►
From YouTube: Public Works, Finance, & Safety Meeting 10 15 2018
Description
Public Works / Finance / Safety Committee agenda for 10-15-2018
A
A
Second,
by
y,
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
it
was
a
post
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries.
The
second
item
is
public
input,
and
this
is
the
time
set
aside
for
anyone
to
come
up
and
talk
about
something
not
on
the
agenda.
I,
don't
see
anybody
here
to
do
that.
So
we'll
move
on
item
3
is
approval
of
the
agenda.
Is
there
motion
move
by
bill
Hauer?
Second,
by
dam?
Fourth,
any
discussion.
Yeah.
B
A
Thank
you
any
other
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion
carries
item.
4
is
authorization
for
the
mayor
to
sign
the
amendment
to
the
Prairie
View
development
agreement
and
I
will
look
for
a
motion
second
for
approval
of
this,
which
would
be
a
recommendation
to
the
full
council.
Then
we'll
discuss
my
damn.
Fourth.
Is
there
a
second
second
by
Thorsen,
okay,
who
wants
to
lead
on
this
Matt?
Are
you
willing.
C
C
This
agreement
does
three
things.
Basically,
it
was.
It
came
out
of
a
a
meeting
between
city
officials
and
and
the
developers
one.
This
will
amend
the
development
agreement
to
reflect
payments
that
were
made
to
the
developer
that
were
not
reflected
in
the
original
development
agreement
for
the
installation
of
storm
sewer
along
27th,
Street
and
14th
Avenue.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
see
we
have
the
engineer.
Rod
young
from
Austin
engineering
is
here
and
I
do
have
a
question.
The
exhibit
shows
that
the
total
for
construction
and
engineering
was
a
hundred
forty
eight
thousand
three
hundred
thirty-eight
dollars,
eighty
three
cents,
but
we
pointed
out
that
we'd
already
paid
a
hundred
and
fifty
something,
and
now
we
have
a
new
exhibit
that
shows
that
our
actual
amount
should
that
was
spent
was
actually
153.
A
D
D
This
one
here
shows
some
cost
in
there
for
my
fees
on
this,
but
what
I
found
was
the
original
exhibit
I
had
there
had
the
wrong
numbers
in
for
the
paving
there
on
the
first
lift
two-inch
lift
on
21-14,
excuse
me
and
what
I
was
always
struggling
with
before
there
was
a
sheet
that
I
had
some
numbers
written
on
and
that
was
incorrect.
See
is
paying
half
to
share
as
well
as
the
developer
so
and
that's
what
it
come
out
to
the
correct
amount
there
that
you
show
us
on
that
sheet.
D
E
So
are
the
numbers
that
are
reflected
here
net
of
what
the
city's
already
paid.
So
this
would
be
our
ongoing
share
and
then
the
second
thing
is
is
Matt.
You've
just
said
that
it
would
be
shared
a
third
with
the
developer,
a
third
with
the
city
and
a
third
with
the
engineering
firm,
correct,
correct.
C
F
Sorry
that
sheet
that
you're
seeing
right
now
is
actually
what's
already
been
done.
That's
not
the
new
one.
The
new
one
is
Exhibit
C,
which
is
actually
the
cost
that
you'll
see
in
Exhibit
A.
That's
the
third
that
we
would
split
in
thirds
or
the
city
would
pay
it
for
third,
so
this
doesn't
reflect
that
thirty-eight
thousand
or
the
38,000
that
you'll
see
in
Exhibit
C
38.
E
C
E
A
A
C
A
The
revised
development
agreement
or
the
addendum
doesn't
refer
to
Exhibit
B.
Yes,
it
does.
Oh,
it
does
where
oh
I
see
it'll
bust
I,
see
it
okay,
so
we
have
a
B
and
C
and
you
guys
have
been
through
the
numbers
everything
checks
out
and
makes
sense
from
a
staff
perspective.
Do
you
support
this?
Yes,.
F
A
F
A
D
A
Okay,
this
is
a
super
complicated
matter
and
I
want
the
council
to
feel
like
they
understand
what
is
transpired
and
why
we're
doing
this.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
about
this?
We've
talked
about
it
a
couple
of
times
and
we've
had
several
meetings.
So
it's
not
the
way
we
normally
do
business,
but
we're
trying
to
clean
up
and
be
clear
for
the
record
and
to
update
so
that
we
don't
look
back
and
see
recorded
drawings
that
are
different
from
what
got
installed
and.
E
Want
to
make
a
comment,
having
been
a
part
of
the
discussions
with
the
developer
and
ultimately
part
of
the
discussions
that
got
us
to
the
point
where
we're
gonna,
properly
revise
and
reflect
the
development
agreement
and
the
associated
dollars
I
fully.
Heaven
went
through
the
detail
with
with
the
mayor
and
staff
and
the
developer
without
question.
I
think
there
are
some
issues
on
all
sides
of
this
thing.
E
It's
been
a
long-standing
issue
that
I
think
the
the
resolve
of
the
38,000,
and
the
sharing
of
that
I
think
was
a
very
good
compromise
on
on
rad
standpoint,
on
the
developer
standpoint
and
from
the
city
standpoint,
so
I
support
what
we've
done
been
through
the
details
been
through
several
meetings
with
it
and
I
think
it's
the
right
solution
for
us
to
move
forward
and
and
to
reflect
the
proper
agreement
as
it
as
the
end
result
of
those
meetings,
would
would
indicate.
So
thank.
A
You
thank
you
and
I
in
the
future.
I
hope
that
we
can
have
a
process,
that's
more
reliable,
predictable
and
understandable,
so
that
we
don't
get
to
this
point
again,
because
this
is
this
was
kind
of
painful,
but
I
think
everybody
can,
with
a
straight
face,
say
that
it's
fair
and
the
council
can
agree
to
accept
it.
So
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second.
Is
there
any
other
discussion
before
mayor.
G
A
F
A
So,
as
it
reads,
the
city
shall
reimburse
the
developer
for
one
third
of
the
costs
of
the
drainage
to
be
installed
on
Cherry
Drive,
the
estimated
costs
of
which
are
reflected
in
the
exhibit.
So
that's
our
estimate,
we
think
it'll
be
close
and
when
it's
done
we'll
pay
1/3
and
everybody
understands
that's
pretty
clear,
black
and
white.
So
if
there
are
no
more
questions,
I'll
look
for
action,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion
carries.
Thank
you
thanks
for
coming
rod.
Thank.
D
A
Item
number
5
is
consideration
of
change
order:
number
2
final
for
the
miscellaneous
storm
and
street
improvements;
project
number
1718,
with
J&J
earthworks
Inc
for
an
increase
of
$400,
bringing
the
total
amount
to
180
mm
$36
even
and
I'll.
Look
for
a
motion
second
for
recommendation
got
a
motion
by
wise
second
by
Danforth
I'm
Colin.
Would
you
explain
this
please?
Yes,.
F
Thank
you
mayor.
This
was
a
project
from
last
year,
as
you
can
see
by
the
project
number
17
18.
There
was
a
one
outstanding
item
that
had
yet
to
be
installed
and
that
was
finally
installed.
So
this
reflects
the
the
$400
change
order
to
that
item,
and
we
have.
We
will
final,
this
project
out
once
this
is
completed.
A
Okay,
are
there
any
questions
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
was
the
post
signify
by
saying
nay,
motion
carries
Thank,
You
Colin
item
six.
Is
consideration
of
change
order?
Number
five
final:
four:
the
sanitary
sewer
improvements
project
number
1808
with
donek
Inc,
for
an
increase
of
three
thousand
four
hundred
sixteen
dollars,
bringing
the
total
contract
amount
to
five
hundred
twenty
three
thousand
six
hundred
twenty-five
dollars:
forty-one
cents.
Is
there
a
motion
and
second,
for
approval
motion
by
vill?
How
are
second
by
Bueller
and
Colin?
We
please
explain
this
one
to
us.
A
F
Thank
you
again,
so
this
one
has
been
a
ongoing
thing,
as
you
can
tell
by
the
number
of
change
orders
to
this
project.
This
one
we
went
through
multiple
changes
with
the
base
course,
after
taking
off
the
top
layer,
all
the
asphalt,
not
just
the
top
layer,
we
ran
into
no
bass
along
this,
these
three
streets
and
so
to
make
that
right,
we
did
allow
for
that
through
multiple
change
orders
along
the
way
for
that
base
course
to
be
installed
and
to
kind
of
even
out
the
money.
F
We
were
going
going
to
do
an
overlay
onto
additional
streets
on
sixth
Street
southeast,
and
we
did
we
determined
that
we
could
hold
off
a
year
or
two
on
that
to
help
save
money
on
this
one.
So
the
ultimate
price
change
here
is
only
three
thousand.
Instead
of
a
considerable,
not
more
probably
ten
times
that.
A
Okay,
any
questions
or
comments
all
right,
I
look
for
action,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay
motion
carries
item
number
seven
is
old.
Business
and
I
would
like
to
discuss
the
water
services
for
the
26th
Street
East
assessment
project,
which
is
currently
underway
in
Andrey's
industrial
park
and
I.
Guess.
A
Essentially,
this
was
the
city's
industrial
park
and
we
completed
all
of
the
roads,
except
for
one
stub
on
26th
Street,
which
led
to
one
lot
years
ago,
and
there
hasn't
been
a
demand
for
that
lot
and
we
were
figuring.
There
would
be
development
between
the
two
stubs
of
26th
Street
to
bring
them
together,
because
the
land
in
between
doesn't
have
an
approved
preliminary
plan.
We
were
pursuing
that
over
10
years
ago,
but
the
property
owner
was
not
really
interested
in
finishing
up
a
preliminary
plan.
So
we
just
left
it
as
it
is.
A
We've
got
a
stub
of
26
Street
in
there
became
a
demand
for
the
remaining
lot
and
so
that
land
was
sold
and
the
land
on
the
other
side
was
sold.
So
one
property
owner
owns
most
of
the
property
abutting
both
of
these
both
sides
of
the
street,
and
so
they
petitioned
for
a
street
improvement
project
which
we
approved
and
it
included
all
of
the
utilities
in
the
street,
as
well
as
curb
and
gutter
and
asphalt
pavement,
and
the
issue
came
up
with
the
water
main.
A
We
we
expect
that
this
will
develop.
Very
quickly,
but
municipal
utilities
is
reluctant
to
install
the
water
services
because
if
it
doesn't
build
out
in
the
near
future,
and
then
the
water
services
start
to
leak,
they
struggle
to
get
that
fixed.
So
I
asked
for
municipal
utilities
to
come
and
present
their
case.
The
the
city
wants
to
have
those
services
stubbed
out
because
it
preserves
the
integrity
of
our
Road.
A
The
purpose
of
our
ordinance
requirement
that
services
go
in
before
the
road
is
paved
is
so
that
you
have
one
continuous,
smooth,
Street
constructed
and
you
don't
have
slices
out
of
it
everywhere.
A
service
goes
in
and
so
from
the
public
standpoint.
That's
a
road
with
integrity.
It's
it's
built
in
layers,
you
put
the
base
cores
down
and
you
put
you
know
it
ends
with
the
asphalt
on
the
top
and
once
you
cut
into
that
that's
destroyed,
and
you
have
seams
on
three
sides
that
you
didn't
have
before,
and
so
we
don't
like
that.
A
We
don't
think
that's
good
for
the
health
of
the
road.
In
the
long
run,
the
cost
of
the
service
is
very
small
in
relation
to
the
cost
of
repairing
the
asphalt.
So
the
materials
and
labor
involved
in
installing
a
service
against
municipal
utilities
could
tell
you
what
that
is,
but
better
than
I
could.
But
the
cost
of
repairing
an
asphalt
cut
is
a
lot
more
plus.
Then
you
have
a
street
with
no
integrity.
A
You've
got
a
street
with
cuts
in
it
and
the
slices
and
are
where
water
gets
into
the
roadway,
which
is
what
destroys
the
pavement
and
pavements
expensive.
So
I
think
the
right
thing
to
do
from
the
public
welfare
point
is
to
install
the
services
now,
because
we
we
feel
I'm
well,
the
the
property
owner
requested
it,
and
we
think
that
that
should
be
honored
and
it
should
be
part
of
their
process.
A
But
municipal
utilities
asked
me
to
sign
a
letter
guaranteeing
that
the
city
would
pay
all
of
the
expenses
related
to
abandoning
those
services
in
the
future.
If
they're
ever
required
to
be
abandoned
period
with
no
qualifying
of,
if
they're
not
used,
if
they
are
used
five
years
50
years
a
hundred
years,
no
qualifiers
whatsoever.
I'm
not
comfortable
doing
that
without
counsel
authorization.
First
of
all,
I,
don't
think
it's
a
good
thing
to
sign.
A
If
the
council
wanted
me
to
sign
it,
I
probably
would
but
I,
certainly
wouldn't
without
discussing
it
with
the
council
and
I
think
you
know,
I
think
that
municipal
utilities
should
defend
their
unwillingness
to
and
have
the
services
installed
at
this
time,
so
that
we
can
make
it
a
decision
as
a
community
of
what's
the
best
way
to
move
forward.
So
we.
A
H
Couple
opening
comments,
I'm,
sorry,
I'm
late
and
we
missed
the
agenda
agenda.
Posted
online
actually
says:
420,
you
bring
up
the
PDF,
it
says
4
o'clock,
but
the
agenda
posted
says:
4:20
your
opening
comments,
mayor
Karen,
we're
basically
correct.
There's
a
few
issues
with
what
you
said
is
we
don't
install
services?
The
services
are
requested
by
the
owners
and
incident.
H
Tap
the
main
and
we'll
work
with
with
the
contractors
to
tell
them.
You
know
what
what
we,
what
we
require,
we
do
require
as
state
statute
states
that
there's
one
one
service
per
lot.
So
in
this
case,
what
splatted
right
now
is
the
yellow
lines.
It
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
the
red
lines.
So
there's
one
lot:
we've
run
into
this
situation
many
times
in
the
past,
and
it's
caused
lots
of
issues
and
I'll
give
you
some
examples:
pheasant
Ridge.
H
We
put
four
inch
taps
to
every
lot
there,
so
we
have
a
nice
smooth
road
and
we
don't
have
to
cut
into
the
road.
Almost
every
building
out
there
has
requested
a
six
inch
service
instead
of
a
four
inch
service,
so
we've
gone
back
and
cut
the
roads
and
almost
every
property.
That's
out
there,
so
things
get
put
in
the
wrong
place,
things
get
put
in
the
wrong
size
and
then
that
comes
back
eventually,
sometimes
the
developer,
sometimes
the
owner
most
of
the
times
it's
the
owner.
H
We
just
had
a
gentleman
on
our
board
meeting
the
last
board
meeting.
We
have
residential
lots
are
the
same
way
the
developers
put
them
in
the
one
service
per
lot
and
was
required.
So
we
don't
dig
up
the
street
again,
two
gentlemen
build
on
one
lot
and
they
split
the
middle
lot,
so
they
each
buy
a
lot
and
a
half
and
there's
a
service
on
that
lot.
So
it
sits
there
until
it
leaks-
and
that's
was
the
case
for
this
gentleman.
H
His
water
service
started
leaking
and
he
happened
to
be
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
lot
line
which,
and
he
had
the
extra
extra
service.
So
he
had
to
pay
to
dig
up
the
road
and
abandon
a
lot
or
use
or
use
it,
but
they
had
to
fix
the
leak
as
its
unmetered
water,
so
19th
Street.
If
you
recall,
when
19th
Street
was
put
in
the
city
requested
all
these
services
would
be
put
in
to
each
lot
or
to
each
each
segment
along
that
line.
H
H
Weren't
those
weren't
leaking,
they
were
abandoned.
They
were
abandoned
lines
that
weren't
being
used
which
causes
us
issues
because
we
can't
locate
them
the
contractor
comes
in
and
our
contractor
on
that
project
hit
one
of
those
services
they
had
to
repair
it.
So
those
those
things
that
get
stubbed
out,
we
don't
know
where
they're
at
and
their
liability
for
leaking
their
liability
for
contractors
hitting
them.
So
we
don't
like
to
have
them
there
when
we
know
there's
a
major
construction
project
going
on.
H
H
H
So
we
asked
for
just
some
kind
of
letter
of
assurance.
That
says,
if
there's
it
happens,
if
it's
in
the
wrong
spot
and
we
have
to
move
it,
that
the
city
will
take
care
of
those
cost,
since
they
requested
the
line,
and
it's
the
same
thing
we're
asking
for
here.
If,
if
you
want
one
service
into
the
lot
on
the
east
side,
that's
that's
fine.
According
to
the
developer,
I
don't
know
that
he
knows
what
he
wants
to
do.
H
We've
we've
spoken
to
him
and,
and
he
may
put
a
road
down
there
and
put
contractor
shops,
he
may
split
it
into
two.
He
may
do
nothing.
He
indicated
to
us.
He
didn't
necessarily
know
that
he
wanted
services.
So
I
guess
the
the
shops
are.
The
buildings
to
the
left
are
not
an
issue.
There's
a
one.
It's
going
in
on
the
southeast
corner
of
that
lot,
there's
already
a
a
line
stubbed
in
and
on
the
west
hand,
side
southwest
side.
H
That's
gonna
have
to
be
dug
up
in
the
street
to
put
a
new
service
into
that
and
again
because
it
was
subdivided
so
we're
digging
into
that
new
road
to
put
a
service
in
so
I.
Don't
think
you
get
away
from
digging
into
the
street
and
I
guess
it
would
be
nice
if
everything
was
completely
smooth
and
but
look
how
Willow
Creek
extension.
You
know
they
they
they
dug
in
and
another
to
services
in
that
road
after
it
just
been
paved
because
they
needed
a
service,
so
I
mean
it's
part.
H
It's
part
of
the
deal,
that's
part
of
the
part
of
our
business,
so
you
know
I
had
kind
of
Jeff
taco
about
some
of
the
particulars
of
these
these
particular
instances,
but
in
general,
we'll
put
up
we'll
put
a
stub
into
that
lot.
But
if
we're
going
to
put
multiple
stubs
in
we're,
gonna
want
some
kind
of
assurances.
That's
that
they
need
to
be
moved
in
the
future,
that
somebody
will
pay
for
them.
Well,.
A
A
F
So
the
owners
did
not
make
it
one
request.
This
has
been
a
discussion
on
our
end
and
Steve
hit
it
right
on
the
head
when
he
said
that
they
didn't
know
exactly
what
they
wanted.
I
do
know
they
so
they're
the
property
owner
they
own
the
east
and
west
side.
They
do
they
want
this
road
as
nice
as
possible
as
well.
So
that's
when
we
brought
up
the
water
services
what
they
needed
and
the
contractor
working
on
actually
called
and
said.
Are
we
putting
water
services
in
here,
and
this
is
what
sparked
the
whole
discussion?
F
F
The
owners
don't
know
what
they
need
or
want
at
this
time,
because
they're
only
gonna
build
on
one
lot
and
then
they're
gonna.
Their
intention
is
to
sell
the
other
ones
and,
however,
that
determine,
however,
that
ends
up.
This
is
the
preliminary
plats
for
both
sides.
It's
rough,
as
you
can
see
it's
it's
not
going
to
be
perfect
on
my
end,
but
that's
kind
of
where
we're
sitting
today.
F
F
H
A
couple
problems
with
putting
larger
pipe
in
when
you're
gonna
have
smaller
pipe
on
the
end
or
a
neck,
it
down
from
a
six
inch
to
a
two
inch.
First
of
all,
there's
gonna
be
some
stagnant
water
in
there,
because
you're
not
gonna,
get
total
flow
in
it
all
the
time
it's
gonna
get
hung
up
in
that
transition,
so
likelihood
the
quality
of
water.
For
that
individual
is
going
to
be
worse.
H
Our
second,
a
probably
bigger
problem,
is
that
you
can't
quite
get
everything
flushed
through
there
from
the
initial
construction
and
we've
had
an
instance
already
that
a
Little
Rock,
a
size
of
a
dime
has
got
into
a
pumper
truck
from
the
fire
departments
and
destroyed
it
because
of
a
because
of
a
Little
Rock.
And
that's
because
you
don't
get
everything
all
flushed
out.
H
H
So
I
mean
there's
problems
with
putting
a
larger
pipe
in
that
you
don't
if
you
don't
need
a
six-inch,
the
guy
on
the
north
side
of
the
West
slot
just
needs
a
one-inch
and
that's
typically
what
what
people
request
up
there.
Most
of
those
other
Lots
up
there
I
wanted
services
to
them.
It's
very
rare
that
you
have
a
six-inch
service,
except
for
a
large
building
and
with
fire
suppression
and
and
a
lot
of
cases
four-inch
will
handle
it,
but
those
are
requested
by
the
customer.
A
I,
my
concern
is,
with
the
city
taxpayer
being
obligated
to
fix
this
if
it
leaks
in
the
future,
where
this,
the
city
taxpayer,
has
absolutely
no
say
whatsoever
in
whether
or
not
the
6-inch
service
is
used
or
if
they
tap
another
two-inch
next
to
it
or
a
four-inch
or
something
like
that,
they
don't
get
a
say
in
it
and
it's
not
their
deal.
It's
the
property
owners
deal
right.
H
H
Other
class
one
cities,
the
developer,
puts
all
the
main
in
the
water
department
doesn't
put
the
main
in
so
they
they're
responsible
the
water
department's
pretty
much
out
of
it.
In
Watertown,
we
pay
for
the
the
water
main
to
be
installed
in
in
the
residential
developments
and
the
commercial
developments,
and
it
doesn't
get
assessed
back
to
the
to
the
property
owners.
Side.
No
I,
don't
know
about
one
live.
H
It's
a
state
law,
one
lot
for
one
service
per
lot
and
there's
some
stipulations
about
how
many
feet
per
frontage
and
in
the
county
and
how
many
feet
per
frontage
in
the
municipality.
But
we
try
to
follow
that.
We
don't
we
don't.
There
are
some
lots
that
we
have
to
services
and,
for
instance,
the
mall.
It's
so
large,
as
you
can't
just
have
one
service,
so
they
have
a
service
and
they
have
a
line
that
loops
them.
H
It
has
fire
hydrants
on
it
and
they
have
a
service
on
the
other
side
of
the
building
the
ethanol
plants.
That
way
the
armory
is
that
way.
Some
of
your
larg
there
Walmart's
that
yeah,
some
of
your
larger
facilities
end
up
having
to
have
to
two
services
just
because
there's
their
size,
Terrax
has
two
services
coming
so
same
thing:
they'll
have
a
looped
line
with
fire
fire
hydrants
on
okay.
B
B
H
A
It's
pretty
standard
that,
when
the
water
main
is
installed,
services
are
stubbed
out
to
the
property
line
for
every
lot
in
a
subdivision,
and
then
the
water
mains,
given
to
the
city,
some
cities
own
everything
in
the
right-of-way
and
other
cities
like
ours,
only
own
the
main
adjacent
property
owner
owns
the
service.
So
in
no
case
does
the
taxpayer
own
it
I,
just
don't
see
why
we
get
sucked
into
it
as
the
the
general
fund,
or
you
know
you,
our
taxes
are,
this
isn't
appropriate.
A
This
should
either
be
the
individual
private
property
owner
or
the
enterprise
that
is
running
the
water,
because
the
enterprise
has
the
ability,
to
you,
know,
say:
you're
gonna
use
a
six-inch
or
you're
going
to
have
a
new
stub
or
you
can
have
one
today
or
you
can't
have
one
today.
You
control
that,
and
you
can
raise
your
rates
if
you
have
to.
We
have
no
control
over
that.
This
is
not
our
deal
here.
A
This
is
this
is
not
our
issue
where
we
are
building
this
road
as
a
service
to
the
adjacent
property
owners,
because
the
petition
to
have
it
built
and
they
want
it
built.
So
they
can
develop
and
everyone
believes
that
they
will
develop
in
the
near
future.
Now
that
may
not
come
true,
but
if
you
are
making
the
tap
yourself
and
you're
inspecting
the
installation
of
the
service
to
the
property
line,
and
then
it
leaks
in
five
or
ten
years,
is
that
the
taxpayers
fault?
A
H
I
I
A
I
would
advise
them
that
this
is
the
time
to
install
the
services
that,
if
they
don't
develop,
that
lot,
someone
will,
with
at
least
one
service
at
least
one
building
and
probably
be
a
big
honkin
building.
Those
are
huge
Lots
and
with
Tareq's
going
in
a
10-acre
building
across
the
street,
there
there's
going
to
be
a
demand
for
new
structures
all
over
anywhere
close
to
Terrax,
and
we
want
to
facilitate
that.
Will
it
take
five
years?
Maybe
will
it
take
ten,
maybe
probably
not
that
long?
H
B
I
H
A
H
F
E
You
could
say
this
is
Elaine
and
want
to
do
the
roads
they
are,
but
they're
wanting
us
to
assess
it
back
versus
pay
it
up
front,
correct.
Okay
to
me,
that's
a
formality
and
I
agree
with
Steve
I.
Think
that
you
know
and
I
agree
with
you
mayor
that
this
needs
to
be
on
the
landowners
shoulders,
not
ours
and
whether
we're
the
ones
actually
requesting
it,
because
it's
an
assessment
project,
but
we're
doing
it
on
behalf
of
a
landowner
or
landowners.
Ultimately,
that
needs
the
Leapfrog
to
them.
E
E
H
E
Where
can
I
ask
a
question?
It
really
isn't
about,
because
it's
somewhat
about
this
but
I'm.
My
understanding
was
that
when
somebody
buys
a
lot
like
this,
that
they
can't
subdivide
it
and
sell
it
off,
I
always
thought
that
that's
they
can't
sell
the
property
that
we
have
for
developmental
purposes.
We
just
had
that
conversation
as
a
few
meetings
ago
had
been
four
five
six
meetings
ago,
but
I
can't
buy
that
lot,
just
for
speculative
reasons
and
then
go
sell
it
can
I,
when
it's
a
city,
industrial
park,
purpose
what.
A
That
question
came
up
on
an
undeveloped
portion
which
wasn't
in
any
subdivision.
It
wasn't
a
plaited
lot
and
they
were
they
were
going
to
plat
it
and
subdivide
it
and
develop
it
after
buying
it
from
the
city,
and
we
said
no,
that
that
was
in
a
different
location
and
in
some
of
these
we
may
have
had
that
stipulation.
I
I,
don't
think
that
exists.
Cuz.
This
lie
has
been
planted
since
I.
A
G
E
That's
I
think
that's
a
dangerous
precedence
to
have
for
people
to
be
able
to
buy
city,
industrial
land
development,
land
intended
to
have
buildings
and
businesses
placed
on
them
for
the
purpose
of
subdividing
and
selling
I.
Think
that's
a
that's
a
very
bad
precedence
for
us
to
allow
now
I
understood
that,
and
that
could
be
all
wrong
and
maybe
it's
situational,
but
I
understood
that
we
had
the
first
right
of
refusal
on
the
sale
of
a
property
or
or
a
sub
sale.
E
C
C
A
E
The
original
buyer
was
buying
it
from
the
development
company.
Yes,
okay.
We
heard
that's
time
very
surprised
that,
based
on
my
recollection
and
base,
what
I
think
is
right,
there's
a
whole
separate
issue
from
this
whole
water
main
thing,
but
it
does
it
does
come
into
play
here,
is
I'm
very
concerned.
If,
if
we
have
city-owned
or
development
on
properties
that
are
being
bought
and
then
resold
for
the
purpose.
E
A
I
agree,
and
this
may
have
some
stipulations,
I
don't
know.
Actually
it's
a
good
point.
We
should
check
on
that
I'm,
not
asking
for
action
tonight
for
any
particular
thing,
just
that
that
the
project
is
waiting
for
a
decision
on
these
I've
been
asked
to
sign
a
letter
and
I
took
one
look
at
it
and
said
no.
A
E
A
They
were
developing
the
last
you
know
until
today
my
understanding
was
a
developer
owned.
You
know
first,
that
lot
on
the
east
side,
they
were
gonna
build
two
buildings
which
you
can
do
in
an
industrial
park.
You
can
build
two
buildings
on
one
lot
and
you
don't
have
to
plat
it.
You
can
have
any
number
of
that
type
of
buildings
on
an
industrial
odd.
A
C
E
E
F
A
F
When
they
bought
the
West
I
think
the
plan
has
changed
and
now
we're
to
this
point
and
and
to
get
back
to
the
water
services
they're
not
requesting
the
water
services,
they
may
not
even
want
them.
I
guess
it
was.
It
was
just
kind
of
brought
up
and
I
know
Heath
kind
of
spearheaded
the
decision
or
not
the
decision.
This
discussion
on
I
don't
want
the
road
tearing
torn
up
after
it's
well.
F
F
B
C
C
Don't
want
the
road
torn
into
they
don't
know
what
they're
doing
yet
on
a
lot
they're
not
specifically
requesting
anything,
but
we
want
something
in
there
before
the
road
gets
put
down,
so
the
road
doesn't
have
to
get
torn
up
on
the
off-chance.
It's.
What
they
want
is
what
I'm
getting
but
I'm
guessing,
though
the
developers
would
end
up
having
to
pay
more
down
the
road
once
they
know.
G
C
B
So
the
decision
this
body
has
to
make
I
can't
do
all
the
details.
I
don't
want
to
do
all
the
details,
the
the
decision
we
have
to
make
and
we're
not
going
to
vote
on
this.
This
is
gonna.
Go
on
the
council
meeting
correct.
No,
it's
not
okay,
who's
gonna
pay
for
it.
Okay,
I
think
it
goes
back
to
the
landowner.
Is
that
the
decision
we
have
to
make
of
the
recommendation
that
we
need
to
make
right.
A
E
I'd
like
to
add
a
comment
to
that,
though
we
have,
it
just
seems
really
premature,
I,
don't
care
if
they're
they're
requesting
an
assessed
road
be
put
in
or
not.
It
seems
extremely
premature
to
put
the
road
in
without
understanding.
If
that's
going
to
be
one
lot
or
two
or
three.
If
we're
the
the
site,
plans
have
for
access,
because
if
it's
going
to
be
one
lot
then-
and
their
entrance
is
more
to
the
south.
E
Well
then,
let's
only
run
the
road
as
far
as
it
needs
to
go,
put
the
water
on
the
north
side
of
it.
So
to
speak,
that
it
runs
into
the
properties
and
you
don't
pave
over
it.
Yet
it's
a
road
to
nowhere.
So
to
speak.
It
just
seems
we
don't
have
enough
detail
to
even
warrant
putting
that
road
in
or
even
yeah
the
concerns
that
Steve
has
a
very
legitimate,
but
ours
is
the
same
way.
It's
like
we
build
these
roads
and
then
we're
tearing
into
all
the
time.
A
We
thought
I
think
the
landowner
thought
they
did.
They
bought
the
east
side
and
the
west
side
had
signed
a
waiver
of
right
to
protest
that
they
would
pay
their
pro
rata
share
of
that
road
when
the
east
side
put
their
side
part
of
the
road
in
and
so
did
that
gap.
The
little
Walmart
detention
pond,
that
is
that's
owned
by
Walmart
and
that's
their
detention
pond
for
the
Walmart
facility.
A
A
I
put
the
road
in,
we
was
right
and
I
I
guess
they
I
think
they
fully
intended
to
build
on
that
lot
and
I
think
they
fully
intended
to
put
two
buildings
on
that
lot
on
the
east.
They
bought
that
land
from
the
city,
and
that
was
their
plan
and
to
get
a
building
permit.
They
need
a
road,
so
they
said,
okay
sign
me
up
and
they're
paying
their
share
Walmart's
paying
their
share
and
the
other
side
of
the
street
signed
an
agreement.
A
E
F
A
H
Councilman
Danforth
suggestion
to
pave
the
road
up
and
bring
a
lion
into
the
north
that
that
line
stubbed
all
the
way
to
the
trees.
So
that's
possible,
however,
if
they
build
something
on
the
south
side,
they'd
have
to
bring
it
from
there
over
the
ditch,
all
the
way
down
increasing
costs
for
the
customer
or
the
owners.
So
they'd
probably
request
to
have
it
dug
up
in
the
street
anyway,
but
well.
E
A
A
A
B
B
Know
we
get
into
these
detailed
discussions,
I
think
we're
getting
down
too
far.
All
right,
I,
don't
know
how
to
build
a
road
I,
don't
understand
how
to
build
a
water
main
I
get
the
repercussions
of
those
decisions.
What
I
would
like
to
see
is
a
recommendation
to
vote
on.
That's
what
I
would
like
to
see,
because
we
can
sit
here
and
debate
this
while
we
all
get
educated
on
the
process
and
that's
going
to
take
time
and
I,
don't
know
how
effective
that
is.
So
my
point
is
I.
H
H
A
A
I
mean
you
may
say:
we're
not
gonna
hold
you
to
that
letter,
but
I'm
not
gonna
sign
it,
because
you
may
change
your
mind
if
I
sign
my
signature
with
no
dates
where
that
obligation
ends
no
conditions
whatsoever.
Just
if
this
has
ever
abandoned,
the
taxpayer
picks
up
the
tab.
I'm
not
good
with
that.
Well.
H
I
guess
the
question
is:
why
is
it?
Why
is
it
abandoned
if
it's
abandoned
cuz
it's
in
the
wrong
spot
because
it
wasn't
planted,
then
that's
a
different
story
than
if
it
has
to
be
abandoned
for
some
other
reason,
but
that's
the
old
agreement
and
we
won't-
we
won't
probably
ever
have
to
cross
that
path,
because
they're
all
in
the
exact
right
spot
and
their
own.
G
E
Do
those
stubs
become
a
part
of
the
the
property
title
so
that
I
know
that
when
I
buy
it,
there
are
three
stubs
there
and
the
reason
why
I
bring
that
up
is
we
had
and
I'm
trying
to
think
of
where
it
was?
It
was
off
of
212
somewhere,
where
there
were
some
old
old
stubs
that
we
tried
to
clean
up.
We
had
problems
with,
and
so
we
go
back
to
the
landowners
and
saying
they
had
to
take
care
of
that.
You
recall
that
yeah.
H
E
H
H
We
pay
choose
the
same
contractor,
but
we
pay
for
the
main
to
be
put
in,
and
the
developer
pays
for
the
stubs
to
be
put
in
just
like
the
developer
place
for
the
roads
and
everything
and
then
assesses
it
back
their
lot
charges,
but
they
put
one
in
for
every
stub
at
that
point,
that
it
should
get
recorded
with
the
land
or
somehow
or
the
developer
should
be
responsible.
All
that
whoever's
purchasing
the
land
know
that
there's
a
stub
on
their
property,
a
water
stub
on
their
property
or
really,
when
the
developer
sold.
H
That
third
lot,
that
the
gentleman
came
to
our
utility
board
and
complained
about
when
the
developer
sold.
That
extra
lot
and
splitted
to
the
to
the
developer
should
have
said.
There's
an
extra
service
here
that
that
somebody
will
be
responsible
for
dependent
upon
what
side
of
the
lot
line
it.
It
ends
up
on.
It's
probably.
A
A
You
can
put
tape
down
with
your
plastic
services,
so
you
can
find
those
and
when,
in
the
future,
you
won't
run
into
them
because
you've
done
a
survey
and
you
know
where
the
services
are
and
that's
on
us
to
adhere
to
our
rules
that
we
should
follow
through
and
get
accurate
as
bills
from
the
developer
of
the
land.
Before
we
accept
it
and
we
don't,
we
don't
have
that
for
much
of
our
town
and
we
didn't
have
the
technology
in
order.
A
We'd
have
the
rules
back
in
the
day,
but
we
do
today
so
for
new
subdivisions.
That's
not
the
issue,
but
building
buying
two
Lots
and
building
on
just
one
of
them
and
then
75
years
later,
having
a
service
that
leaks
having
to
be
repaired,
that
you
know
that's
a
different
deal
and
I.
Don't
think
that
we
should
be
repairing
up
roads
and
in
abandoning
main
services
that
aren't
leaking
night
I,
don't
like
that
practice.
G
I
want
to
follow
up
as
long
as
you,
gentlemen,
are
here
and
I
want
to
follow
up
on
a
comment
that
you
made
on
your
weekly,
shuv
kxl
G
show
because
I've
also
gotten
involved.
I
know
it's
been
a
number
of
breaks
around
town
or
I'm.
Scuse
me
around
the
lake
and
your
comment
and
I
think
you
brought
you
got
you
guys
probably
lose
to.
That
too
is
I
the
when
that
was
annexed
and
do
we
do
we
have
substandard.
G
You
know
piping
around
the
lake
that
we're
gonna
start
to
see
more
and
more
problems
for
homeowners
around
the
lake
and
and
and
I
had
suggested
that
you
alert
the
public
again
about
the
possibility
or
the
option
of
buying
insurance
for
that
sort
of
problem.
I
don't
want
pew
guys
in
the
spot,
but
I
I
know
mayor.
You've
made
a
comment
to
that
effect
as
well
last
Wednesday.
I
guess.
Would
you
have
liked
to
respond
to
that
yeah.
H
I
I
will
I
actually
talked
to
my
an
insurance
provider
to
see
if
I
had
a
writer
for
service
line
and
long
story
short
I
had
a
hale
check
and
they
jacked
my
rate,
so
I'm
gonna
go
to
a
different
provider
and
I
want
one
that
has
a
service
line
writer
on
it,
and
she
said
that
there
are
a
handful
of
companies
out
there
they're
starting
to
go
to
that
five
years
ago.
There
were
not
a
RP
offers
that
service
homes
serve
the
one
that
came
in.
H
They
came
in
and
pitched
that
day
market
that
to
our
consumers.
However,
they
wanted
blank
lists
from
the
utilities
that
showed
everybody
in
their
address
and
they
wanted
to
mass
market
to
the
entire
community,
where
it's
only
a
problem
with
the
lake
and
plastic
services.
To
answer
your
first
question:
in
the
main,
the
main
out
there
is
sound.
The
services
that
are
plastic
are
gonna
fail.
So
that's
an
issue.
H
But
you
know
some
of
them
been
out
there
a
long
time
so
I
don't
know
if
you'd
say
that's
useful
life
or
not
so
say
that
so
a
lot
of
been
here
for
four
years,
so
I
don't
know
that
that
is
an
unsuccessful
pipe
or
a
premature
failure,
but
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
them
most
of
them
are
are
all
of
them
are
on
plastic
lines
out
there.
So
so.
H
G
Know
you
guys
did
this
a
couple
years
ago,
utilities
as
a
stuffer
with
your
bill.
I
guess
I'd
suggest
that
that
word
get
out
there
again
to
the
public.
Again
me
by
way
of
a
bill,
suffer
to
let
the
public
know
one
what
their
obligations
are
and
two
that
there
might
be
insurance
coverage
or
they
should
look
insurer
into
insurance
coverage
for
something
like
that.
We.