bill
direct labor costs and an overhead item for fringes and indirect costs.
* The percentage of construction costs method includes everything, except fu11-
time inspection, including the preliminary study and final engineering.
* The percentage of engineering fees for a project varies with the project
depending on staking, inspections, etc., but they estimated it would be 12 to 15
percent.
* To allow the City to do its own inspecting, they would need to talk about the
person's qualifications and if their firm could be responsible for supervising the
person doing the inspecting. That kind of arrangement could be worked out.
* The basic retainer method of compensation usually relates to a specific number
of meetings, duties, etc., and beyond that, some other means of compensation could be
negotiated. The per meeting charge of $35 is for however many people need to be
present at that meeting. There is no meeting charge if they are present for a job
being charged a percentage.
* They thought that Mr. Sathre would be working with the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Mr. Schendel would be attending Council meetings. Mr. Sathre would also
attend Council meetings when necessary.
* EDM is a distance measuring device to measure long distance used with one of
the screws. They also use a Wang computer for planning purposes.
* They estimated a charge of $2,000 to do the feasibility study on the proposed
utilities improvement project in Andover. At this point they haven't done a preliminary
report. The project is very involved. They are not clear how far the City wants to go
with the project. The $2,000 would be credited toward the ordered project.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 4
Orr-Sche1en-Mayeron & Associates, Inc.
Marlin "Butch" Larsen, Wayne Long, and John Badalich represented the firm.
* They presented the Council with a supplemental handout and reviewed the OSM
organizational chart, qualifications of each representative, and several projects
done by OSM.
* Mr. Badalich would be the client representative for the City.
* Their policy is not to do work for a developer in a city in which they are
representing the city.
* They outlined the project and contract administration procedures and the various
parts of a feasibility report including the type of work, description of project,
location, length of project, special conditions, estimated cost, defined the property
to be assessed, estimated assessment, feasibility, and economic analysis; reviewed the
public hearing step, taking care to be sure people are thoroughly informed, including
notice of hearing, mailing of letter and location map to residents, clearly displaying
the project at the public hearing, showing preliminary cost estimates, showing
typical proposed assessment, charges per lot and annual payments of that estimated
assessment.
* They like to hold a pre-bid conference with all bidders to clear up points
On the plans and specs.
* They felt the most important issue is "people" -- they need to be kept informed,
which is done by mailings stating who can be contacted during the project.
* Their 1980 fee schedule shows an hourly salary costs (including fringe
benefits) multiplied by 2.25, noting charges of various direct expenses and vehicle
mileage charged at 20 cents per mile for mileage to the community. The charge for
Councilor P & Z meetings is $40 regardless of the number of people attending, plus
mileage expense.
* The total estimated cost for the feasibility report for the proposed utilities
improvement project in southwest Andover is not to exceed $38,400. The City could
pursue one project or any combination of the projects for the fee noted in the OSM
proposal to the City. They preferred payment for this at the time the project is
ordered for plans and specs or within a year of that time. All charges for the
feasibility report will be credited toward the total fee for the project. They work
on a project to project basis and on the basis of a percentage of construction costs.
In this case, they would charge the same percentage fee regardless of whether one
portion of the project is ordered or all portions are ordered.
* The top rate charged is $21 an hour times the 2.25 multiplier. The rates
shown on the fee schedule are the maximum hourly rates.
* The curve used for fees is the standard curve, is standard in the industry,
and is of average complexity, Curve B.
* They try to work within a specific area of the city and could group those
projects together for a total cost on which to apply the fee curve. If there were
other projects in different areas of the city, they would re-evaluate to determine
the cost of that project.
* They try to keep two people in the company well aware of the city's activities.
Mr. Badalich would be the prime representative, present at all Council meetings; and
in his absence, Mr. Long would be present. Mr. Long would also be project engineer
for the proposed utilities improvement project in the City and would also be present
at P & Z meetings.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 5
(Interview with OSM, Continued)
* Mileage charge to the city would not be charged if they were working on a
project but would be charged if they came up to survey a plat for the city, which
would be a chargeable cost to the city. Charges would begin when an employee would
arrive at the project site and mileage would not be charged in this case.
* Generally the hourly rate for employees change yearly, but the multiplier
of 2.25 used for municipalities has never changed. They do a lot of federal
government work and are audited regularly.
* They estimated the utilities improvement project to be between $5 and $7 million.
If only $1 million of that project was let, the same percentage fee rate would be
used as for the $7 million project. They would commit themselves to that specific
percent no matter how long it would take to compe1te the project, even if it would
take more than one year to complete the project.
* They estimated the percentage of construction costs for plans and specs would
be 5.2 percent; normally 2-3 percent of the construction costs is required for staking
plus another 3 percent for inspection; normally assessment rolls are about 3/4 to 1
percent of the construction costs as well -- totalling about 12.2 percent engineering
fees on the project.
* If they feel the city has a person qualified to do the inspections on projects,
they do like to have him doing the inspecting, but they ask that he work with the OSM
inspector as well. They will also teach a city employee to do the inspecting.
* It is the firm's intent that all projects, including any that may be done in
the future, will be done under the direction of Mr. Long.
* They stated they have already done a fair amount of office work going over
this project. At this level of estimated $5-7mil1ion, usually a thorough feasibility
report will run 3/4 to 1 percent of that, which would be approximately $30,000.
Using manhours, a simi1iar number was arrived at. They felt that the more in depth
the feasibility report, the more accurate the estimate, the more information can be
given to residents and the easier it is to determine the most cost effective alternative.
* They felt they could have the feasibility report within 40-60 days after they
get the contract documents; public hearing could be held within a month after that;
depending on the magnitude of the project, it could be ready for bids by about
November, ready for winter construction in November/December. The project could also
be done in segments, with the extension of the sanitary sewer trunk line westward
along Bunker Lake Boulevard being done this year.
To1z, King, Duvall, Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Dewey Kasma, John Davidson, Larry Bohrer, and David Pi11atzke represented TKDA.
* They reviewed the qualifications and responsibilities of those present and
reviewed an introduction of the firm's capabilities, Andover services, staff, and
experience and feasibility study. (Reference Statement of Qualifications for
Consulting Services for the City of Andover; the March 27, 1980, Consulting Engineering
Services; and the March 19, 1930, letter referencing the southwest area improvement
project.)
* Mr. Davidson would be in charge of the project; Mr. Bohrer and Mr. Pi11atzke
would be project engineers; and Mr. Schumacher would be an assistant to the City
Engineer.
* They stress on-the-job inspection and have always run air tests on the sewer
pipes, which Mr. Kasma felt was a better method of testing than televising.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 6
(Interview with TKDA, Continued)
* Mr. Davidson reviewed a map showing a system laid out that is a method of
servicing the district that has been defined, considering each of the 7 parts of
the southwest area as separate and distinct units or phases of construction.
* He suggested the city look at expanding a water system to include developed
areas, giving the residents the option of hooking into a central water system.
* He has discussed a water system with the staff of neighboring communities,
and the staff is concerned about interconnection with facilities between communities.
Mr. Davidson stated that an interim solution might be a pressure tank system; suggested
the City consider a hydrologic analysis for storm drainage systems and as it relates
to the water supply; noted that the storm sewer district in this area is basically
divided between three watershed districts where they would be looking at precise
storm sewer ponding facilities with each subdivision.
* Mr. Davidson recommended the City consider a two-hearing process. First,
doing a broadbrush feasibility report and outlining the alternatives, estimating
that be prepared at a cost of $6,000 to go into that hearing. Each addition could
stand by itself or they could be combined. The initial public hearing would be in-
formational for all affected and surrounding properties in the southwest area of the
City. The feasibility report for this hearing would not be very detailed or precise,
but will have a broad estimate. Mr. Davidson felt that including all hours needed for
this report, it could be done within the $6,000 at normal rates.
* The method of payment for engineering services is in accordance with the
present engineering agreement of salary times 2.5 multiplier, but it doesn't rule out
the possibility of negotiating some other method.
* They felt the project could be performed within this construction season.
It is not necessary to do the entire project in one season; however, the overall
costs savings involved might be an advantage to do so.
* They presented the Council with copies of "A Guide for Engagement of Engineering
Services" put out by the National Society of Professional Engineers.
* They reviewed the March 27, 1980, memo to Andover Council from Dewey Kasma
referencing Consulting Engineering Fee Comparisons, stating it is their feeling that
the hourly basis with maximum fee contract is the best advantage for the City.
* TKDA tries to put the right person on the right job, trying to be as most
cost effective/economical as possible.
* TKDA's 2.5 multiplier is based on salary cost only, without benefits added.
TKDA does not charge for clerical work.
* TKDA has longevity of its staff, and has been in business for 70 years.
* TKDA has used the Curve B for fees on projects in Andover as a maximum. All
projects are on an hourly basis with the curve as a maximuM. They could group all
projects together for the year and use that percentage for engineering fees.
* Mr. Kasma explained that in 1974 the multip1ießused were 2.1 and 2.4.
The difference in multipliers was that some people were strictly in the field without
support services, etc. They have now found they have more construction supervision
for the people on the job and office space is needed in the winter; they no longer
have the differential and had to bring it all up to the same basis. That brought it
up to a 2.4. They then raised the multiplier to 2.5. They did not have more than a
7 percent increase for their employees this year. (Mayor Windschit1 argued that during
these inflationary times, the multiplier in effect raises the income to the principals
of the firm.) Mr. Kasma stated that TKDA is competitive in its fees; in fact, it is
30 percent below a majority of the firms.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 7
(Interview with TKDA, Continued)
* Mr. Davidson felt that the entire project, exclusive of street construction,
could be completed this construction season.
* r~r. Davidson stated he would be very concerned working in a community with
another consulting firm without the City's own staff engineer for coordination. He
felt there would be interface with the other consultants in spite of the fact that the
other projects in the City are separate from the southwest area project because of
the reviews TKDA would be doing with the proposed development in that area.
* Mr. Davidson felt that a more precise engineering work scope must be
determined to go into the hearing with specific details. He didn't feel that could
be done on a broad-brush $6,000 study. The broad-brush study is going to tell the
City which of these subdivisions are still interested after they have seen the costs.
If some areas drop out or reduce the scope of their requests, then the detailed feasibility
report would address those specific areas to go ahead for construction. There is more
engineering detail required for a project of this significance than there is for the
average street program. (Mayor Windschitl argued that by in large the developers,
under the escrow ordinance, will have to come forth with this money. He was extremely
reluctant to go to a public hearing with guesstimates on this. He questioned if it is
really feasible to do it in this approach and be reasonably sure what is presented at
the first public hearing is reasonably accurate.)
* If the size of the pipe as shown in the comprehensive sewer plan is not
retained, then the lift station to serve Auditors Sub. 82 is a very real possibility.
All the alternatives for a central water system will be looked at.
* On all major projects within the City of Andover, Mr. Kasma stated that the
upper limit has been that of the curve for design services. They use either the
curve of average complexity or of above average complexity as a maximum engineering
fee charge, but generally the lower curve is used.
* They had no problem with utilizing city personnel in this project. City
personnel could also be put under the direct supervision of TKDA, accountable to them.
* Mr. Davidson hadn't re-eva1uated the Xenia Street project, but supposedly
after the initial awarding of the bids, they would be under the construction phase of
the authorization. They would charge any of the redesign back against the basic
service. He thought the large cost to date has been the detailed surveying and tying
down of the land lines. There is no question that the delay and double bidding of
projects adds time spent on the project and the overall percentage would be higher than
a typical project.
* They do charge for the use of their central computer at 3 cents a second. The
2.5 factor is figured strictly on the engineers and technicians. There is no charge
for clerical work.
* For some projects with a field office, crews meet at that office and that is
when their time starts. On an occasional visit to the City, the time is registered
from the office or from their home if it is closer. The same applies with mileage rates.
* Mr. Schumacher would continue with the day-to-day engineering in the City,
plus working on the southwest improvement project if he has the time.
* They will provide a salary schedule to the Counti1.
* TKDA has had approximately 30 percent of their work in municipalities over
the past 6 years; but that is increasing because the 35-40 percent of their work
during the past 6 years which has been with ~Ietro Waste Control plant wi 11 be
winding down. They do all the work for the Metropolitan Airports Co~nission. Gross
billings have been in the area of $5 to $6~ million, with gradual increases, keeping
up with inflation. Their desire is to stay the size they are now with about 200 employees
and ~<; oW"1!'r~.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 8
Recess at 10:26; reconvene at 10:34 p.m.
Discussion on Selection of Consulting Engineering Firm
Mayor Windschit1 stated he has not verified the following data but is just relating what
has been given him on the land ownership in Andover by Keith Caswell of CED: The
Round Lake property was purchased on 11/2/67; the mobile home rezoning took place
10/13/70; purchased the property along Coon Creek on 10/7/71; purchased additional
property on 6/9/72; became Grow Town City Engineers 11/21/72.
A lengthy Council discussion ensued over the selection of an engineering firm for
the southwest utilities improvement project. The selection was reduced to three
firms, after which the Council debated the advantages and disadvantages of each
firm. The three firms were OSM; Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik; and TKDA.
Charlie Vieman - felt that Bonestroo, Rosene. Ander1ik stood head and shoulders above
everyone else. They showed class in their presentation; they are "people" oriented;
and in his research he received some very high reco~nendations for Bonestroo. Peop 1 e
doing business with them are very impressed with them.
Points discussed by the Council were the feeling that because many points were brought
out in all interviews, that Bonestroo should be questioned again before selecting
that firm; that possibly TKDA could progress with the project faster than the other
firms; that the City may be premature in bringing in another consulting engineering
firm at this time since the City does not have its own City Engineer yet to coordinate
matters; that a city engineer will need the assistance of TKDA to familiarize himself
with the City and its projects; discussed the fees of those firms; start-up costs
may be incurred by a new engineering firm; reviewed the personnel from each firm
that would be assigned to this project; discussed some of the problems the City has
had with TKDA on projects, specifically Prairie Road and Stenquist Addition projects;
that all firms are capable of doing the project; and guessed that in the final
analysis, the fees of the firms on this project would be simi1iar.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Windschit1, that the City Council authorize the
appointment of the firm of Orr-Sche1en-Mayeron as the consulting engineering firm for
the feasibility study for the project. Discussion: Councilman Lachinski couldn't
vote for Orr-Schelen tonight because he couldn't go along with their time schedule
on the project and because of their substantial feasibility study cost of $38,000,
which is more than anybody else proposed. If areas of the project dropped out, it has
the effect of their being the most expensive firm. He felt that TKDA will do a good
job on this project; that their future is at stake in this City; and that no one will
get it off the ground quicker than TKDA. Councilman Ortte1 didn't think there was
any doubt that they (OSM) are the most expensive firm. Not only are their costs the
highest percentage-wise or personnel-wise, but their initial analysis of the project
was $2 million higher than anyone else. He had no doubt about their qualities.
Mayor Windschit1 stated there is a tremendous difference of what is being called a
feasibility report. He couldn't see going to a public hearing without having this
project laid out and having the estimates with some degree of certainty. He felt
without a question that OSM proposed the most senior engineers of any of the other
firms. The firm has also done a lot of work with the sewer board, which is an
important part of this project. He doubted that any firm could complete the project
this year. Councilman Peach expressed great concern over
the performances ot TKDA in the past in its dealings with Andover, particularly
the Stenquist Addition and Prairie Road projects, the handling of public hearings,and
strongly felt that the City should pick another firm to do this project. His first
choice was Bonestroo. Further debate was on the costs between OSM and that of TKDA and
opinions as to why each firm would be the best choice.
Special City Council Meeting
March 27, 1980 - Minutes
Page 9
(Discussion on Selection of Consulting Engineering Firm, Continued)
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
~totion fai led.
MOTION by Peach that Bonestroo, Rosene. Ander1ik & Associates be awarded the project
for the southwest area of Andover. Motion dies for lack of a second.
A lengthy discussion continued with some requesting more information from the
Bonestroo firm; some arguing that TKDA could possibly complete the project in less
time than the other firms; some arguing the possible duplication of work if another
firm were awarded this project; arguing there would be no City mediator between the
two consulting firms since we do not have a city engineer for coordination at
this time; reviewed some of the problems with the present engineering firms relative
to staffing, fees, etc,; compared fees between TKDA and OSM. what is charged for,
debating which would be the least costly; reviewed the ratings of the consulting firms
by contractors as prepared by the Building Inspector for the Council.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Windschit1, that Orr-Sche1en-Mayeron be appointed
the position of consulting engineer for the project in southwest Andover. Discussion:
Again debated opinions for and against OSM and TKDA.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1
Motion failed.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we hire the firm of TKDA for public
ut1lities improvement in the southwest portion of the City. Discussion: Another
lengthy discussion debating the advantages/disadvantages of TKDA and OSM.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson. Lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Peach, Windschit1
Motion carried.
MOTION by Lachinski that we order the feasibility study on the utility improvements
in the southwest area of the City and authorize TKDA to prepare it. Motion
dies for lack of a second. Discussion: It was felt by some it would be more
appropriate to talk with Mr. Davidson before taking further action on the project.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~c~L
Recording Secretary