Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll call the meeting to order to start with the pledge of allegiance. Please join to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Hey, welcome everybody. This is for our special city council meeting of February 10th, 2026. Start with a roll call, please. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Present. Maynor, present. Olaflin, yes. Applebe is excused. Okay. I need a motion to approve the agenda as presented. So move. Second. Second.

I have a motion to second. All in favor? I opposed. Passes 6. Um, next we move to public comments. We have two people. Um, Porsche, do you want to start? Hi. Hi. Hi. I spoke to the council back in April or May um regarding my concern about the water issue in to the south side of Spruce Drive. Um that was before we had the heavy rain July 11th of 25. I've got some pictures that I brought with descriptions on the back that I'd like to pass around.

You bet. I guess my concern is I'm just still um concerned about the water that collects back there and I know there's been a retention pond that has been built. Um my concerns I had thought about purchasing a flood insurance policy and after the July 11th um episode with the heavy rains and stuff, I did end up purchasing one. I guess I'm just I have a question that if the engineers have signed off that everything's okay back there regarding the water, who's responsible if if we do get flooded, is it um is it Steve G or would it be Crawford Engineering? Who is responsible? Um, I'm not sure I can answer your question directly, which I'd like to do. Um, we're going to talk a little bit more about some of that tonight. I mean, that's the topic for the conversation specifically um that the the newest development of of Steve G and also the um the retention pond and we've got we have a discussion that has to take place and I hope we to get it all done tonight and we might have some more at a later time but um I don't know it's going to answer your question 100% in terms of responsibility but we are aware that of your that you've got concerns and we're aware that others have concerns and we're we're looking at it.

Okay. Okay. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Um Tom, I can't pronounce your last name. I apologize. Celestei. Okay. [snorts]

Hi, I'm Tom Celestei, president of the Go Finch Homeowners Association, and we have condos adjacent on the north side of Bluebird. And as you drive down Spruce, you'll notice in the south that the grade gets higher as you go west. And when we get a rain, guess where that water's going? It's all going to come down on on the condos and spruce. Now, uh there is some kind of a little drainage in the back of the backyards on Spruce, which can handle normal rains and it goes into a culvert. Um but uh as far as I'm concerned with 13 condos out there and primarily older people um when we get some heavy storms, they're going to be worrying about being flooded out because that that what it's going to be a river of water coming down behind those condos. And Cardinal Court has 10 condos and some of them are no further than 30 ft. 20 to 30 feet from the retention small retention pond that they have built there

and two of them have basements and I don't know if they have water in the basement or not but I certainly urge a water study to be completed on this. So um the residents uh we already have one that has flood insurance. She's she's afraid she's going to get water in her condo. Uh, you shouldn't have to have flood insurance unless unless you live alone of a river or or a creek or anything like that that floods out. Not in a flat area out there where we live. There's that's who who's going to pay for this flood insurance if we do get condos flooded out.

Can you remind me which um homeowners association that that you're the president of? I didn't I didn't catch it. Goldfinch. Oh, the Goldfinch. Goldfinch Homeowners Association. We have 40 members. Um 20 of them are on Cacack going north and we have 20 on uh on Spruce Street on the south side which is adjacent to Bluebird. Okay. Thank you sir. Thanks John. Thanks.

Okay. Let's move then to the um to item number five. Um, I'd like to start with a motion to accept the final plat of the Pines's third edition and authorize the mayor to sign the attached resolution. So, first I need a motion and a second. So, move. Need a second. Second. Okay. Um, Matt, do you want to start start us off with um with what's been going on? I know you've got Show us too. Everything works. So, you wanted me to give an overview of um kind of where we are in the area? Yes, please.

So, Bluebird Court, this new subdivision, this plat that you guys are considering tonight is the empty area that's in the middle here. You'll have to follow my mouse on the screen. That's the best pointer I've got. Um Steve has met all of the requirements that we have for that with the exception of lot B, the storm water issue that's for that detention basin. during construction that detention basin or during construction there was found a storm water line that runs from Juniper in between these two houses runs up there's a what was thought to be construction debris here but was actually a manhole um and then runs before the construction it ran further north up and I believe tied into Spruce Drive somewhere around here during construction because that was not known at the time that they did the final plan and did the construction plans plat, right?

The preliminary plat. Yes. They found that line while they were doing the construction and so they intercepted that line. They opened it so that it drains into the south side of that new detention basin and then drains back out of the north side of the detention basin. Um that that finding that and having that in the detention basin is what has caused fair Graham to have some concern about it. It doesn't I know Crawford's point of view is that it's fine because obviously you can't have more water flowing out of a 30-inch pipe than you can have flowing into a 30-inch pipe on the other side. But the issue I think for fair gram is they just don't feel like they've got enough data or information about it to know whether or not things are going to work the way that the design was structured or was originally set up to work. So that's kind of where we are with it. Um

is the 30-in pipe on both the north and [clears throat] the south side? Yeah, [snorts] it used to run straight through where that detention basin was built. So, it runs in now to the south side of the detention basin and then runs out of the north side of the detention basin. Okay. Is there water from the north coming south also or is it is the water only going south to north?

The water goes north through there. It runs from Juniper, runs north through here, comes up to Spruce, goes under Spruce along along the edge of Spruce there, and then runs under Sixth Avenue and comes out into this detention or this uh drainage ditch that you see on the east side of 6th Avenue here, where it then turns north and makes its way up to the Wapsy. And we just recently figured out that that's where that goes. We initially when we were looking at it thought that it ran over to here and then came south along 6th Avenue, but then we um had our guys go out and televise it and there is a pipe going underneath there to the east and that's where that water flows. So this pipe that's here is is bringing water from this area into it and then going under the street and then heading north. Okay. Um cut just a couple of things. Um, planning and zoning looked at this and planning and zoning um recommend recommended that uh the city council approved the pond's third edition final plat survey and accept the public improvements as submitted contingent upon items outlined in the agreement for delayed installation of public improvements being completed. Um, this was done on January 6th of 2026. And for the most part, um, everything that, correct me if I'm wrong, for the most part, everything that was part of the, um, the agreement, um, for the delayed installation has all been taken care of.

So, we started, the reason that we did that was because around that time frame, we were trying to figure out how to help Steve move forward with the project, but we had delays waiting on suppliers for the electric lights for one, for the street lights. So that was the whole reasoning for doing a delayed an agreement for delayed installment of improvements was to give Steve that additional time to do that. One of the other things that needs to be done is there is a storm drainage swale that needs to be graded behind and I can change to the plat would be probably better for this discussion. There's a storm wattage or storm water swale that needs to be graded. I believe it comes somewhere in between. Yeah, in between lot seven and then goes north over here between lots behind lots eight and nine. I know that's really hard to see, but that's where it goes through there. I don't think I can. Yeah, I can't change my pointer on this. Um, so that needs to be installed, but it can't be installed until you put those houses in because you can't go out there and grade it today and then turn around and mess it all up when you go to put foundations in. So that's something that'll be handled through the building permit process when those building permits are applied for for lots 7, eight, and nine. That's something that Matt Chzmore will be watching to make sure that that that swale gets built with that.

And that swale that way the intention of that would be to run water south. Correct. Not north. It it runs north through here and then runs along here and comes into the detention basin. The it is the And um Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the overland overflow for some of the stuff that's along Bluebird. Is that correct? Correct. So if the storm sewer pipe that's along Bluebird was unable to take the water for some reason, then it would come out of the storm water inlet there and come across and then get into the into the detention basin that way. Great. Okay. Which that's solid design because every time you design a storm water system, you want an overflow there. Is that basin intake?

The 30-in Where's that 30 in that you were talking about? So, the 30-in intake, um, let's see if I can zoom in on this to make it a little easier to see. This this um, easement that runs [clears throat] across here across to lot 11. That is the 30-in pipe that comes from the subdivision to the south. It runs to here. It turns and then it comes into the basin approximately in this area. Is that Brian? Do you feel like that's right? Correct. Now, was there So there's nothing there's nothing that runs from the basin to the area along six then it there is there's an overflow

further but further north then so there's two things that exit the detention basin now you have a 30-in pipe that goes north underground to the street that's up here spruce and then you also have the the designed overflow structure that's on the east end of the basin that allows water to go out and I I want to say it's a 15 or 24in pipe that goes out here from the overflow. 24, thank you. That goes out to the 6th Avenue Southwest ditch. And then there's also a rip wrapped overflow structure that runs out through there that I believe I want to say is it like 915 emergency overflow spillway. Yeah. But it's lower than any of the houses that are adjacent to it to the north. Correct.

So you have 30in and a 24in pipe both coming out of that area. Well, the 24 in has a control structure on it because it's designed to allow that detention basin to fill and then release slowly slowly seat, which is one of the things that we that we don't know how it will act now because it has that 30-in pipe going out. So, there's that 30-in pipee's going to have to fill and and be flowing water out before the detention basin would fill. Correct. So, that's why we feel like there needs to be some additional study. When I say we, I mean the city engineer and and uh city staff feel like there needs to be some additional analysis of that detention basin and how that functions. Okay,

that's why you have two differing opinions here. Crawford believes that everything is good the way it is, which I understand the reasonings for that. And then you have Fair Graham saying it could be, but we don't have enough information to know that for sure.

Okay. So, let me just So, in your packet on on 10 on 10 is the planning and zoning um commission minutes, the Crawford um um letter which is dated December the 18th of 2025, which is item number nine. And in it they indicate that um the the quality assurance test results um for public infrastructure show compliance with the suited standards for acceptance and um they're recommending the acceptance of public improvements for the Pines's third edition um to Iowa um to Independence Iowa. And then um the fair Graham uh letter is item number eight in your packet and um it indicates that um they're recommending the approval of the final plat and the dedication of the improvements excluding the detention basin and the storm water management design. Um fair Graham is unable to confirm the develop that the development complies with the city storm water management criteria required by city code without additional data and review. So, those are the two reports. Um, neither one of you needs to say anything, but Brian, is there something that you that that I know that um Steve G wanted you to to attend and if there's if there's to answer questions that we might have. Is there anything that you want to add to what we've been talking about thus far? You need something up there or

No, I think Matt's done a a fine job to put together the the information. Uh Steve unfortunately was not able to be here tonight. So he just asked me to be here to answer council questions when it came to uh the approval of the plat. So that's that's my purpose of being here. Okay. What does Crawford have more information than what Graham got? about about the water [clears throat] water issue. [laughter]

Yeah, we sub we submitted a design and and fair Graham reviewed that design. Um like the letter indicates the all of the construction was done in accordance with those plans. The only thing that's different is there was a pipe there that nobody knew about. The city didn't know about it. Steve didn't know about it. There was no easement for it and we obviously didn't know about it. Right.

Um when that was discovered um it's an uncharted utility. We deal with these a lot in undeveloped area and in developed areas frankly. um you're to return as an engineer, you're supposed to return that utility to its service, which is what we did. We're able to essentially work around it and and leave it in service. It happens to pass through the detention facility. Uh and as a as a public pipe or a city pipe, if you will, uh Steve was not inclined to to adopt that pipe and the complexities that went along with it. So uh he did not engage our services to uh analyze that and do do computations and those kinds of things other than uh to our satisfaction to ensure that the pond would still function and in fact the pond will still function. Uh as that 30-in pipe goes through there's 30 in of water coming in. We've allowed 30 in of water to go back out. And as that water comes into the detention pond and the pond fills up, the outlet structure that we designed will actually take water out to the 6th Avenue ditch as designed. So there was I think at some point there was u some suggestions that perhaps uh part of that 30-in outlet pipe should be blocked and and we do not agree with that analysis. you block that pipe, what would happen to the water flow then? Where would it go? I mean, are you talking about the on the north on the north end or on the south end?

It has uh on the south end.

So, I'll I'll speak to that because myself and Matt Chzmore are the ones that made that suggestion. We were think there's there's two reasons to allow some sort of water to head north through that existing 30-in pipe. The main reason is there's there's everyday water flowing through it right now. So, if you block that northern pipe entirely, that's going to cause that detention basin to have water in it all the time. That's not the purpose of that of that basin. That's one piece. The reason that Matt and I were talking about potentially doing some sort of orifice or a 6-in opening or something would be to allow that everyday water through, but then cause that water to build in that detention basin and then outflow through the outflow structure so that the basin would function as as close to original as possible. I'm not an engineer though, so that's why I'm looking, you know, reviewing you guys. It was just an idea [clears throat] was all it was.

Sure. And the the ramifications of that is that you're asking a detention pond that was sized for 9 acres to all of a sudden become a regional detention facility uh where it's not sized to take on that additional 9 or 10 acres uh of water that would be flowing through there. So we like I said we would not recommend impeding the flow of that water that's always gone there or since the pine's first edition was built. Evidently, that pipe was installed to go through there unbeknownst to um anyone who's been involved with the project. So

So Brian, let me ask you a question. So we know we've got some water coming from the south through this 30-in pipe. Where where else is water coming from that would be going into this retention pond besides from the south other than other than normal rainfall? Uh that's if you know that's it. I mean that from from our development, we've installed a um or Steve's contractor has installed a sophisticated storm sewer system on Bluebird Court and that gathers the the runoff and directs it to the detention pond. Okay. So that would be to that to the that so that's coming that's coming from the the west to the east then across the

Okay. West to east. Yep. So, we've we've cut off uh oh, I would say close to 70% of the water that used to flow through the the those backyards. Uh and we've we've basically put that in storm sewer pipes and we're uh we're sending it to the detention pond. Okay. Obviously, I'm not an engineer as you well know, but would what's the size of the pipes that would be coming from the west to the east that would be going into this um retention pond then? Is there is there they vary from 12 up to 18 in? And are how like are we talking about two or three? Are we talking about a large number of them? What would your best estimate be?

For Bluebird, there's only two. Yeah, there's cross pipes. I mean, the entire storm system, there's cross pipes at each intake and then there's longitudinal pipes that run down and enter into uh the the detention pond. Is it the expectation that there'll be any water that's be running from north to south that would be coming into the retention pond other than what would might be dropped by the rainfall itself? No. No. Other than other than just runoff. Okay. And and we know that 6th Avenue is on the is on the uh the east side. So there wouldn't be any water coming from the east to the west coming into the pond as well. That would that would go into the ditches. Yeah. Okay. from Sixth Avenue.

Unless so unless the ditches overflowed themselves, which is unlikely or we hope it's unlikely, there wouldn't be any water coming from from the east to the west then into the retention pond either. No. Okay. Okay. Anybody else have questions for for Brian? Yes. So, Crawford Engineers and CG are going to excuse me be responsible if those property owners flood out there. I I don't think that um we can quite say that. Um, Deb, I think we can talk about that a little bit further, but I don't think that that's a question that um that Brian um can answer or would want to answer.

No, what I can tell you is that our our design exceeds the city's standards. We we went above and beyond uh what the city storm water policy calls for uh when we did the original design and that was what was built. So, um, the property owners wanted to answer and it's not the city council are representing the citizens and so we should help them out with the solution if there's going to be a problem out there. Well, I think we're going to talk about a solution in a couple of minutes once we get through what the the problem itself is. Um, but um, in answer to your question about legal liability or something like that, I I don't think that that's that's our place to be talking about that specifically.

Okay. And Steve, as he has built those condos, he has um he has informed us that he has actually shot elevations out there on spruce to confirm that those that the areas between the houses when he finished grading those uh that they are lower than the finished floor elevations of of each of those units. So he he has gone to that work and confirmed those elevations. Um, as far as the the Spruce, the condos along Spruce, uh, that that development was designed by Fair Graham. So, um, they they can probably speak better to the storm water uh, calculations and the design that that they went to uh, at the time that they put that development together. There there is a pipe um in the backyards of the Spruce condos that that takes um runoff and it goes from south to north up to Spruce and then on to tributaries to the Wapsi Peninn.

Okay. How high does the water have to get in that detention pond in order to cross 6th Avenue? Cuz that's a very large pipe under six, isn't it? Yeah. So, we have an overflow spillway that um that goes from the detention basin out into that ditch and then it gets into that large pipe that goes across and and uh into the creek. So, that should handle any overflow on the detention. Yep. What What is that 40 50 inch pipe underneath there? I don't have that number off the top of my head, Mike. But just looking on I've walked it. So when I looked at it, it's it's this large. It is. Yep. It's It's significant. Yeah.

It's much larger than the 24 in pipe that would that would lead to it from our detention pond. Y and the ditch is 13 ft deep. That's quite possible. It is. I measured it. I had we had a a neighbor in there that had a their child was playing along there and fell. They were complaining about the height of it and wondering what the measurement was. So I measured it. It's 13 ft from the bottom of that tile ditch. Yeah, that's a that's a natural drainage way that that carries significant water. Has the capacity to carry significant water.

Okay, other questions for Brian. Brian, can you answer when you when you were talking about Sudas, which we've adopted, when they're going through and they're doing elevations and things like this, there has to be a standard rainfall per hour that they consider to be within guidelines of something like this. What do is it as easy as to put a so many inches per hour or a measurement per hour on in this situation that this design is they deal with rainfall intensities um and and the storm event, you know, the duration of an entire storm event. So, what we're designing for is a 100red-year storm event. So, what that means is that storm has a 1% chance of happening every year. Okay? It's not that it only happens every hundred year, you know, every hundred years. And we have had

since 2017 out there, I know that we've had some 11in rainfalls uh that that uh the systems that are out there have handled. So, uh I think the systems that are in place uh have have been put to the test out there and have uh they've passed the test. So, the answer that would be 100 year 100year rainfall amounts 100 year rainfall event. Correct. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah. Other questions? And it it does sound like with with the drainage that's being put in everything, you will actually have better drainage at the end of the at the end or completion of the project versus what was currently there. Absolutely. That's a great point. Yeah. You know,

it's not it's not like we're adding to the problem. It's actually going to be covered and a lot better off. Made it significantly better. Yeah. If if we had that 100red-year event that Brian was just talking about before Steve G's development, you would have that entire nine acres draining to the north. Now, we've cut that off. That water is going to be cut off by the roadway paving. It's collected in the storm sewer system and it's routed to that detention pond where it can be slowly released. So you've got multiple ways of the water flowing now versus or then once the completion is versus the way it is now.

Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's a huge improvement to the development becomes a huge improvement for the drainage situation out there. You bet. Brett, did you have any questions for me? I don't. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. So um just for clarification for people that might not know um because Crawford Engineering is the um the engineer for the developer itself um there's a conflict with him representing both the city and the developer. So what we've hired fair Graham on behalf of the city so that they can evaluate this from the city's perspective as opposed from the developer perspective. So, um, Sam, do you want to come up, introduce yourself, and Sam roll fair. Nice to meet you all. Um,

so yeah, I kind of kind of was discussed, reviewed the preliminary final plaque construction plans. Um, say review the initial storm water management plan that was kind of put out during the design for the detention basin was did exceed what the city had, was able to detain the 100-year and release at the 5year 5-year rate. Um, so that was good. And then like say there was that 30-in pipe that was bound. So with that 30-in pipe coming in and leaving, [clears throat] you know, it kind of changes the design of how that detention basin will function. So we just can't say with certainty, um, you know, that what's out there currently as built will meet, you know, what the city's storm water management policy is. Um, so I say without running separate calculations because like say the the original detention basin was designed to take the nine acres and now there's more water coming into that which is you know not sure what the area of that 30-inch pipe covers. Um but you know does for instance if there's a 10 or 25 year rain event does that just flush out that 30-in pipe or will there be any retention and how much of that will be detained? If there is a 25-y year event will be detained and only released at the five or the 10 year rate. Um, so that's just some of the stuff that we can't confirm without kind of knowing more information or having elevations, knowing what the drainage area of that 30-inch pipe is.

So Sam, let me ask you. So, so in terms of the the project itself and the the final plat, um, fair is recommending that that the city approve the final plat. Correct.

Yep. Yep. So, we had a letter um, basically everything else. There was a few things can we had noted in our original final plot review letter and said you know we recommend approval given that everything is completed to the city city's satisfaction. Um and then the last the last caveat was just the detention basin because they say we we just can't say for certainty how that's going to fall and if it meets for sure this you know city. So what what does fair Graham recommend that we do to in order to obtain that certainty so that we know what would hap what would happen based upon the this retention basin and the new right

information. Yep. So we obviously you know say we have the calculations Crawford put together for the the nine acres all that stuff is good looks good. So it's just be figuring out what is the drainage area of that 30-in pipe and how much water is coming in there. And then kind of to Brian's point, you know, it'd be a it'd be a detention for not just that development, but whatever that pipe is coming from the south. So it' be a bigger area. So likely that detention basin is no longer going to, you know, hold the 100red-year event because it's taking the water. So it's just figuring out, okay, maybe would that hold the would that hold the 50-year event for the whole entire regional area? And then what can we release it at? So that's it's just depending on how much water is coming additionally in that 30-inch pipe from the south.

Okay. So from my lay perspective here, we the the the retention basin we knew was going to be h handling the water that would be coming from the west to the east. Correct. We just we didn't know that we were going to have the extra 30-in pipe with bringing water from the south to the north. Would that be an accurate way of saying it? Correct. Yep. Yep. And so you're you're thinking that or fair Graham is of the opinion that we should look into that further just to make sure that we're not um having an excess of water in the retention basin based upon the third how much the 30 in is going to contribute to the basin over and above what is already going to be coming from the the existing um west to west to east is that

so basically right now is we're thinking it's not going to detain much water. It's so we don't know if it will meet what's this what the city stormwater policy is. We don't know if it'll meet that criteria. So that's why we can't re give you a recommendation to approve because we we just don't know if it's going to meet that criteria. It did. We know it did before and it exceeded that but with the addition of that pipe and the 30-in pipe going out. We don't know, you know, exactly what that's impacting and what the flows will be. Okay. Do people have um do you have questions for

the only thing I was going to say to that is I I know that I know that we have this concern about it. Steve G didn't know the pipe was there. Crawford didn't know the pipe was there. To me, and this is my only only my own personal opinion. I think there needs to be some more analysis done on it, but I feel like that's the city's responsibility to do that. I don't feel like it's Steve G's responsibility to pay for it when he didn't know that the pipe was there. And the pipe obviously was installed from a previous subdivision, so on and so forth. But that's just again my own personal opinion. So, and I don't know, there may be no negative impacts. It's just

Yeah, you could come back and say it's fine certainty that that it's going to function per city stormwater policy and that you know, you know, issues. Wouldn't there have been wouldn't there [clears throat] have been a water study done when the pines was put in? because I'm guessing that that's where this 30-inch line comes from is from the original development appliance.

It comes from the first and second edition somewhere down there. Yes. Was there an analysis or a storm water design done? I'm sure there was some sort of storm water design done because there's obviously storm water system there. Did that storm water design meet the current criteria? likely not because I don't know when our when our existing at the time this was even at the time this plat was started or this subdivision was started our storm water design simply was the simple very like one paragraph storm water design or a storm water requirement it wasn't very it wasn't significant enough to really be what it should be like it is now so I I don't know is the real answer and whether or not we have those plans I don't know the answer to that either so basically that would need to be reassessed

I think it's going to have to be looked at. Yeah, you're going to have to do some area calculations. You're going to have to figure out where the storm water currently is at. You're going to have to figure out brake lines cuz some of this, I'm sure, drains to the south to Triangle Park, which is the pond that's down there. So, I mean, there's going to be some that drains that way, but you're going to have to figure out how that all drains and where it all goes and and where, you know, how much comes through that 30-in pipe. It's also possible that 30-in pipe may not it may not ever be as it may not ever be completely full. We we don't know without doing that analysis and figuring all that out. When when you were talking about the 30-in pipe coming from the south, you know, draining the water to the north, what didn't you mention something about there was also a 30-in pipe on the north side that went out into Spruce?

It's both. Yeah. So, the pipe used to run directly north south where the detention basin is at. Correct. And when the detention basin was dug up and and built, they simply intercepted that pipe on the north side and the south side. the southside was redirected to to allow for additional development. Um, with Steve's piece that he's doing on the south, but yes, there's a 30-in pipe that comes into the detention basin on the south side that brings water in. There's a 30-inch pipe that goes out of the detention basin on the north side that takes water out. [snorts]

There's also a small I don't know if you'd call it a swale, but it's kind of graded between the two of them to keep the daily water running through there rather than going into the rest of the basin. So, the way I look at it, and I'm I'm not an engineer in that at all, but if you got 30 30in pipe that was running water north from the south side, and you still had a 30-in pipe that took care of that water before,

nothing there has really changed. You still got 30 in and 30 out. The only thing that's really changed is now you have a a retention center. And to my understanding, that has a 24in pipe in the retention center, which is an additional exit for more water to go. The issue so that 30 that 30-in pipe when it it's coming in and going out the same as it did before. Yes, I agree with that. Or what am I missing? The issue that the issue that I see there, and I'm again, I'm not an engineer, so Sam or Brian, either one of you can tell me if you feel differently. The thing that I see is that 30-inch pipe is coming in at say at an elevation like this. Okay. Your detention basin floor is here, right? If that 30-inch pipe wasn't there, the detention basin would fill until that outlet structure was overcome. Correct.

And then it would flow out through that 24-in pipe. Correct. Now there's no detention. As soon as water starts coming in, it's flowing out that 30-in pipe to the north. Mhm. So now your time isn't there. What you had, the whole reason you put a detention basin in is to collect all that water and slow the release down so that you're not overflowing or overloading other systems downstream. That's not there anymore because now all the water that comes from this whole area, including Bluebird, immediately goes out that 30 inch until it fills. So overloading that 30-in pipe on the exit side. That that's what that's what runs into the tube that goes underneath 6th Avenue and then heads north to the river through that through that ditch and everything.

Yes. Correct. But we don't know if that pipe is completely full or not. Now, the the statement that the 30-inch pipe coming in can only bring in a certain amount of water and can only take out is absolutely correct. That's just basic physics, right? But when you get into the design and the water elevations and all that, you have time of control. You have time of concentration. There's a whole bunch of stuff that goes into the math of that. Mhm. And that's where I mean to me, we've hired fair Graham to review this for us. And if they don't feel like they're they have enough data to say, "Yes, this meets our criteria." I'm I'm not going to argue with

Oh, I'm I'm not saying not to go ahead and get more data. I I was just trying to analyze. If you had 30 in and 30 going out, you still got 30 in and 30 out. The other one is just different. But that 20 that that basin is going to set a hair higher than where that 30-in pipe is flowing through. So therefore, that thing has to overflow before the retention basin actually collects and does its job. Right. The 30 in would have to be completely full before the detention basin could perform can do its job. Yeah. What's the estimated cost additional cost for us for for a study or analysis?

I I don't have that offh handic talk with city staff and see scope of area and they'd want to look at and then determine say we haven't gotten that far. I know it was kind of mentioned, but we told talked to Matt Chzmore and you know if you want a proposal we could prepare one but at that time we you know we didn't look into that any further. So we'd have to look and see and try to figure out roughly where the intakes are to the south that would be the additional drainage area and then try to you know go out and get some field information um on that the 30-in pipe. One of the things too I guess is the elevation. You know that maybe that 30in pipe is half half full and might start going out the control structure that was designed for and maybe that pipe doesn't even get full when it starts going to the overflow. That's one of the things we don't know either is what's the elevation of the top of that 30-in pipe in respect to the overflow as well. Um,

so I mean that's that's just and it's not and it's I don't think it's necessarily and again Sam or Brian either one of you can correct me from an engineering standpoint, but it's not necessarily the huge rain events that that we're really that concerned about because the to that point you're still going to have a 30-inch pipe coming in, a 30-inch pipe going out. In a major rain event, it's going to fill up and it's going to function that way. Correct. But in a 10 year or 5 year or smaller storm, you're not going to have any detention because that 30-inch pipe is going to take it immediately. It's going it's going to take all of it in the retention sets the retention pond sets dry. That's the concern, right? Um, is that fair? Yep. Y

I will just add that part of the final flat Steve has granted the city an easement across lot B even though you're not accepting lot because that remains as part of homeowners association. Yes. They maintain it. the city, he has granted the city an easement to go in there and do whatever it is you right you would like to do. And a lot of that was because a lot of that was because in conversation with the city attorney because now there's public water coming from Juniper. We now need some [cough and clears throat] sort of easement there because you know if there was ever a clog or some something like that that the HOA couldn't get there fast enough to deal with it, we've got to be able to get there and deal with things. Other questions for

what's the elevation difference between where that 30-in pipe is versus the elevation of the retention pond? I mean, what what's our depth difference? I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Don't know cuz I we shoot any R. You happen to know? I can give you an estimate of maybe 14 in. Okay. Between where that pipe is above the retention or below the retention? The pipe is below below the retention majority of the the detention. Okay, other questions for Sam. Something that just crossed my mind. I could be totally off bar because recommendation would be additional study to see

what what the amount of flow is from the from the previously hidden 30-inch pipe. Right. Yeah. Yep. Because if the city, you know, we would have to look at that and see before we would say, okay, yep, everything's functioning fine. or then determine okay what maybe it's not meeting the city's stormwater policy what can be done to get it so it can you meet the policy or help detain some of that water obviously say with with the addition don't know if you know how much we can meet or what can be done but um look at that and like I said maybe it if the council decides to leave as is maybe there's no issues but we just can't say one way or the other how that will you know function based on

the only the only thing I was thinking is is there a possibility of a T intersection coming off that 30 to flow water into the detention center. So that way it's all not flowing down the 30 and that way some water actually goes to the detention or not. Well, it all goes into the detention right now anyway. That 30-in pipe comes in and it all goes in the detention basin. And what you could potentially do to keep it out of the detention basin is intercept it before that and reroute it. But then to Brian's point from earlier, you're messing with an existing utility because the existing utility went through there before. Okay. I was just Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, C.

So, council, there there's two things that are going on here. One is that we're here to um approve the final plat for Steve um for this um uh the Pine's third edition. And um so the the motion itself is to just to make that approval of of that so that he can move forward with the construction and the sale of the of the properties. As Brian mentioned, there's there is this issue about the homeowners association taking over the retention basin itself, which is not which is common in in the city. So, there are are two parts of the resolution itself which which you'll be vote which you'll be voting on. Um the motion itself is just to approve um the final plat um third edition to authorize uh the mayor to sign the um attached resolution. So I want to go over the points of the resolution itself so that you understand exactly what we're voting on you're voting on to approve or not to not approve. So the first part of it is is that um you're the it's approval of the final plat of the Pines's third edition Independence Iowa uh approving the um the public improvements dedicated by the developer um as set forth in um the final plat itself and it's you're accepting those with the understanding that lot B which is the retention basin the storm water retention lot and all infrastructure apprentices associated um there with are neither dedicated nor accepted um and shall be ma uh ma maintained and managed by the homeowners association is established for this addition. So the first part of it is the approval um itself to um for the the plat.

Second part of it is is additionally all the required information. Can I clarify? Yes, please. So the first part that the mayor read is what was included in the packet and what was in the agreement. And then today through conversations between my the mayor and myself and the city attorney, we've got an additional piece that we think needs to be added. The resolutions are able to be modified by the council as you approve them, you know, as you review them in a meeting and approve them. When we include a resolution in the packet, it is a draft document. It is not a finalized document. So the decision point on this is whether or not the council would like to include the second part of this. Which way you guys would like to go?

Okay. So here's the second part of it is absolutely additionally all required information for the city's engineer which would be fair Graham to complete the analysis of lot B and to confirm compliance with storm water criteria of the city shall be provided by the developers attorney that's Crawford developers engineer

yeah developers engineer as soon as possible. This includes um additional study of the existing facilities if needed to complete this task. Um, should any additional modifications be required as a result of that review, the developer shall work with the city to address those concerns as quickly as possible. Do you me to read that again or is everybody understand what we're doing? So, I'm I'm going to recommend that in terms of the study itself that we set the the study issued um for the next work session which would be the first um Monday in March. And at that point we would talk about um the the study itself and what what would be required of it and what and um this the scope of it because um this is just between what we've been discussing but you know there's been a lot of concern of the neighbors in that area about other things that are going on with regard to water um issues and and the thought process is is depending upon the scope of what we do with regard to the retention bases can we expand that scope at at the same time to also look at some of the surrounding areas and look at the surrounding areas and determine whether there's something that we can do now as far as this goes to that'll help alleviate some of the concerns and problems for some of the other neighbors that exist over and above what would be part of the the the Bluebird Corp aspect.

Well, and if old develops the east side of the road there, that's going to be an additional flow. That's exactly right. Mhm. That's exactly correct. So, so that so there's nothing there's nothing on there's nothing on the agenda tonight to talk about approving the study or the scope of study or anything like that. So, that would go to the work session. What's on the agenda tonight is to approve the plat and to approve the issue of of um you know looking um um have that's being added on to the resolution. Yeah. So, it's all voted on on on one vote covers both. That is correct. So the motion that was brought forth at the beginning and you correct me if you feel differently. The motion that was forth brought forth at the beginning was to approve the resolution that was in the packet.

If the council would like to go this way, we need direction from them to include this language. Is that fair? I think that um I I I think that would be correct. I I think so. Mike, you just need Mike, you need to amend your motion to add the addition on to the resolution. Okay. I'd amend my motion to include the uh additional information brought forth during this discussion. Okay. Thank you. And who had the second for? Are you okay with that? Okay. Further discussion. Sorry, I can't do that. Um further discussion with regard to this particular um resolution. Then

the only discussion I have is with that it being added on, I think it's the right step to take because we're we're approving. So certain things can continue on, but we are also going to be overlooking some possible additional changes on the landscape of that area on B. So it's it's as far as I'm concerned, it's good to go. Deb, did you have comment? No. Matter matter. Mike Brett, anything else, Ro? Anything else? Matt, the only thing the only thing I would say is that this helps us deal with the situation related to lot in this development. Mhm. To me, the the discussion about on the March 2nd meeting will be about a bigger discussion of do we want to analyze the whole area, not just lot B.

Correct. And I think knowing what we've heard from the residents that we need to we need to consider that. Absolutely. Okay. Call for uh roll call vote then. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Bradder, yes. Maynor, yes. Olaflin, yes. Weber, yes. That passes uh 6. Um that would be everything that's on our agenda. So then I need a motion to adjourn the meeting. So move. Second. All in favor? I oppose. Passes 6 and then we stand adjourn.