Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 1, 1986 CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JULY 1, 1986-AGENDA 7:30 P,M, 1. Ca 11 to Order 2, Agenda Approval 3, Resident Forum 4, Discussion Items a, Ordinance/Rezoning/Menkve1d " , Stephen Nemeth Rezoning/Ordinance c, Stephen Nemeth Lot Split d. Stephen Ne~eth Lot Split e, Round Barn Special Use Permit, Cont. * f. Refunding of Bonds * g, T, 1. F, Resolution h, 5, Non-Discussion Items a, Joint Powers/Coon Rapids/Drainage b. Transfer 116 R/W to Anoka County c, Authorization to make designation request for MSA Street/133rd Avenue d, Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing/ University Avenue e. Hidden Creek 2nd Addition/86-6 1, Approve Final Plat 2, Approve Development Contract 3, Award Contract f, Woodland Terrace 4th & 5th Additions/86~9 1, i Approve Final Plats 2 , Approve Development Contract 3, Award Contract 6, Staff, Commission, Committee Reports a, Schedule Park Board Interviews 7, Approval of Claims 8 , Approval of Minutes 9, Adjournment *Not on pub1 i shed agenda CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 1, 1986 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of t Ie Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 1, 1986, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Ell ing, Knight, Lachinski, Ortte1 Councilmen absent: None A 1so present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Administrator/ Engineer, James Schrantz; and others RESIDENT FORUM Bill Sikora - stated he is before the Council for the third time requesting some- thing be done on University Extension and 177th. He noted the letter from the City of Ham lake regarding a study to pave the road. He stated he, his mother, and his cousin who lives in Ham Lake want to go on record as being completely opposed to any type of paving by either city or jointly. Council noted this item is on the agenda and will be discussed shortly. Mayor Windschit1 also noted the developers for the proposed car wash on 140th and Round Lake Boulevard requested a delay on the item. Mr. Schrantz thought it would be on the July 15 agenda. James Norman - asked to be called as to just when this item will be heard. Council agreed he would be called by staff, and he can then inform the interested residents. AGENDA APPROVAL It was agreed to add Item 4h, Tubing Operation/Rum River to the agenda. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to approve the Agenda as changed~ Moti on carried unanimously. MENKVELO & NEMETH REZONING/ORDINANCE MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing an ordinance amending ürdlnance. No.8 and Ordinance No. 8AA, known as the Zoning Ordinance to rezone the Menkve1d and Nemeth properties: PIN 34 32 24 23 0002, PIN 34 32 24 23 0003, PIN 33 32 24 43 0012; and PIN 33 32 24 43 0020. Motion carried unanimously. STEVEN NEMETH LOT SPLIT MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution approving a lot split requested by Steven Nemeth for property described as PIN 33 32 24 43 0012, as presented. (See Resolution R089-86) Motion carried unanimously. I MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution approving a lot split requested by Steven Nemeth for property described as PIN 33 32 24 43 0020. (See Resolution R090-86) Motion carried unanimously. ROUND BARN SPECIAL USE PERMIT Council noted information supplied by Ms. Volk that the Round Barn is not listed on the historical register; therefore would not qualify under the criteria for a special use permit. Mayor Windschit1 also understood a large portion of the Ado1fson property had been sold, feeling it raises the question as to whether some of the property should be rezoned since it adjoins the business zone to the west. - - - - .--- Regular City Council Meeting Ju)y I, 1986 - Minutes Page 2 (Round Barn Special Use Permit, Continued) Because the Round Barn is listed only as a historical site and is not on the historical register as specified by the ordinance, Attorney Hawkins advised the possibility of amending the ordinance to allow craft and antique businesses in R-4 districts in buildings designated as historical sites by a county, state, or nationally recognized historical organization. Counci 1 agreed. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to refer the ordinance back to the P1annlng and Zoning Commission for another public hearing regarding special use permits in the R-4 districts. Motion carried unanimously. REFUNDING OF BONOS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, authorizing the attorney to arrange for the refunding of the bonds as per the attorney's letter dated June 12, 1986, for the bonds that' total amounts to $150,000 and $175,000. Motion carried unanimously. ~"I\·<?I '--(U ,IV TIF RESOLUTION MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution calling for a public hearing on the establishment by the City of Andover of a development district and a tax increment financing district and on the adoption of a development program a tax increment financing plan relating thereto, with the hearing to be held on July 29 at the Andover City Hall. (See Resolution R091-86) Motion carried unanimously. RUM RIVER TUBING OPERATION Council raised several concerns over the Northstar Educational Services tubing operation on the Rum River and their request to construct a building on the county park site. Councilman Knight explained at the hearing before the Oak Grove Town Board it was stated the organization is nonprofit, but they want to increase the tubing to between 500 and 600 people a day on peak days. The only people affected by this is the Andover residents who live along the river. The Oak Grove committee made no decision on the request but passed it to the County Park Board to handle it. Council questioned how satellites, etc., can be placed along the river when the residents are so severely restricted as to what they can do with their river property. Mayor Windschitl stated a building already exists on the park site, questioning whether that is the building the request is for. Council also questioned the ability of a private commercial operation to operate out of a public park. In discussing what action should be taken, Mayor Windschitl stated the County alleges they never received the latest resolution passed by the Council regarding the City's opposition to the request for the building by the Northstar Education Services. Council directed Mr. Schrantz to mail another copy of the resolution to the County Commissioners and to request when this issue will be heard at the Board level. They also suggested the DNR be asked for their opinion, asking that this item be placed on the July 15 meeting for further discussion. JOINT POWERS/COON RAPIDS/DRAINAGE Mayor Windschitl found the clause in Item 2 troublesome where the costs effectively escalate at 8 percent a year to the Andover residents. He suggested instead that the Engineering News Record index be used, feeling that would be more equitable to the Andover residents. Otherwise, he felt it may be better to hold a public hearing and bond for the storm drainage project at this time. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1986 - Minutes Page 3 (Joint Powers/Coon Rapids/Drainage, Continued) Mr. Schrantz explained Andover is being assessed the same per-acre costs as everyone in Coon Rapids. He also reviewed the storm drainage plans, feeling the best solution for that portion of Andover as far as storm drainage is to go with the proposed project. Coon Rapids has already begun the project. If Andover doesn't become a part of the project at this time, the City will have to pond the storm drainage when development occurs. Mayor Windschitl noted about one- third of the property tsowned by Good Value Homes, asking what has been their reaction to the project. Mr. Schrantz stated he has not discussed it with them. Council discussed the options available wanting to be fair to the Andover residents but not wanting to find itself years from now in the same situation as with Anoka regarding drainage in southwestern Andover. Attorney Hawkins advised the only way to assess this would be to run it on a 429 procedure. Legally that hearing can even be held following the completion of a project. The main concern of the Council was the 8 percent per annum interest in the NO.2 clause of the joint powers agreement, thinking the ultimate cost to the residents could become exorbitant. It was felt the percentage should be based on the ENR because it would equate to current costs at the time of development. Another point raised was whether or not Andover is being charged for the drainage from the county park area, feeling that should not be Andover's obligation at this point and should not be included in the per-acre cost to the city. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we set a public hearing for July 29 to discuss the storm water drainage project in the south edge of the city from Hanson Boulevard west to Coon Creek as it relates to the proposed Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Andover and the City of Coon Rapids; and in the mean time have the City Engineer investigate the possibilities and ramifications of the county paying the share if they benefit for parkland that is inside the area and have th Engineer speak with the powers that be in the City of Coon Rapids to discuss changing the flat 8 percent index factor to the Engineer News Record index. (See Resolution R092-86) Motion carried unanimously. TRANSFER 116 RIGHT OF WAY TO ANOKA COUNTY John Olson, Anoka County - reviewed their mitigation with the DNR regarding the county's purchase of wetlands to offset what is being used to construct the realignment of County 116. He understands the City is in the process of getting a permit to control the elevation of Round Lake at 866.4, which they feel is too high to guarantee that the increase in ground water in the southern area will have an adequate outlet in order not to be detrimental to the rest of the property in the area. The DNR has basically agreed that Anoka County would acquire the part of that wetland east of the quarter line from Ms. Sonsteby, possibly installing a structure and controlling the elevation at 865 or 864 providing a certain level of water even in the dry years. In that case, they would not build a north-south dike to the adjoining pond. The ONR wanted the storm drainage from the east side of Round Lake Boulevard to continue Ðoing to that pond when they were'~talking about their first proposal, but Mr. Olson didn't know the DNR's position since the latest proposal to acquire 12 to 24 acres. Mr. Schrantz stated there have been discussions with the county as to whether the City should acquire the remainder of that wetland area up to a certain elevation. It is thought that may be more cost effective than turning the pipe around. Regular City Council Meeting July I, 1986 - Minutes Page 4 (Transfer 116 Right of Way to Anoka County, Continued) Mr. Olson - stated they have already opened the bids for County 116; and if he doesn't have the right of way by Monday, the bids will have to be rejected. Council directed the attorneys to keep abreast of the county's acquisition of ponding for this project. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution to transfer rlght of way for County Road 116 in the City of Andover to the County of Anoka as shown on the right-of-way plan presented by the county. . Motion carried unanimously. FEASIBILITY REPORT/UNIVERSITY AVENUE Mr. Schrantz reported Ham Lake belie~es it would be beneficial to sit down with the residents to find out what they want to do with the project. They did a feasibility report. Each city would need to hold its own public hearing, but a joint informational meeting could be set up. Mayor Windschitl asked Mr. Sikora if filling in the bad spot would solve his problem and would he be satisfied year round. Mr. Sikora - stated that would solve all his problems. He showed pictures of the road, notlng this has been the worst year. He stated the maintenance by Ham Lake created dikes. During the dry spell, the level of the swamp went down. But after the heavy rains again, the swamp returned to the middle of the road because it couldn't drain anywhere. He stated just filling in the low area in the middle of the road would satisfy him. Mrs. A. Sikora - stated the main thing is the grader has been widening the road every tlme. She stated they are taking it from her side and there is no easement. She has told the grader not to widen it on her side. Mr. Schrantz stated the City has an easement on her property but not on Mr. Sikora's property.; Mayor Windschitl stated if they expect the City to stablize the low area, then a public hearing is not needed. If they expect to get the road above grade and above water, clearly a public hearing is needed for an assessment project. Mr. Sikora - stated their original intent was to stablize the low area. He was sure he could speak for the other five or six people who live on that road that they do not want to be assessed for an improvement project. This has been the first year it has overflowed with water. Mr. Schrantz stated as soon as the Public Works Supervisor can meet with Mr. Kopis regarding the possibility of taking dirt off his property, they can fill in the low area. Stan Kopis - thought about 75 yards would be needed, agreeing it can be taken rlght out of his front yard. Mr. Sikora - asked if they will compact the dirt. Mr. Schrantz stated his concern lS what the dirt is like. Mr. Kopis - stated the road right now is plenty wide enough. It just needs to be brought up. Also, the road doesn't run straight. Council discussion also noted a load or two of Class 5 will probably be needed as well to stablize it. The City cannot work on private property, and easements may be needed. Mr. Sikora and Mr. Kopis - both stated there would be no problem getting easements lf needed. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1986 - Minutes Page 5 (Feasibility Report/University Avenue, Continued) Mr. Sikora - asked about a maintenance agreement between Ham Lake and Andover. Councl1 noted the agreement is Ham Lake does that portion of University, and Andover does the lower portion. But it was also felt there should be some discussions with Ham Lake as to some cooperation on this maintenance. Mr. Schrantz said Ham Lake has told him they would help up to $500. Because it was agreed the hauling in of dirt into the low area would satisfy the residents, no public hearing was called. AUTHORIZATION OF DESIGNATION REQUEST FOR MSA STREET/133RD AVENUE Council discussed the proposal to designate 133rd Avenue as an MSA street, but was concerned the City would not be able to draw needs on the road. The a lternati ves of designating Jay Street or extending Osage from its location in Coon Rapids directly south to Bunker Lake Boulevard were discussed. Either one should satisfy the needs of Coon Rapids and would be a major help to Andover. The developers would still build 133rd. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Engineer to attempt to get Municipal State Aid status for what would be the continuation of Osage Street to the north of 133rd Avenue to Bunker Lake Boulevard. Moti on carri ed unanimous ly. HIDDEN CREEK 2ND ADDITION/86-6/FINAL PLAT/AWARD CONTRACT Dana Farrell - stated he is a general engineering contractor and has no financial or po1itlca1 motive for being here. The concern is the low bidder of the project has submitted a bid with a 5 percent bid bond. That is not responsive to the request for proposal in that Addendum 1 calls for a 10 percent bid bond. In the past this same contractor, S. J. Louis Construction, has submitted bid bonds of 5 percent, noteably May 27, 1985. He stated this is an on-going financial irresponsibility of this contractor. Attorney Hawkins stated there was a question as to the procedure with the bid coming in at 5 percent bid bond and the specs read 5 percent certified check or 10 percent bid bond. The contractor indicated that he had mistakenly given 5 percent bid bond instead of 10 percent because he read it wrong. The ques ti on is whether this is a material deviation from the terms of the contract. He feels the law supports the idea that the bid does not have to be absolutely perfect as long as there are no material deviations from the terms of the contract. Subsequent to being advised of the deviation of the specs, the contractor has submitted the 10 percent bid bond. Attorney Hawkins stated he has talked to Mr. Schrantz and John Davidson about it, and it is his opinion that due to the fact that a mistake was made, it is not a material factor that would have given him an advantatge or disadvantage concerning this contract. Therefore, the City has the right to waive any irregularities in the bidding process. From a legal stand- point, he felt the City could justify that no advantage was gained and the deviation is not material. Mr. Schrantz stated the first time this company submitted a bid, it was not the low bidder and therefore was not told that it had made an error in the amount of the bid bond. Wade Smith, Annanda1e, MN - stated at least two times in the past when he bid on projects in Andover thlS has happened, and now it has happened again. Mr. Schrantz stated Mr. Smith is not a bidder in this project. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1986 - Minutes Page 6 (Hidden Creek 2nd Addition/86-6/Fina1 Plat/Award Contract, Continued) Mr. Farrell - submitted the Council is changing the rules of the ball game if they accept the legal opinion. He read from the Addendum 1. He stated he bids a lot of government work, and this wi 11 not do. It will produce other results that are not good, possibly even litigation. Marvin Smith, Annanda1e Sewer & Water - stated he is the second bidder on the 86-10 project coming up in two weeks, with this same contractor being low bid. Mr. Schrantz then noted this discussion is actually related to the award of contract for the Woodland Terrace project, 86-9, and not this item. Counc i1 agreed to continue the discussion to the next item. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Knight, final plat of Hidden Creek 2nd Addition as presented subject to the title opinion being received in proper order, that payment for street si9ns and installation being received, plat review fee of $160, legal fees of $200, development contract being executed, and escrow for the improvements being received. (See Resolution R093-86) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the improvement of Project 86-6 for sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drain and streets with concrete curb and gutter in the area of Hidden Creek 2nd Addition, recognize the bids received and that American Contracting is the low bidder at $223,065.32. (See Resolution R094-86) Motion carried unanimously. WOODLAND TERRACE 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS/86-9/FINAL PLAT/AWARD CONTRACT MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution approving the final plat of Woodland Terrace 4th Addition as being developed by Lawrence B. Carlson in Section 32 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a development contract, along with the contingencies of the title opinion being received, payment for street signs and installation, plat review fee of $160, legal fees in the amount of $200 and escrow for improvements for Woodland Terrace 4th and 5th Additions, and park dedication of approximately $730. Moti on carri ed unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, to reconsider the prior motion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, to delete reference to Woodland Terrace 5th Addition from the previous motion. (See Resolution R095-86) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution approving the final plat of Woodland Terrace 5th Addition as being developed by Lawrence B. Carlson in Section 32, to accept dedication of park fee of $730, title opinion as being received, payment for street signs and installation, plat review of $160, legal fees in the amount of $200, and authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the development contract. (See Resolution R096-86) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion continued with those present as to their concern that the low bidder, S. J. Louis Construction, submitted the bid with a 5 percent bid bond rather than the required 10 percent, though the 10 percent was subsequently submitted. Mr. Farrell - repeated his recommendation that the Council follow the specifications and not consider their bid because it does not meet the specifications, stating the bidder consistently makes the same mistake. It costs less money to pullout of a job by submitting a lower bid bond. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1986 - Minutes Page 7 - (Woodland Terrace 4th and 5th Additions/86~9, Continued) John Peterson, Good Value Homes - stated on IP86-10 coming up in two weeks, the dlfference between the flrst and second bidder is $13,000. They are talking about a technicality for $13,000, stating they would like to see the Council take the low bid in spite of the technical difference. Attorney Hawkins stated if the Council feels it is a material difference, they would not necessarily take the second bid but could reject all bids and rebid the project. Mr. Farrell - explained the bid bond itself is a penalty requirement of a percentage of the bid. If the City is going to allow deviations from the request for proposal, why wouldn't they, as contractors, bid it at 1 percent. Then it would only cost $4,000 rather than $40,000. The Federal Government makes no deviations from this whatsoever. Council discussion was the concern over rejecting all the bids as this time because it penalizes the developer severely. Mr. Smith - asked then why is the percentage of bid bond even read. Mr. Schrantz explained it was read as part of the record. S. J. Louis Construction came back and said he had made an error. Mr. Smith - stated that contractor bid two projects on the same day and made the same error. Mr. Schrantz speculated he had always made that same error when bidding for Andover, possibly never fully reading the ad for bids. He suggested to avoid any confusion, the bid bond or percentage of the bid be for the same amount. Council discussion noted there is conflicting opinions between those contractors present and the City Attorney. Some felt the ad may have been confusing and questioned why a contractor would intentionally submit the wrong amount of bid bond on a half-million dollar project. It was also noted that the amount of the bids from those contractors bidding the project were very close, feeling there wasn't anyone deliberately abusing the process. Mr. Schrantz stated there is nothing the engineers know of that would reject S. J. Louis Construction as the lowest responsible bidder. Mr. Peterson - stated they have not had experience with this contractor before. But they would prefer the contract be awarded to the low bidder. Byron Westland, 12150 Third Avenue, Anoka¡ Woodland Development - did not want to see the project delayed, which the rebiddlng process would do. They are basically sold out in the Woodland Terrace development and would like to begin construction as soon as possible. Mr. Farrell - humbly requested to do what he felt is legally responsible on the part of the Council, that is to disqua1ity the apparent low bidder and take the next bidder. Attorney Hawkins did not recommend that course of action in this instance. If that were done, he felt the Council would be faced with the possibility of lawsuits from the low bidder. If trying to avoid any litigation, all the bids should be rejected and rebid the project for material irregularity. Or accept the low bidder. He repeated his opinion that it was a mistake on the part of the contractor; and it was not a material mistake as the contractor did not gain any advantage by that deviation. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, acknowledging the bids for Project 86-9 and award the contract to S. J. Louis Construction for the amount of $484,648.50 acknowledging the 10 percent bid bond, 5 percent that was submitted late, that Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1986 - Minutes Page 8 (Woodland Terrace 4th and 5th Additions/86-9, Continued) the attorney's opinion was that it was not a material deviation from the specifications. (See Resolution R097-86) Motion carried unanimously. Council agreed the advertisement for bids should be changed to read a certified or cashier's check payable to the City of Andover in the amount of 10 percent of the total bid, or bid bond payable to the City of Andover in the amount of 10 percent of the total bid. SCHEDULE PARK BOARD INTERVIEWS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we do park interviews on July 29. Motlon carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 14, 1986: Correct as written. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Elling, that we approve the Special Meeting Minutes of May 14 as written. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Present (Knight) vote. May 15, May 22, and June 10, 1986: Correct as written. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we approve the Minutes of meetings of May 15, May 22, and June 10 as written. Motion carried unanimously. June 3, 1986: Correct as written. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Knight, the Minutes of June 3 as written. Motion carried in a 4-Yes, I-Present (Elling) vote. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Checks Numbered 11231 through 11287 for a total amount of $123,923.80. Motion carried unanimously. NEMETH REQUEST/GARAGE FOR STORAGE MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council give permission to Steven Nemeth to allow the existing garage to remain on the property until such time as his home is completed, and then it shall be removed within 30 days per his signed request dated June 25, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. COMPLAINTS Councilman Elling noted a resident on 138th is raising pigs. The smell is very offensive. d'Arcy Bose1l has talked to the owners, who indicated they are moving out the First of September. He told Ms. Bose1l the pigs must be moved out of the residential area immediately. Kathy MCA1~ine - stated the pigs are actually on City park property. Last year these peop e had chickens and she personally complained to them about it, though they weren't removed for several months. She would appreciate the City following up on this matter to see that the pigs are removed. She would also like the area cleaned up from the smell as well. Council agreed clearly such animals don't belong in a residential area, and it is a matter of enforcement between the Attorney and the Zoning Administrator. Regular City Council Meeting July 1, 1986 - Minutes Page 9 (Complaints, Continued) Len Christenson, 3419 South Coon Creek Drive - explained his concern regarding the development to the east of thelr property. Prior to the development, the low ground in that area was out in the field with water always standing there in the spring. With the grading in the development, especially on the back of their lot, there is a concern that next spring he will have a problem there because their ground is now the low ground in that area. Bev Christenson - stated there was so much water that there was a skating rink in the winter, but now they fear that water has been pushed back onto their property. Council noted that clearly shouldn't happen, asking that elevations be checked. The development shouldn't be draining water back on the Christenson's land. HIDDEN CREEK SUBDIVISION John Peterson, Good Value Homes - on the very south of Hidden Creek Third Addition their streets are cut in and they have found they will be able to save a substantial number of trees. But they feel they can save more if the City will permit them to reduce the number of lots by four. The minimum lot width has been 80 feet. By reducing the area by four lots, the remaining lots would be wider, between gO and 100 feet. Council stated they didn't have a problem with the change. Mr. Schrantz stated he had recommended this change be brought before the Planning Commission. Counci 1 had no problem with that. Mr. Peterson also asked whether the Council still wants cable fence installed along the berm along Bunker Lake Boulevard as they had proposed. He felt it would be easier to keep the berm maintained if the fence wasn't there to work around. Council suggested they substitute trees and shrubbery instead of the post and cable fence. Mr. Peterson stated they would be willing to spend an equal amount for trees rather than for the fence. Council asked him to cost out a proposal for further discussion. COON CREEK WATERSHED Charlie Veiman - asked the City's progress on the Coon Creek Watershed litigation. He understood the Anoka County Commissioners are voting on the Ditch 57 project. Council explained the Anoka County Commissioners have no authority to vote on the project itse If. The only thing they have the ability to vote on is Senator Dahl's bill, which they have not yet done. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'n~~~ Mar ella A. Peach Reco "ng Secretary