the uh board meeting to order for uh March 21st first item we have an agenda and the first item on that agenda is to approve the agenda I understand we're going to add one item to it Steve do you have that yes uh we're going to add an item 8A and that'll be to have a joint meeting of the edab parkboard set for Tuesday April 12th at 5:30 p.m. at the township hall okay and and we have to call this a special board meeting because two board members will be attending that correct all right there second I'll second motion is made and seconded to call a special board meeting those in favor please say I I any oppos that was to that was to amend the agenda so you would just you just approve the agenda with that additional item so we'll come back to it later I'm in a hurry I'm sorry okay okay let's come back to it motion to call a special board meeting is I'm sorry to to add the special board meeting yeah that's what I was doing and we voted I on that right correct all right John knew that John knew that all right uh if there's no other changes to the agenda is there motion to approve the agenda as amended so move is there second second motions made and seconded to approve that agenda those in favor please say I I I any opposed is there motion passes is there a motion to approve payment of bills so moved some is there a second second motions made and seconded to approve payment of bills those in favor please say I I I any opposed that motion passes uh minutes of the February 26 special Town board goal setting meeting any corrections or adjustments to that I didn't see any otherwise if not if there's no adjustments is there more motion to approve those minutes motion to approve those minutes for the February 26 special Town board goal setting meeting is there a second I'll second motions made and seconded those in favor please say I I I any opposed uh second set of minutes is for the uh board Town board meeting on March 7th 2016 any corrections or changes to that none noted is there a motion to approve th those minutes as submitted I'll move to approve is there a second second okay motion's been made to approve the March 7 board meeting minutes those in favor please say I I I I any opposed all right that motion is passed uh we have three items on our consent agenda this evening uh Steve could you read those for us please yes consent agenda item 5A in accordance with the Township's special event policy Grant non-exclusive use of belir beach to South Shore Trinity Lutheran Church 2480 South Boulevard to hold outdoor worship Services weather permitting on June 5th and 19th July 3rd 17th and 31st August 7th and 21st beginning at 9:45 a.m. for 2 hours per service and to allow use of electricity from the township lifeguard building to power the sound system consent agenda item 5B based on Town Engineers review and Rec recommendation and including his recommended conditions approve XL Energy permit to install a gas and electric service for the resident at 5320 bald eagle Boulevard East and the third item is to receive the construction activity report a motion made to approve those consent agenda items is there a second to approve I'll second the motion unless there's no no questions I'll uh call for a vote those in favor of approving the consent agenda please say I I any opposed consent agenda is approved uh item six is old business we have no old business so we'll move into 7 uh let's see the first item there is a 710 public hearing it's uh 6 minutes from now uh let's see let's see if we can take care of something uh uh Jim can you cover that in four or five minutes all right let's do item 7 B on the agenda so Mr chair members board in your supplemental packet is the details of this uh this is the inii program with the Buffalo Street televising again this is dealing with their sanitary sewer and addressing the inflow and infiltration that we have uh last year here we did find an area north of Buffalo Street that is shown in the exhibit in your supplement that covers the Ridgeway area and the Williams Avenue and also the Buffalo Street uh the town board previously authorized us to put together the plans and specs for the televising we sent those out we did receive back two bids on that uh VIs at $2,425 and also hydroc clean at $3,762 uh this work will be for televising that area that will give us the information we'll need for going ahead further with our improvements to do either lining the manhole work uh if we have issues with roots to find out just just what it is that we will be doing for further improvements out there so this is the next step in our process this is all part of us performing our $770,000 a year activity so we would recommend awarding the televising contract to Vis sewer for the 201425 well $25.50 that's uh after you've accepted the quotes that were received and then also for tkda to coordinate that work for $595 that is also a not to exceed all of this will come from the sanitary sewer fund uh this work will be done within the next four weeks by April 18th and then we will be back to the town board for putting together uh the actual Improvement ments when we find out what those will be following the televising of these lines so we will be going through this step by step with the board for coming up with the improvements and going out for quotes to get that work done and then so we're still on track didn't have the work completed this fall yet correct okay any other questions Jim these are the two bids we had same outfits we had last year that gave us competitive bids for uh we we had um we've kind of have three of them that provide to us and so it it's usually combinations of those threes if not all three uh with these bids are very close to what we were last year okay and just a note um these activities are have been previously discussed so there's no and there's no changes from anything that we've reviewed with you in the past correct and this again is basically our year two of a a four-year plan of doing this work so we will have more of it coming in the next two years also uh that's a good point to bring up so it's this meets our second year require or obligation to the med councel correct okay okay so there's two action items here one is to receive the quotes and the second item is to award contracts can I have a motion to that I'll make a motion to uh receive the quotes from vizzy sewer in the amount of $2,425 and hydroc clean in the amount of $3,762 is there a second oh second the motion's been made to receive quotes from viur and and hydroclean those in favor of uh receiving those quotes please say I I I I any opposed that motion [Music] passes and the second action item requested is to award a contract to visit sewer and to tkda I'll make a motion to award a contract to vizy sewer in the amount of $2,425 50 and to TD tkda in the amount not to exceed $595 to coordinate the contract work is there a second uh I'll second noting funding from the sanitary server yes thanks all right motion's been made and seconded to award the contract uh those in favor please say I I I any opposed that motion passes and it is now 710 so we can go back to item 7A under new business and that is a public hearing as I can get back to 7 a on the agenda this is a uh public hearing it's a continuation of discussion to amend ordinance number 35 uh is there a motion to wave the hearing notice since it's been published so moveed there second second those in favor please say I I I opposed a motion to continue the public hearing and this is continuing the public hearing from uh March 7th there motion to continue that so moved there a second I'll second those in favor please say I I I any opposed uh Tom you going to walk us through this I will do that yes it's a uh zoning ordinance Amendment initiated by the town board it's relating to airport safety zoning and specifically Benson's airport located up in the Northeast area of the township off of Highway 61 uh when the airport uh zoning was adopted it uh consisted of safety zoning which included a primary Zone over the runway 250 ft wide and extending out beyond the end of the runway 200 ft it consists of a safety zone a a which was uh 2/3 the length of the runway safety zone B which is another 1/3 the length of the runway and Zone C which is beyond that area and surrounding the airport a distance of about 10,000 ft this has been reviewed this this I'm showing the Eastern side of the runway here it's relating to a development proposal of this property right here uh we've seen a number of proposals on this property over the years but most recently uh the town reviewed a 19 town home subdivision and planned unit development uh which included a request to modify the zones of the zoning ordinance to allow additional homes on smaller Lots this was reviewed in uh uh 2015 but was denied by the town board when the town airport safety zone was adopted in the mid 1980s it uh the town adopted a model uh from m. Aviation uh and that is the model that currently exists today as I described with the 2/3 Runway 1/3 Runway uh safety zones a b and c and also the primary Zone the primary Zone well I'll back up since the town adopted safety zoning new models have been put together the model that was adopted by the town was for a paved public run uh airport as we know Benson's airport is a private grass strip Runway since uh the town adopted the original safety zoning a model the models have been uh uh presented or adopted or uh suggested by mot Aviation that might be more fitting for an airport of this type and what the uh I'll give the name of it is a uh a special purpose airport Zone basically reduces the uh primary Zone to 130 ft wide and stops at the end of the one Runway so the difference is instead of a 250 ft wide safety zone primary Zone centered on the runway with the special purpose airport modeling it becomes 130 ft wide and it safety zone a begins at the end of the runway instead of 200 ft beyond the end of the runway so basically it shifts everything back by 200 ft and again that's a that's a model that's called a special purpose Aviation model um and it's consistent with uh private airports with grass strip Runway of course two ends of the runway this is the East End again shows uh what the new safety zones would look like under a special purpose public airport on the west side of the runway same thing here 130 ft wide starts at the end of the runway beers out that way uh when the Planning Commission this has been under consideration the town is uh been sued over the decision not to uh amend the safety zones as requested and as a result of that uh the town board is reconsidering the zoning ordinance amendments at tonight's public hearing the Planning Commission reviewed a few options at their uh February meeting uh specific options they reviewed were to eliminate the safety zones altogether since uh they're not requ ired for this type of airport uh they also uh reviewed an amendment adopting the uh special purpose or the special purpose safety zoning again based on a grass STP model Runway and the final one was just a creating a new Zone uh for safety zone B keeping the primary Zone intact safety zone a remains 2/3 the length of the runway but safety zone B would be customized reducing its length from 629 ft this line right here reducing it to 425 ft that shifts the line just a little bit more than 200 ft back to this point right here so the Planning Commission reviewed the options and they've made a recommendation to go with this particular proposal here I will mention again this uh this is overlaid showing the development that was re reviewed by the town board here late last year no development is proposed with this we're only looking at the zoning changes or a zoning ordinance Amendment currently the ordinance reads all land in that portion of the approach zones of a Runway as defined in section 74.1 D of airspace obstruction regulations hereof which extends outward from Zone safety zone a to a distance equal to 1/3 of the planned length of the runway so that's the description of safety zone B 1/3 the length of the runway the Planning Commission reviewed and made a recommended uh recommended a change to the zoning ordinance that would read as follows uh the last sentence would be modified of that section I just read and would be changed to a distance equal to 425 ft from the end of safety zone a so that's not consistent with say uh primary sorry special purpose zoning but it's it's very similar just not model wording so this is what was reviewed most recently by the Planning Commission that is a zoning ordinance amendment that has been recommended for the town board to consider for approval okay is that it that's it Ed Steve you have any initial questions to start with NOP okay uh I see a number of people in the audience so I assume someone is going to be interested in speaking can I ask for a show hands how many people would like to make a statement or say something tonight okay okay all right well when we start with with you and uh as you make your statement please come to the podium identify yourself and your address okay I'm I'm jurry McDaniel I'm an aviator retired I live in Centerville but I have a hanger and an airplane at Benson airport I've been there since 2011 I've flown in Africa I've flown in Alaska and I've flown over 45 years and did MDOT do they have uh this amendment B have they looked at it at all where you proposed this particular one they have not looked at they have not so that's just a private recommendation by who that's a staff wording that was put together and recommended for approval by so it doesn't have you haven't asked MDOT to come in and look at it and say hey what do you think not this specific proposal they have recommended the special purpose zoning my my concern is when I fly besides my passenger safety I'm concerned about the people on the ground the current way they have the airport Zone provides me when I take off I don't try to fly over the houses I Veer off to the Open Fields And if you just start changing this and reducing that safety zone I'm not going to feel a safe for my passengers or for the people on the ground and I like you to reconsider and not change the safety zone for this airport unless you have more Studies by MDOT or Etc thank you thank you who would like to be next Mr cheetah wants to go last Mr cheetah wants to darl the Mir uh 4779 Otter Lake Road um I'm representing Benson airport and I think the main thing we want to say is we would prefer to not see any change in this current safety zone you know I'm not quite sure if this zoning amendment is the same as zoning amendments I've been involved in in my life but uh I was a council member in White Bear for a number of years and we had a issue with a zoning change with the Home Depot Corporation up on the corner of Highway 96 and and and Centerville Road and we chose to not change the zoning and we were sued by Home Depot we went to the district court which we won the appell court which we won and the state supreme court which we won and our attorney assured us that the courts generally aside with local communities on local zoning issues and rarely if ever overturn them I'll just leave it with that you know I I guess I don't blame people for trying to maximize their property values and money they can make on it but remember you're dealing with property from a family who did anything but try to maximize what they received on their property they minimized it and that's the Benson Family First of all they didn't donate but they sold at a very reasonable cost all the land across the street from the airport which is now the Ramsey County open space which if they would have attempted to maximize they'd made a whole lot of money which they chose not to because they cared more about the people of White Bear Township and the people of white bear in the local area as John was approaching the end of his life he knew that that airport had been put there in memory of his brother who was lost in uh World War II flying c47s in the Pacific and Roger died on November 8th of 44 as we all know and the family named the airport Rogers field which we have named our EAA chapter there the same Rogers field in memory of their son I guess you can't do much more than what John did he simply donated the property to you and the people of Whitebear Township and the local area certainly we benefit greatly by flying there but I just hate to see that really jeopardized and I hope you understand that uh these were truly acts that they wanted to John told me that many times he likes Whitebear Township and he liked doing things for it I can't imagine much a family that did much more for the township as far as value that 66 Acres of very high very very good ground up there that could have been developed and it would make a whole lot more money than that little 19 home unit down there John didn't want that he wanted people to be able to enjoy his airport and certainly there's a few of us I'm one of them who was still flying there from when John was alive and there's uh one or two others everyone else that's there today John didn't personally know this airport is about the future it really is it's it's about people who are going to come here who enjoy it and uh just want to be a part of that airport and that Community this community and I hope you understand that I'm not trying to minimize what I understand what they want my family was developers so I do understand some of that just please consider that when you're voting on this let's not jeopardize this wonderful gift of the Benson Family someone would be quite Rich today if you didn't own that proper not us I wouldn't get Penny out of it nor would any of us who fly there it would just it would just be to some it would have been to some relative of the bensons which there are many they were multiple Generations here in your community and our community thank you okay thank you who would like to be next ronden 5655 Portland Avenue um I'm also a member of the Planning Commission I abstained from this vote um but I was in Presence at the meeting one thing I do want to point out in your question comment about the M do what Planning Commission presented forward is almost identical to what current M standards for a grass strip Runway is only difference is you don't move the primary Zone back which doesn't widen it and actually create an issue on the existing Lots on the North development there that was the purpose behind creating a special that means said just so that we know that this is consistent with new model standards I wasn't at the last meeting because I didn't get the letter notification um but I did catch on Public Access Mr cheetah's comments and we had a lot of discussion about this and I I'm curious and I'd like to know feedback from the attorney about um Mr cheetah's points about um limitations on takings claims so I I would like some clarification from that from what I saw from the previous Town board meeting um if we could get that tonight um if you make a change to the safety Zone there's still I've brought it up in the past questions regarding the another subsection of the zoning ordinance regarding one structure per three acres within safety zone B whether you can use land outside that it's something I think you need to be thinking about when you're looking at this is does that need clarification as well and how does that affect the overall structure being a resident on 5655 Portland and there's several of us lined up there along Portland Avenue this is a dramatic change from what we have expected there to be because the safety zone was in place I knew that planes had an area that they could ditch the aircraft I knew that there's someplace for them to go um supervisor prorn uh brought up that last time he flew and he said it's kind of daunting as you're coming up across there um so there is some relevant behind the safety zone as it was um and for safeties of those of us on Portland Avenue Flyers out of Benson airport so I think I'd like clarification on the the limitations of the taking claim and what's really in the best interest of the township as a whole not just fear of litigation or anything like that so please take all those matters into heart okay thank you thank you R and the town attorney has been looking at the takings issue and and he'll as I understand you'll be making some comments later right Chad yes okay anybody else like to make a statement even El on behalf of the airport I've spoken today to Mr sh I thank him for his time I spoken today to Mr lemons I thank him for his time I called your lead attorney he's on vacation for a week I spoke to the number two guy that is defending you Jason um he sent me a couple of very helpful cases um uh couple of things that he pointed out the statute limitations trigger that I relied on so much uh my argument was that it was four years in fact it's six but the stoddards are still nowhere near six years the ordinance passed in 1985 um the stards bought in 1990 they've been there 206 years now I think it's kind of late um the case law that the number two attorney apped to says that you have to have a final determination uh before you trigger the statute limitations that could be an issue uh the more fundamental issue was was there a taking and even the dotards uh can't deny and their lawsuit explicitly uh recites at page six that you made findings when you denied them uh at the October 5th meeting that the property has knowingly been purchased by the applicants the stoddards with the safety zones in place secondly state law uh allows a government body to adopt airport zoning ordinances that are more restri restrictive than the minimum standards imposed by the state I think supervisor prudon had asked about that you know didn't menot testify that you don't need any kind of a safety zone that's true and at the same time state law very clearly gives you the discretion to put in place a more restrictive uh than necessary uh ordinance I think there's been some twisting mindat has not said that the airport is just as safe without the safety zone or with it shrunk um that's just not the case nobody has said that flies in the face of common sense I won't uh uh berate but if anybody has any questions I would try to answer but I would from the top tick away uh I don't believe that there was a taking you have a discretionary call that says that you can regulate and if the law in Whitebear Township becomes that if we don't don't like your ruling will just Sue because that must have been a taking well that's not the law in Minnesota or in the US and it's probably not a good policy for you one of the things that the key case of the US Supreme Court not just the Minnesota Supreme Court says is that in looking at a taking case you have to determine whether the regulatory action interferes with reasonable investment backed expectations when you move in and buy property in a safety zone that's not buildable what are your reasonable investment back expectations well if we don't like it we'll just Sue and they've got to vacate that's not reasonable and that's not the law um I spoke to Mr short today um about the case a little bit I got some input from the number two attorney that's defending you folks and he said um there is there's been no scheduling order issued and this is something that we have to do in practice now um they have kind of fine-tuned scheduling orders it is what it sounds like this is what you're going to do and this is when you're going to do it that has not been issued in this case the case has not been set for trial and the lawyer that's representing you emphatically says the judge has not said that you lose I was told that today um and that is not the case according to your defense Council I would urge that you not be in a great big hurry to vacate the safety zone I'd urge that you really not be in a hurry to do it because it's a discretionary call until and unless you've got the whole thing settled because the case is not going away if you simply throw down your Shield the stoddards need three things and Mr short can correct me but I think to build they're going to need the safety Zone vacated because right now nothing can go there I think that to build they're going to need um a rezoning or a re or a zoning variance I think that's a matter of semantics that's a discretionary call for you both of those things and thirdly they're going to need a PUD you have an absolute defense with the safety zone in place if you throw that defense away without something back from the stoddards there's no good reason you're not protecting uh the airport which I represent but more importantly you're not protecting your citizens this thing will wait see what the stoddards would do as a quidd proall if you vacate the safety zone with that I appreciate your time and attention does anybody have a specific question for me thank you much thank you all right if there are no further questions or comments I'll give you oops got one well go ahead I Scott let let me let me take her first Tanya P at 5675 Portland um so up near where e and C are if um the zone is planned and changed obviously that allows more housing closer to the end of safety zone a So based on information hurt this evening with the yards along Portland that are larger no residents um in the yard and if they need to dump a plane not knowing much about Aviation but that would seem the likely place to do that giving less room and um impeding on the safety of those houses I would just like that to be a consideration okay thank you okay Scott Scott Stoddard uh I'm the owner of the property in question uh the only thing I have to say is it's been years and years that uh people have been saying we knew about this safety zone when we bought the property I'm just simply here to tell you we didn't I have no idea how we would have known at the time so we did our due diligence as far as going to the county and things like that I should probably just leave it at that since we are in litigation it's just one of the things that has been constantly said about us you know we've never been in a position to answer that so here I am I'm going to answer that thank you thank you all right if there's no further comments or questions statements make just one one I have to we have to have you come to the podium one final comment as we all know ignorance of the law is not a defense we can't we're all charg with knowledge with notice of each and every ordinance that you've got and to say that nobody specifically told us simply doesn't work um everyone takes subject to zoning ordinances and whether or not the stards want to admit that unfortunately perhaps for them that is the law they had notice as a matter of law about the zoning and about the safety zone it's a matter of public record you can't ignore it and say we didn't know thank you all right one last chance going going gone I'll ask for a motion to close the public portion of the hearing it's all moved is there a second second motions made and seconded to close the public portion those in favor please say I I I any you opposed all right uh Tom let me just ask you one quick question just to lead off here if we do not modify the safety zone that does not preclude any Construction in safety zone B is that correct that's correct the property it's just a lower density of construction safety zone B requires lot sizes larger than our three units per one acre safety zone B requires one unit or allows up to one unit per 3 acres so 3 acre lot so it's still a developable property just not at the density that uh okay maximizes the property okay Tom you ran just a a couple of numbers when you did that do you know approximately how many units they could have in there and aiding by The Zone uh divided up in three acre lots they could probably get five Lots if they did Twin Homes that would be 10 units 10 units okay so instead of the 19 they'd be down to 10 correct Chad you were doing some research for us on on a couple of these issues did you want to comment on them the statute of limit for example and I'm interested to hear uh your comments on the trial schedule Mr chair yeah I think that's correct Mr is correct there's no schedule order issued yet that should be issued I would assume in the next 30 to 60 days at which point time but all that does simply schedule when Discovery occurs when when pre-trial would occur and when motions have to be heard by and when the potential trial would be and I would estimate the trial wouldn't be until probably early next year if it goes that far okay as to the issue of I understand I'm because there's ongoing litigation I'm constrainted as what I can tell you what I can comment on however in terms of the issue of Statute limitations it is six years that six-year period would have commenced when the town board denied the Pud back in October so that's with the start of the six-year period so it's six years from that date so in other words they still have over 5 and a half years to pursue yes that's correct okay that's my opinion and understand so it's not based on when the ordinance was passed it was based on when the denial occurred okay all right um let me ask you other board members Ed Steve any questions or comments no I ask Mr L a [Music] question are you willing to take it we'll see well even though we're we still have to have you come to I want go to the microphone unfortunately Mr lemons and I are old friends who've tried cases against each other so I've gotten to argue with them and his clients but I've never got to cross-examine them but this isn't a cross Mr am I going to have to use this you look good in the black R question is there's a threshold question regardless of which statute limitation applies whether it's four which I mistakenly said or six which is correct the threshold question is is there a taking just because there's an ordinance I think Mr lemons will agree doesn't necessarily mean you've got a taking and I'll let him comment on that the other thing that triggers the taking and the burning of the I call it the fuse and that is the stat limitations is a fuse and once that fuse Burns it's too late to Sue and the case law that I got today from your attorneys that are representing you that I've read I've been reading it a bit says there's two ways to light the fuse one of the ways is to have a final determination which you had in October of this last year so you're right we' got we've got five and a half years thereabouts before the fuse burns out the other way for the fuse to go out is if the applicant namely the stoddards in this case have been repeatedly told no and my conversations no you can't develop there my conversations with Mr short today lead me to believe that there's a 10-year period of minutes going back where the Stoddard's plans have been turned down and there was a plan that was offered in 2006 uh that we're aware of that was turned down by the stoddards we don't have the quote unquote final uh determination until your October 5th 2015 determination but we can slight the statute of limitations fuse that is the time within which you have to burn or or Sue and if the fuse is burned out you can't sue as a matter of law I would respectfully suggest to you that three things there is no taking regardless uh of whether or not it's six years uh four years or did it happen in 1985 I don't think there's been a taking as a threshold matter given your inherent right to regulate second of all um I believe that you've got more than adequate documentation to show that you denied the stoddards what they requested more than six years ago third of all there's another matter and lawyers aren't supposed to ask questions that they know the an don't know the answer to but I don't the stoddards says the Minnesota Supreme Court must pursue all administrative remedies and I'm wondering if there is an appeal from your October uh decision which they should have filed with you don't know if that's required or not but the Minnesota Supreme Court says the matter is not ripe until they've exhausted all administrative review it's tough for me to believe that there wasn't an appeal that they couldn't have filed but anyway I would invite Mr Mr lemens to correct me if I'm wrong statute limitation issue that is one issue but it begs the question the threshold question was there a taking regardless of the age of this thing and secondly again I'll just say that I believe you turned down the stoddards U multiple times more than well over six years ago third you certainly turned them down back in 2006 and last I check that's 10 years ago more than more than six years I thank you for the unprecedented opportunity to talk thank you much thank you well I think I understand the town attorney's position and in interpretation of the statutes and the laws but Chad I'll ask if you have a response that you'd like to make that you think would help us out again because is ongoing litigation I'm really constrained as to what to say when the statute limitations run could be there could be a question there I'm not going to deny that I think uh I do think though that it would probably commenced last October but there's a possibility could have run earlier than that that's always a possibility but again just so everyone understands there's this mention insurance at all mention insurance at all at all insurance insurance there is special counil that's been retained to represent the Township in this matter and while our firm does assist that special counil nonetheless we aren't the we aren't the main attorneys so I don't want to undercut their position all by what I say so I'm am somewhat limited on that basis uh one comment I would make about zoning it's true that it's a regulation that the town does have the right to adopt regulations involving land use however there are occasions when regulations can fill over spill over into a taking and that's what the town board has to be concerned with because if a taking is found to exist can get quite to be quite expensive for the town and that is a uh an issue that has that really the town Board needs to be concerned about has to be sensitive to it and them know it is so at this point that's really all I can really say on this matter how about administrative remedies oh is it um Mr short mind administrative remedies there there was an offer to the stoddards to appeal the decision last October they elected not to take it Mr chair I'd like to comment on Al's third Point regarding the uh what he referred to as the town board turning down the stards the town board has certainly had a lot of contact with the starters but in 2005 the town board approved the plan submitted by Classic custom homes we didn't deny it or you didn't deny it and since then while there's been ongoing complaints criticisms and by the property owner the town board simply listened and was not in a position to deny it was just we had several developers contact us but there were never any denials unfortunately it's just it's it's been the course of the relationship between the property and the town that might lead you to believe that they keep submitting plans the town keeps turning down we've been waiting for an official plan for 10 years finally got one in October and so it's important that those of you here tonight understand when ALR believes that the town board has been turning him down for 10 years it hasn't we've been waiting for 10 years for a plan something IAL s and the point Bill makes is important because it requires a formal rejection not an informal rejection of plans that will you approve this or not it has to be a formal rejection and the last for the only formal rejection I'm aware of is the one that occurred in October that's correct so can I interpret this in in in my language to just make sure I understand uh uh in I'll refer to what Bill mentioned that we've been looking at plans and sketches for years on this piece of property and and as a matter of fact in in 2005 I think the plan that they submitted to us we didn't reject it but then the stoddards took that plan back as I understand it or one of the plans they took back that's true and so all we're looking at up till October of 2015 had been plans and proposals Concepts to develop that piece of property the first formal action the board took to respond to a formal request for permits whether it's for PUD or subdivision Etc that that application that first time that kind of a formal application occurred was last October in the in in the form of submitted permit requests in fact Mr chair you may make a good point it's the formal application by the landowner that triggers it denial of the formal application since the October was the first formal application other than informal inquiries that's the one that we have to work off of all right thank you and I would make one other point just so we're clear again why I'm constrained we're not the town board is not backing away from this neither are the town neither the attorneys representing the town but we are realistic and we have to we have to advise the board as to what could happen and what the results are okay thank you just a couple of comments uh first of all uh tonight we're dealing with and we'll address one uh proposed action and that's to modify or amend the safety zone ordinance that's the only action item we're looking at tonight um Tom mentioned described the uh uh possible options or alternatives to the to the existing safety zone Ordinance one thing that benefits the township is that since 1984 the state has modified and updated their guidelines for safety zone dimensions and what Thomas was identifying is a safety zone designed for a grass strip airport uh that the state that is based on the state design one thing that has changed over the years as I understand it is that what the state is telling us now this is their proposed or suggested design but it's not a requirement for this Airport for this airport so mindat is not regulating us but it's suggesting to us a design or designs that could be used for whatever the appropriate airport is in this case they have a design for a grass strip so that's what one of these option uh is based on um the as far as making a decis ision the town board and and and I thank the town attorney for clarifying that town board is is not refusing to address the issue but the town board also recognizes that it's representing at least three parties here we have the property owner and any of us have have rights as Property Owners within the township but we also have to address rights and responsibilities towards those Neighbors in that area and in other areas and finally we have to address our responsibility to the township as a whole and one of the issues that that that we're concerned with is that if we are risking major or large liabilities to the township we have to be careful that that we're responsible and how we deal with that it's it's it's it's far beyond just saying well that'll take us to court uh uh ultimate impacts to the township could could amount to easily oh well could easily amount to tens of thousands of dollars in worst case a worst case scenario is liabilities to the Township in the hundreds of thousands of dollars several hundred thousand dollar uh it's not to say that that's the outcome that's not to say that that's what's going to Happ happen but we have to consider those risks what if uh and Whitebear Township certainly has benefited now I'll close after this but I'll say that Whitebear Township has certainly benefited from uh the the the contributions from John Benson and his estate uh I think the airport is an asset to the township uh and it's a much bigger asset than than it is a r in my opinion uh and the township certainly wants to continue working to continue rewarding relationship with the Benson airport so with that uh I'll ask for any other comments from the board do you have to close the open portion of this meeting no we did we did already okay no so we have how many options did we wind up with down three we have three options one do nothing we have an option to uh uh pursue an amendment to the existing ordinance to shorten the safety zone B and another option is to uh use the state guidelines for a grass strip to set the dimensions of the safety zone those are three options and a fourth option would be to could be to eliminate the safety zones entire all together okay so I'll have to ask the board what what their feelings are is there response to support any one of those options my comment is you know I think you made a very good point Mr chair you know the the aspect of this goes well beyond just those neighbors around there this is a Township issue as a whole while I understand the concerns I do remember back when this uh matter was brought before the board before and the gentleman from mot was here as a general caveat statement he said that all Pilots would like to have nothing but huge safety zones and that most Pilots existing there may not even know what the safety zones are as they existed today uh and and did say that there is no need for them it's you can have them you don't have to have them so from that standpoint looking at it from a whole and looking at the property owner I'm I'm comfortable making decision tonight to uh go you want to tell me what I'm at interested in I'll make my statement all right excuse me I did not I did not finish uh we didn't vote on any yet so I said I am willing to make a statement or uh pick one of these options you have a preference which one I do I'll go with the recommendations for the grass strip Zone as outlined by the the aviation recommendations that's option three on the packet three option three in your supplemental packet are you making that in the form of a motion I'll make that motion all ask for a second I'll second that motion any other comments from the board I I'll call the question those in favor of selecting option three to amend the land use safety zone at Benson airport and let me just clarify and confirm here Tom this safety zone applies to both ends of the runway right correct okay motion is made to uh uh uh use the guidelines and option three and that's uh based on dimensions for a grass strip Runway those in favor favor of I mean to set the safety zone Dimensions uh those in favor of the motion please say I I any opposed nay the motion passes and I guess I would just like to say um I'd like to thank Tom and staff for working this and giving us some options uh the attorney's gone through this I think pretty thoroughly uh we respect the Planning Commission and the attorney's you know recommendations quite highly it's just I struggle with that I know we may incur some Financial loss but I don't want to see Town residents paying their tax money for lawsuits courts attorneys fees but I got to believe that a reasonable judge or jury would find on the township side I think they would help us preserve that safety zone I think they would uh basically want to see us protect the residents the pilots and their passengers so I I I just I go back to uh this taking this this has always been platted to be developed the road was figured that way it's just the stards want to do more than what we allow they could get nine they want 19 I that's just something they're going to have to try to deal with at least in my opinion they um I I pretty much stand by my original uh findings of facts from the October meeting I listed 10 of them I'm not going to read them out again but that's mainly my objection to doing anything with the safety zone thanks anded I'll give you a chance for rebuttal if you'd like you other red no otherwise we'll move on to the next item on the agenda and that's item 7B regarding a SE Beach Bond at well number five and that's a town engineer Jim that's yours yes the attachment uh is shown with the exhibit so we have our water treatment plant uh just off the roadway and then to the West behind it we have the seepage Pond uh that is the back flow discharge that we have from the process of the facility we had the mpca the Minnesota Pollution Control agency out which performed a site inspection last fall uh the pond was not functioning appropriately uh we had a survey and we had borings taken of that fac pond in the back uh we have received that information we have found that there has been sediment build up over time and that both the bottom and sides are not uh infiltrating at a rate that was used through the original layout so at this point we will be performing removal of material and Improvement to that infiltration of the pond so tonight we are requesting to prepare the plant plans and specifications and go out for bid for those improvements to bring that ponding area back into its uh design criteria uh that would be in an amount not too exceed $2,350 uh we will bring those construction uh bids back to the town board once we have received those uh just one quick question Jim we have U substantial work going on right now to rehabilitate that welli facility this isn't going to impact any of that work or delay any schedule to restart that all of the uh previous work that we have with the facility is inside and we actually are getting to the end of that activity and all this will be done separately behind that building okay and when is this propos if we go forward when you be able to do this work the spring the spring yet yep okay it any other questions no okay so the request is to uh authorize PKD to prepare the plans and specs and advertise for bids correct is there a motion to that effect I'll move is there a second second okay the motion has been made to authorize tkda to prair plans and specs and advertise for bids for pond improvements at well five not to and expense not to exceed $2,350 okay I'll call the question those in favor please say I I I any opposed that motion passes 7D on the agenda is lift regards lift station number three Jim that's yours yes uh Mr chair m members of the board um with our Lift Station 3 improvements project that the town board has already authorized going through that activity of making the improvements to that area to that lift station we have found that the township currently does not either own property or have an easement for that facility uh we have been working with the attorney attorney and town staff on obtaining and did all of our search for that documentation and we have come up with none existing at this point so so are we squatters uh never mind looking at it but not really well I kind of figured we know the answer but I just wanted to get that off the table oh great so Ramsey County is the owner so I mean what what we're asking tonight is to work with the attorney to determine just what we need to obtain and get the the legal rights to that uh not only is the lift station work that we are going to perform in question it is also the sanitary line the gravity lines coming to it and the Force main that leaves it so all that will be looked at so basically we're talking about authorizing a a record research and put together the necessary uh ownership documents that will be bringing back to the town board so there's no easement lines anywhere for this property well or or there's no easement for the lift station we do have an we have to double check the once we know everything's located we'll have to D go back and double check for everything else as well but we know for we know there's nothing for the lift station itself really I think the lift I think the project was built in the early 1970s 71 and as Jim said the documentation the research it's I think it's the first time since I've been here we've actually ask someone to dig back and look for the documents we couldn't find them so we're asking the town board to authorize the attorney to find them any other questions is there a motion motion made based on staff review and recommendations direct the town attorney and engineer staff to prepare uh and obtain ownership documentation for lift station number three as well as the connecting sanitary sewer pipes manholes and force meain is there a second I'll second motion's made and seconded those in favor please say I I I opposed that motion passes item 70 on the agenda is uh 2016 seal C project Dale this is yours hey good evening chairman kermes and supervis Pon and supervisor Rusk yes that is mine um we opened bids on March 10th at 9:00 a.m. for the 2016 Seal Co project it had been advertised in the white bear press on February 10th and 17th prior to the bid opening um we received four bids uh one from Allied black topping company one from Aztec Incorporated another from Pearson brothers and Farner asphalt sealers um since the bid opening I've had a request by Aztec Incorporated to withdraw their bid they had to use made a mistake in their U not in the total bid but in their unit pricing and they used last year's last year's unit pricing and last year's quantities so when I reviewed the bid tab or the bid documents I discovered that called the contractor and they requested to withdraw and I'm recommending we reject the bid also so the uh low bid was from Allied black topping for 93,471 28 and I'm recommending that we award the bid to Alli black topping company for the 2016 seal project okay and and the uh the 93,471 is in the 2016 budget correct my estimate was $95,000 we have 110,000 budgeted for thank you okay any questions for deal you want two motions on this yeah you want you want to see two separate motions okay all right uh based on Public Works directory review and recommendations I'll move to uh reject Aztec corporation's bid based upon their withdrawal request Mr there second second those in favor please say I I opposed and then I would also uh move to award the 2016 seal code contract of the low bidder Allied Blacktop company in the amount of 93,471 128 uh this is funding coming from the Improvement fund 5505 is there a second second motions made and seconded to award the SEO contract to Allied blackt company those in favor please say I I I I any opposed that motion passes item 7f on the agenda is street sweeping Services yes and that's me also uh chairman kerm supervisor rudon Rusk say I went the 2016 storm water budget has included contractual street sweeping typically the town is use staff and it's taken it can take up to 3 weeks or normally it's 3 weeks of sweeping and involves two staff I've been uh pursuing this and uh make it you know put it in the budget this year for contractual sweeping uh they would be done in a contractor coming in with four sweepers minimum two but four they've done in anywhere from two to three days with the entire town which is timely it does uh for water quality purposes it's uh Plus and then we would uh end up having the debris hauled and dumpsters as we have in the when the public work staff was performed it I got two quotes for hourly rate for sweeping one from Allied Blacktop company another from Pearson Brothers uh Incorporated uh for an per hour price Allied black top was $80 per hour and then Pierson Brothers were $83 per hour and that includes the machine operator fuel all that um estimating that the spring sweeping program estimated is at about $7,200 for the sweeper for three days and um what I'm recommending to the board is consider approval for the proposal from Allied black topping for $8 per hour for sweeping the spring yeah would they do this work in two to three consecutive days correct they'll come they'll start on a Monday and be done by Wednesday yeah the entire Township and that this time they're looking at Mid April to start okay uh and the $7,200 is that are you looking that as a not to exceed amount that's an estimate on my part um based on three days for sweepers so it could it could be slightly more but I'm pretty confident that estimate is close okay so you could use it you could use it as an not to exceed amount yes okay um Ed questions I have question uh insurance is there hold harmless agreements that a contract that the attorneys will look at before we agree to this I can prepare a contract and I'll ask for the insurance certificate I would agree to this provided we protect the township all right make a motion I'll make a motion I'll make a motion based on Public Work Director review and recommendation approve the proposal for street sweeper service serves from Allied black topping company for $80 an hour per Sweeper for a minimum of two sweepers with with funding from the storm water operating fund with the caveat that uh contract is prepared and reviewed by our Township attorneys okay is there second uh just a quick question first uh Pearson Brothers shows City to provide truck disposal sweeping and provide the water truck same with Alli thank you for pointing that out and that's same for Alli town is going to provide the dumb truck operators and water for the sweeper yes I'll second the motion motion's made and seconded to uh motion has been made and seconded to award the contract for street sweeping services to Allied black topping company those in favor please say I I I I any opposed that motion passes item seven G on the agenda is well number 2A Rehabilitation yes we've historically in the past few years we rehab typically one well a year it's based on the actual pumping hours for the well and then uh also the age of the well we've um this year it happens to be well 2A and the work rehabilation Rehabilitation work includes removal inspection replacement of Parts if needed and approved Public Works director of The Well motor column piping pump shaft well pump and related items um the 2016 in 2016 well 2A is being recommended for the rehab uh based on that pumping record say last rehabed in 2009 uh staff has recommended approval the specifications uh the town engineer has reviewed the specifications I do have some edits that he's recommended I do and I will correct those before sending out the uh specification for bid great and town engineer satisfied that correct and there's you know I've got 30,000 estimated it should come under that amount the rehabilitation Rehabilitation work and it will be funded by the water operating fund okay and this is all consistent with our existing CIP and this year's budget and well number two is the large that's serves the South section of the township and it's the the larger of the two Wells yes okay okay any other questions for deal no uh just one uh Chad have you seen this is there an issue with the way this is spelled out Chad has not had the reviewed it I've had I just saw it this afternoon saw it review it okay well I was just curious because it seems pretty detailed for a bid specs it's like well I'm trying to cover I mean there's a lot of things to cover so I'm improving the specifications all the time because there's added things for instance you qualified contractor uh you know ability to make sure they pay their subc there's tons of detail that needs to be incorporated and you're you're saying the town engineer has gone through this y yep so I I have reviewed it and made some comments and they will add those into it I mean because I know it's not a formal contract but it is a bid sheet that's pretty specific they're just getting better continuous Improvement and so when Bill gets them next time he'll have all the answers bill doesn't never going to happen I know okay any other questions all right I'll move uh based on Public Works review and recommendations that we re approve the plans and specifications for well number 2A Rehabilitation with funding from the water operating fund you want to do this in two motions yeah all right is there a second second motions made in second to approve plans and specs uh those in favor please say I I I any opposed that motion passes and also move uh to authorize the advertisement for bids for well number 2A Rehabilitation and set the bid opening date Thursday April 14th 2016 at 2: p.m. at the public work department office there a second second motions made in seconded to advertise for bids for well TOA Rehabilitation those in favor please say I I I I any opposed that motion passes next item on the agenda is 7h and that regards a Columbia Park Water Project Tom this is yours I'll start this off and I'm going to introduce Brian Corran he's uh staff representative for the Badness Lake Area Water manager man agement organization they put together some grant funding and uh for a project to help clean water in glambert Creek uh near in fact in part of Columbia Park Brian could probably uh speak to uh specifics on the project and I've got several folders here I can put them up if you want to give the details on the project this is something that was reviewed by our Park Board because it's proposed in Columbia Park and they've supported the project so they're recommending that the board adopt uh or move forward with what Brian's going to propose here okay uh good evening thank you for the time as Tom said um we're looking for your approval to you Brian just we have TV uh audience watching you so could you just in introduce yourself and tell them where you're from yep again my name is Brian corkran I'm from the Venice Lake area water management organization um I'm the water resource manager for the Watershed thank you uh we are here as Tom mentioned to ask for approval for the use of the southern end of Columbia Park um for a treatment Wetland system uh the vadis lake vammo I'll make it short vammo um last fall put together an application for Grant funds through the lccmr or the legislative citizens um Commission on Minnesota resources for a project to um address an eoli impairment along with nutrient impairment man at Whitaker Pond or the headwaters of Lambert Creek where you see on the the right hand side of this picture up here um we've been working with a consultant for about the last 2 and a/2 years uh to identify um where eoli is coming and the impairment in this Creek this project came about from that research um we had an opportunity as I said to apply for these Grand funds which we did um the process went through the lccmr committee we have moved um into the funds being recommended to the legislature during this March session if those funds come through we would be able to move forward on this project that being said the first hurdle would be uh getting the okay from the township to use this portion of Columbia Park for the treatment system the second hurdle would be getting bids from our contractors that would match the funds that we would be receiving for this grant um it's a half a million dollar Grant that's what we applied for this treatment system is both a um in the ground BMP to address water quality along with um a research project so the University of Minnesota would be on board for this project as well they would do their own test and research on pathogens and how effective this system would be to remove pathogens we along with our consultant for the project would use it to address how well it removes eoli and other nutrient impairments in the uh the lamber Creek System the bottom picture here is a rough diagram of what the Wetland looks like it's roughly 4 ft deep um it's an upflow system water goes in through the bottom it's pumped up um through different aborption Medias those different Medias will hopefully address eoli or or phosphorus or pah's or whatever we're trying to to tackle it's going to be a three cell system um one of the wetlands is is going to be a control and then the two other Wetlands will have the different absorption Medias and and native plants growing on on the top um there should be a picture there Tom of what these look like this is uh an example of what the Wetland system would look like once it's in the ground the white pipes sticking out of the ground are um monitoring ports those could be cut lower and capped and and depending on how how the plans come out for this project that would be be figured out at that time um you're able to walk on these Wetlands you can M them if you need to uh there'd be no Hazard to the public with these Wetlands um the water that goes through it would be infiltrated into the ground um because it's up on the hill at Columbia Park there would be it' be gravity fed from the pond into a sstn I think that was shown on the previous one s about this and then a solar pump would pump it up to to the treatment system um at this point we're asking for the okay to use the property for this project that being said there are many hurdles moving forward to get this project into the ground one being approval of funds from the legislature to where the bids come in from the the contractors so CLA FR for me where what is a discharge to this is a can I come over there right this is an overview schematic of it so the water we would either be pulling it out of the main Whitaker Pond here or the for Bay it it gra be gravity fed into the pump Vault and then a solar pump would pump it up into these Wetlands it's an upflow Wetland system once it gets to the top the water would drain out into an infiltration basin next to the Wetland so there's three Wetlands 130 ft by 10 ft at the end of each of those Wetlands would be an infiltration Basin for the water to infiltrate back into the groundwater system after it's gone through the Wetland treatment the ultimate outflow goes to groundwater yep and then they would have an overflow in case for some reason something backed up and that overflow would go back into the pond itself all right at this point keep referring to the system wet land but now you were saying you can walk on it so it's a dry surface it can be used yep you can walk on it um the idea we would have signage up there if this project goes through there would be walking paths through there for folks visiting the park to see what exactly is going on at this this site um that's per Grant requirement um so it's not classified as a wetland no well okay it's a no um now is this are you looking at this as a permanent facility or is this going to be temporary as of now the grant goes through um 2020 so we would have roughly three years of research on this project and then all the paperwork reports um and everything done by the end of 2020 that's the life of of this Grant from the lccmr that being said depending on how well it it works vlam would like to continue um testing its Effectiveness aborption Medias in these Wetlands can last up to 25 years that being said if it needs to be removed I would I would think VMO would put that in to paperwork when the time comes okay so end of life that's where my next question final question would be is who's responsible for Reclamation then if you decide to shut it down so if llama would reclaim the site llama would have to be responsible for it there's no responsibility to the the township other than letting us use this and also easement or or whatever type of of contractor paperwork we would use moving forward I know I've sent Tom some rough drafts of paperwork at this point before we move forward on that we wanted to come and and present this to you folks and also see if there's a possibility of moving forward with the use of this and then the the paperwork Brian we've talked before some of the meetings if if this works um there was some discussion of expanding it is there room at that site to expand it if if they feel the need if we feel the need and and it's all right the idea is and and the point of these three treatment Wetlands is to figure out exactly what aborption Medias what combination of plants work best at at dealing with eoli or or phosphorus or P's and storm ponds and to use that information to make a small scale Wetland treatment system for um specific storm ponds or or Beach issues throughout the metro and the state so the idea is for this it's treating water now but it's been downsized from our original application I believe didn't didn't you originally ask for a million to make it B twice as big yep so it's now turned into more of a a research project but still is uh a water quality benefit just not what we had orig Ally proposed have you generated or estimated any volumes that would be infiltrated to the aquifer gallons per year and we can't until we get the geotechnical data back from from the soils and and what's going on out there it may come to the point when that's been done that that this might not be possible at this site we just don't know that information at this point it's just the way this grant process is but that could be a data point then that the the the amount of flow through into the aquafer okay all right and then there was one other graph here this is would be the footprint this red box here would be the footprint of what it would look like at at Columbia Park this specific treatment system so that's 130 ft roughly by 30 and that would be the estimated location of where this project would go if if we get the funds and move forward on it couple of comments if I could please um this part of Columbia Park is Upland area slopes down into a wetland right in here this is an older area photo this shelter is no longer there it was demoed several years ago these are older pieces of playground equipment that have been replaced and the playground has been shifted uh this is the soccer field field area this is the only part of the park that's actually programmed this is just a passive Recreation Area it is Upland it's for use by anyone but there's no specific structures in that area right now Steve did the park board have any issues no actually I think there they had quite a bit of discussion you and and U and they were well on board with this I think it's a good use and good practice for our community okay okay anything else Tom so recommendation from the park board is to support okay the use of this portion of Columbia Park for the project and at this point it might be appropriate to referred to it as concept approval and there'd be several steps involved before anything could actually be built um Chad mentioned to me that that the town would normally process this through a license agreement and the terms in the agreement would be established by the town it could include final design approval by the town before it's actually uh they proceed with construction the project and have Provisions in there for restoring the site once the operation ceased up whenever that is other other conditions like that could all be included in a license agreement if the town board is inclined to give concept approval tonight would be a good time to authorize the town attorney to work with staff and B to compose that agreement Brian you feel that that's enough for you guys to keep moving through and it is and thank you Bill for that um until we know we're trying to do this and not put too much work for no good we're trying to go along with this whole process as the grant moves along so we'll find out for sure at the end of this legislative SE um session uh the beginning of June whether we've gotten the funds we will go out for bid for a contractor prior to that I think that is perfect and and I think we can move forward with what bill has per proposed okay so so we're looking for two action items then one is to support the recommendation and then the second one would be to authorize the town attorney to draft up an agreement if if they're successful in gaining the uh funding I wish I could have came and said we have the funding but it's just we want to make sure we can accept the funding if we get it and are board with the township so apologize confusion but okay that's hows any other questions from the board if not is there a an action so first one is to recommend the grant concept approval of this plan I'll make a motion for that that is there second I'll second it motions made and seconded to approve the uh the proposal those in favor please say I I I any opposed that motion passes I'd like to propose a motion to have the uh Town attorney and staff work with Volo on the details uh and end of life all that that goes along with this project contingent upon receiv receiving the funds yes okay is there a second I'll second motion's made and seconded those in favor please say I I I I any opposed that motion passes thank thank you good luck with the application yes thank you looks like it to be a good project item 7i on the agenda Park polar Lakes Park flag pole planting yes flag pole P excuse me the flag pole area up at polar Lakes Park little bit written disrepair solicited funding or solicited a proposal from L and Associates to give us uh a new landscape design for the flag pole area uh this was reviewed by the uh Park board at the February meeting meeting uh the agreement on uh on page 103 of your packet and was recommended for approval since that time we have uh asked LS and Associates to put together a proposal that would include the designing landscaping for the town hall after it been relocated and uh so that the that proposal was updated and where do we have that supplemental okay on page 18 in the supplemental is that what you're looking for here we go so L has put a proposal together uh which would uh propose for a fee not to exceed $636 to provide the services to design uh designed the landscaping for both the town hall and the park uh flag pole area uh put together construction plans and specifications uh prepare a final cost option uh again not to exceed a total of $636 and that's for both projects the park board did recommend approval of the park flag pole uh project at their last Park board meeting and the but the specific action item for the board here is just to uh authorize expenditures for the flag pole right Eda approved funding for the town hall portion correct okay so that's correct okay any questions no is there a motion from the board make a motion based on the Park Board review and recommendations approve the flag pole planting plan proposed from LS at an average rate of $120 an hour not to exceed eight hours with funding from The Polar Lakes Park fund is there a second I'll second motions made and seconded those in favor please say I I I I any opposed we have one added agenda item and that's to approve a special board meeting for April 12th and that's for the uh Park Board Li on and the edab lies on to attend that joint edab and park board meeting is there a motion to that I'll make a motion to approve the special meeting for the joint edab and park board meeting for Tuesday April 12th at 5:30 at Town Hall is there second I'll second motions made in seconded those in favor please say i i i any opposed that motion passes item nine is open time any anyone here for a statement or comments just participating good glad to see you uh item 10 is to receive agenda materials and supplements moved is there second second those in favor please say I I I any opposed item 11 is adjournment is there a motion to adjourn so move there a second a second we are adjourned