Wait, oh and we're getting online.

There we go.

All right.

I'll repeat myself.

But welcome to the Pigeon Creek Watershed Development Commission.

It's June 15th, Monday at 10 o'clock in the morning.

Evansville time.

Karen, could you call to order for the attendance?

Christy Johnson here.

Cheryl Muskright here.

Linda Freeman here.

And Karen Barnville.

We have a quorum.

We've got four.

We're four for four, batting a thousand this morning.

All right.

Um Pledge of Allegiance, please, if you join me.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and divisible with liberty and justice.

Okay.

Um I'm just gonna let Justin take over from here.

Um we're gonna skip ahead uh one item uh we had a little bit of uh scheduling timing issue um this morning.

So we're gonna skip ahead to new business and we'll come back to the action item uh and presentation in that regard.

Um new business uh we need to have a discussion about how this board and entity want to tackle certain items in regard to development, what uh what criteria we need to have, do we want to have any try to have any influence over the drainage ordinance which is being discussed right now at the county level uh what level of oversight can we have and do we want to have basically there's a lot on the table in that regard, and I would just like to have the board discuss it and see if we can at least try to get some guidance and how we need to move forward.

Yeah, and to add to that, I would like to say that uh currently the county drainage ordinance uh which the city uses as well currently.

Um there is no um drainage detention for anything that discharges directly into Pigeon Creek or the Ohio River, but mainly obviously the Pigeon Creek uh situation would be more in our realm of things since our first concern with the Pigeon Creek watershed development is flooding.

Uh the direct discharge of anything developed along Pigeon Creek can just currently no no uh detainage.

I can't remember what the sanction would be.

And I'd like to add to that too, this came to our attention um the last few months when we've had some developments that were um being proposed.

And in normal cases, um per the drainage ordinance, any additional impervious area over 10,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet and above um has to require or provide retention.

Um and like Linda said, um the existing drainage ordinance does not or it does say in 13.04.015 that um it is not required for Pigeon Creek or for the Ohio River.

Um in some areas where the the word discharging is in an area where it might not be the largest channel um or might not have the capacity to handle the additional flow at at that particular point.

The city engineer is um concerned about that, so we were wanting to um discuss that the possibility of removing that item from the ordinance or the city of Evansville adopting something separately.

Um and we are working on our stormwater ordinance, so I'm trying to work out the um how it's all gonna mesh together and stuff, but I I also think that um some of the site plans that come in may impact the creek, like we found one when CIGIC or I mean center point was going across the creek.

If we wouldn't have been on site review, we wouldn't have known that, but we feel like in talking to Justice Justin that there may need to be some type of formal process to where when they're dumping into the creek or when they're near the creek, maybe they should file something with the watershed so that we can review it before it's approved.

Um that's just what what our thoughts were discussing some of these developments coming in.

Yeah.

On the center point issue, they were putting they were uh putting up new poles, replacing some poles.

Yes, they were they were uh replacing poles, and it was uh it was determined after uh discussion with the engineers at Center Point that um they were gonna span far enough outside that it it really shouldn't be an issue.

Um and then also there was another um center point project that went underneath Green River Road on the east side of Green River Road at Hearst Road.

Um they were spanning underneath the creek, and um they sent me the plans and I evaluated and I spoke with Karen and spoke with Linda about this at that point.

They were going to be like six feet underneath the the uh flow line, the the bottom of the creek basically, and we're going to daylight so far outside of the uh 75 foot right of entry that we have on the creek itself.

I I believe it was roughly 100 feet outside of our 75 foot.

So we you know, we gave our blessing to it.

I don't know if we could have stopped it.

I don't know if I don't think we needed to stop it.

I think it was pretty mindful in both regards after having the discussion.

Um but those are the kinds of things that we need to determine as a group.

How does this need to be handled?

What steps do need to be taken both on development part and or utility part and on our part?

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

They worked with us on the polls, and he did move it some and pushed it further away from the top of the bank.

So we should have enough room if we would have to come in for maintenance, but that would be down the down the road, obviously, but it did work with us.

It's kind of an open area anyway, so it wasn't like it was gonna be very restrictive.

I think we ended up saying 50 to 55 feet instead of the 75 feet off the top of the bank.

Uh, but there's plenty of room adjacently.

Uh, it's like a gravel lot, so it was kind of determined that this really isn't gonna hinder us in that regard if we have to do any kind of work or anything.

So my thoughts were do we want Jason to, I mean, Justin, why do I keep calling you Jason?

I'm sorry.

Justin.

Justin to um come up with like an application form where they could file for some type of review by the board.

Do we want Justin to approve them or do should he bring them to the board for approval?

Can he have I mean those are kind of things what I'm looking for?

Is to see if we want to do something like that.

And also, what authority do we have?

Yeah, right.

Yeah, the the problem is is the statute doesn't uh the watershed creation statute uh or that we you know that our entity was formed under does not specifically state that we have the ability to you know pass generally applicable ordinances that um require everyone within the watershed to um succumb adhere to our authority with this.

Now it does say that um we are the prime we're primarily responsible for uh the the watershed itself, uh and that we have the the 75 feet uh right of access.

So it's a little ambiguous as to the extent of our authority um putting that aside for um future probably follow up with uh someone at the state level to see uh what their interpretation of it is if um as far as approving plans if this board were to adopt and say these are our standards and anything that complies with this they can be you know uh approved administratively they could do that and then anybody that wants to change those plans would most likely um the best process would be for them to come to the board to get like a a modification or variance of those plans but we we could set up sort of the general parameters of what um what is approved you know if it's x number of feet outside the right of way you know x number of feet below the uh below the the bottom the the bed of the of the you know if you're talking about an underground uh encroachment or crossing and uh if and if they approve that then that can be approved sort of in-house administratively uh because they've already complied we've already made our policy decision this board has already made its policy decision that these are the plans that comply so uh just making sure that those do actually comply can be done in-house without a board meeting uh any changes or variations from that should come before uh the discretionary body so that the policymakers could decide on that does that make sense yes and I'm gonna just interject that mainly I mean anything that's anything that's not discharging directly into pigeon creek currently has a drainage plan if it's over 10,000 square feet.

So that kind of I would the watershed area is going to be per se covered it's that uh discharge directly into Pigeon Creek plus then any type of encroachment within our 75 feet of right of entry.

Is it right of entry right of access?

Yes and subject to confirming this I think that the statute probably does confer if we're talking about a direct discharge into uh into the the banks of the watershed uh or of the uh into the not the watershed into the banks of the um now if they're doing any kind of actual um where they're actually got a pipe to the creek where they've got some type of channel to the creek that's gonna throw it into a different ball of things anyway I think we're looking at what sheet just sheet flow more than anything because if they if they actually channel to the creek or pipe to the creek you're gonna get into the core you're gonna get into a lot more other things that may but basically we're kind of looking at anything that's gonna they're building and doing adjacent to the creek that they're gonna sheet flow into the creek.

Okay.

Because I think the other types of uh actual direct discharge is gonna fall under but not only that but what authority do we have outside of the main channel itself I mean this is a whole watershed this isn't just yeah the adjacent property to the next to the creek.

Right well within within the watershed currently the drainage codes gonna cover those things anything over 10,000 square feet if you're disturbing over an acre if you're those types of things already covered with your SWIPS and erosion control plans and okay.

So unless unless the Vanderburg County code changes or the city code changes then currently we've we're kind of covered under that realm of things would I mean do you think that's a fair statement?

Yeah I think that when you're starting talking about uh regulation in our authority uh in the watershed generally and outside the main channel um I think that it's gonna be a lot harder to justify uh sort of a general uh I'll use the legal term or police power uh to regulate and uh and manage those projects outside the main channel I think that our argument within the main channel uh is a lot clearer and a lot more straightforward uh but I would be hesitant to to uh to advise that it's likely that we have that authority I I think that it's um the main reason I bring it up is there is there's been people call in that aren't on the main channel but they are still within the watershed asking questions of what we can do what we can't do and that's where I would like to get the guidance to make sure that I'm not saying anything out of turn and basically saying you need to go to this person or that person either county or city and I'm telling them the right people to go to because we don't necessarily have authority to affect change in those situations where it's not on the main channel but it still was within the watershed does that make sense it it does uh I don't I don't have the answer right now.

And I and I'm not expecting that right now I'm just I just want to ask the question because I it might be that you're just limited to say well you have to comply with if you're you know within the city you have to comply with that if you're okay uh county code you have to comply with that and uh ask for you know courtesy copies of their drainage plans and um maybe it's more of a coordination with those uh an informal coordination process with those uh with those regulatory bodies uh but again if it's something that affects the main channel I think that's a different story right based on based on the strict text of the and that's kind of where I was at with those two center point um projects they were directly over or under in what in the in the one case the chan the main channel so I felt like we needed to review it at the very least technically is do you do you know if that same wording is in the new ordinance.

I'm gonna bet it is I think so um what it's it's 1304 point oh one five I'm looking now but oh it's the sector yeah I think that it's likely to be included as well yep it is in there I was pretty sure top of page four okay I guess we're gonna I'm gonna talk to Brian see what he was to do.

But I think that answers my question.

Yeah.

So do we want Craig to do an analysis for us on why it limitations we can put on our barshed as a commission especially as it pertains to development and especially to this direct discharge without any type of detention.

That might not be a bad idea.

Just because I I have a feeling Craig yeah that it's gonna be the statute is going to be more about what we can implement in the Marshed versus what authoritative power we have.

Yeah.

I don't think the intent of this statute was really to place restrictions and limitations.

It was more to get projects implement and stuff.

So I do think the statute language is going to be pretty weak.

Yeah.

I just concerned with uh you know the the top top item for the watershed commission is flooding.

So I mean if you're allowing folks to just directly discharge, that's a direct impact on that type of thing.

So but would that be a potential good first step for us?

Yeah.

I think so.

Do you think Justin?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, I I think mainly just we we need we need the guidance.

We need to know.

And I'm I'm mainly I'm mainly specifically looking at that, that 1304-015 part in the drainage ordinance that we that the Vanderburgh County uh drainage ordinance contains.

Um I'm not looking at so much the overall type of thing.

I think you know, we can I think we were lucky with Sigico or Vectoring Center Point.

We were lucky with them, they were willing to work with us.

We didn't say they had to, but they were working with us with the understanding of this because this is a new thing to everyone, but they did um they were very polite and worked with us on that goal and so it wasn't a lot of it wasn't problem.

Once they understood that there was it somewhat functions like a legal drain in regards to the the right entry.

Um and that needed to be you know kept clear to the best of their ability.

So yeah, that wasn't really the issue, it's just really you know what what are our powers?

I'm not trying to restrict anything, I just I just want to be clear as to if there is development, you know, the take into account all of these things and not negatively impact the flooding issues that are currently on the creek itself.

Yeah, so may mainly like I think it's more that maybe the direct discharge.

Okay, any further discussion on that item?

No, Christy.

Do we need to do an official motion?

Direct or wouldn't hurt, might as well.

And how should said motion be worded if you want to?

Um, if you want me to just follow up on research and provide uh guidance on you know point A of new bus or uh yeah, point A of new business, particularly as it relates to regulatory powers within the watershed.

Um somebody could so move.

I'll make that motion.

Okay, I'll second it.

Okay.

We have a first by uh Karen, second by Christy.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, aye, aye.

Okay, was that everybody?

Yes, it was.

Alrighty.

Um move along.

Let's skip back to the first.

Yeah, we want to is i is Beth ready.

Sure.

Okay.

So we'll jump up to the action item.

Uh Christopher Burke updated work plan presentation and additional aerial mapping baseline inventory.

Woo!

Is that thank you?

Um this one is this one is oh okay.

Yeah, it's popping up, let's do the other one.

Yeah, I think.

Sorry for my lateness this morning.

Um, but I I see Justin has the draft of the work plan in front of us, and I'm gonna go through it just uh so this is a draft of all of the content.

What is not in it yet is the exhibits and attachments, um but it has pretty much the content complete.

So let me just go through.

I'm gonna I'm uh if you could just go down to the table of contents.

Justin.

Let me step through what all is in here.

Chapter one and two um were pretty much completed as part of the conceptual plan.

So you already saw that in the uh conceptual document that we went through previously, the chapter three key findings outlines the current status, current issues, things that we see and why in the watershed without trying to answer how to solve it.

So some of the things are broken down by county because there are so many differences in the slopes and the soils between the counties, but the majority of it is addressed as a watershed all together.

So we will we will discuss these items as we go through, but let's go on to chapter four.

Chapter four lists out all of the alternatives that we looked at.

We have generally split these into active and passive alternatives, actives would be physical things on the ground, physical things that you do, passive or more studies or an ordinance or a plan, those type of educational type of things.

You will see when we go through talking specifically in chapter four.

We have listed out several items there that we did not recommend.

I'd like to get some feedback from the board as to how you feel about those sections.

I thought it was important to include them because in this watershed, I think there are a lot of we've had some public input and opinion related to how you can solve the issue, how we think how the public and others think that we can solve the issue, and so we tried to address some of those uh suggestions and why some of some of the suggestions are actually really great, but some of the suggestions don't really make technical or in some cases financial sense, and so that that those sections are an effort to really explain what those items are and why to document why we did not recommend them.

And then chapter five goes through recommendations, and again, these are split into active and passive management recommendations, and we will briefly go through those items as we go down through the chapter.

Some of these are items that we did talk about in the conceptual plan, but we have also added a few more items, and one of the things we'll talk about, I think is 5.2.5, which is county ordinance and technical standards reviews, and I think that maybe applies to some of the things you guys were just discussing about where to go with that.

So that could be an opportunity to work together on that part.

Okay, go on down.

Chapter 6, then is where basically the I'm gonna call it the end section, but chapter six basically lists out the table of recommendations and it would be an implementation schedule, and the cost factor and those things that were really can't be completed until the board decides with public input what really you want your priorities to be and what items you maybe want to keep, or there could be items where the board just does not want particular items in their plans.

So the intent would be that table six is just a draft of what's in there right now, but eventually would be worked through with your comments to add or subtract from that based on the board's feeling about each of these recommendations.

Um I mentioned the so the exhibits have not been added here.

Um this is the list of expected exhibits.

I do have a few of these, I just haven't added them, and then the attachments.

There will be probably a couple more attachments other than this, but just out of interest, that attachment that is listed, is an example of course, Christopher Burke works with a lot of counties and communities on stormwater ordinances and technical standards and updating and creating language and working through the legal implementation implications and the legal requirements and authorities for doing those.

I will say that I am not the main expert on that, so there may be questions you would have today I'd have to take back, but we you know Sea of Ash and others work a lot with communities on those types of things.

Okay.

So executive summary is was added from the conceptual, and this is just a summary of everything that is in here now, and again would be updated as you make changes through it.

The executive summary is just summarizing everything that is here in the report.

It also summarizes, basically repeating the table that is at the end, which is kind of I want to call it the most important thing because it will become your implementation schedule for the board to move forward with the work plan.

Many of these, much of this content paragraphs, you know, some people may never go back and look at again, but you will generally be working from this table of um items to implement.

Okay.

So I want to kind of skip over then chapters one and two, as I mentioned, those are from the conceptual and go through the survey and the uh information that we captured previously.

Chapter three starts with key findings, and key findings is an attempt to, as I said, explain the current status of the watershed, what is there, how it works, um, really um an explanation of these types of rivers, morphology information was in written in coordination with Bob Barr, and Bob has reviewed this in addition to C of Osh and David Eichelberger.

So we've all coordinated on these pieces, and Bob as our I can never say it, fluvial geomorphologist, um, has always has a lot of input related to how the rivers work.

Okay, so some information now broken down by county after the general explanation of river morphology.

Now it goes through each individual county as we know, those slopes as they change, and you can see if you can add a little bit more, Justin.

You can see the graph.

That I think we've all seen before, but it does really does graphically help to explain what is going on in the watershed.

The next section 3.3 goes into development and gives a lot of background based on the watershed and the changes that have happened in the county.

So explaining a lot of things from this MRLC data, which uh will end up being an exhibit or attachment to the report to give you the full report for each of the counties for that, but again, the background talking about how much development has happened and the types of development and things that have changed in the three counties.

Three, the next one is stormwater planning, and this is the standards and ordinances that you were just having a conversation about, and one of the recommendations.

Is going to recommend that all three counties have a review of the current ordinance and standards that are in place and update those accordingly for the appropriate recommendations for each county and also in hopes that the three counties would have similar ordinance and standards, could be a difficult thing, but certainly each county could use an update, even if they are slightly different as to where they go.

Again, there is this.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna write down just to send Justin that example language.

Okay, agricultural areas, again, describing some of the things that we saw in field observation and some of the existing agricultural concerns that are out there.

Talks about soil health and edge of field practices and what they are, so that in the later parts it can recommend actions towards those types of things.

Becomes kind of an important section related to you making me seasick, Justin.

So you know, we walked around a lot, we we saw some debris.

There are um definitely a lot of areas that are in wooded wooded areas of the watershed, you get large wood, as we know, debris and accumulations are an issue, and this we talked a lot about it, and the recommendation is going to be based on some criteria.

So this section describes kind of what is in place, and you're gonna see back in the recommendations how we attempt to kind of split out where do you remove a log jam and where don't you?

So that is a place where we definitely will want some feedback from you all on that.

Trying to find okay, that's going to be in 5.1.2 later.

Okay, so again, key findings is describing what is there.

There's the, this is from the drone, the UAV aerial photos, which I thought were really amazing for seeing what is along the stream, and this is, of course, at the S curve between the two counties, and you can see the three areas where it's pretty much blocked, and you can see that the southern one is really eroding around it for that.

So we'll talk here in a minute about recommended actions for that.

The next section is Ohio River effects.

Um the exhibits for this are going to show the profile of the water and a plan view of the backwater from the Ohio that, as you all know, that that backs all the way to the county line, up around where that S curve is, which also adds to where those waters come together, creating those log jam debris accumulations.

So, again, describing the existing status and conditions and issues.

How rainfall distributions has increased the peak flows over the years again, as we know, describing that.

Then we have stream flow data, stream gauge data.

This is more describing what information we've had to date, and from the state road 41 gauge and the other gauge that was up at Gibson County, basically just describing that there is a real lack of data there for us to be able to really evaluate over time what the water is doing in different places.

So I know you're doing the gauge already.

There's a table there looking at the findings from the existing gauge data that we have and just confirming some of the information about the trend analysis of increasing peaks, and that kind of information.

Channel access and maintenance is 3.8, describing basically that there are various locations along the creek where there may be not occasional, but uh repeating areas of debris that you may consider getting permanent access to.

And tying in the the drone imagery, which I am calling UAV now.

I am told drone is not the word to use.

So the UAV imagery for that, there's a section talking about the bridges.

There was a comment in the survey that the Lynch Road Bridge perhaps is undersized for capacity for the creek.

Um whether or not that is true, it could be analyzed, and that will be a further recommendation, watershed hydrology and hydraulic modeling.

Um of course there was some work done in the 2014 Burke study to evaluate Gibson County, but the whole watershed and the lower parts of Pigeon Creek didn't have the same uh analysis done in a section on other contributing factors.

So, there are there any questions or comments so far.

Again, that's just trying to lay out the existing status of what we're looking at.

Um I would like to know if there's going to be any discussion inside this plan on the pollution of the water.

I know that some of the studies that got incorporated into it have as their goal to talk about that.

Or I know that we are rarely touch upon recreation, but that is something that the community would very much like to be able to do on this.

So I I didn't see that, but I didn't read it, you know, exhaustively.

So those are a couple of questions, and I may have a couple more.

Okay, was the first one?

Did you say collision of the water?

Pollution of the water.

Okay, sorry.

Um, so the question was uh pollution of the water, and uh to answer that one first.

We we have had a little bit of discussion about water quality, but this study did not include water quality as a factor that we looked at because I'm looking at Christie because I believe that would require a separate work plan to look at water quality because that was not a purpose of this one.

Yes, that's my recollection.

That in order to do water quality improvement projects, we have to have a specific water quality plan in place, and uh before we decided that this will be kind of like the first part of just a general work plan, and the water quality would be either added on later as a potential addendum or a different completely different document.

It was a discussion item.

It was brought up in the survey, and one of I think one of the folks who joined the meeting.

So there were no creek or the Ohio.

I'm sorry, the creek.

The creek.

Pigeon Creek.

Yes.

Yeah.

We did not have additional recreation items that we looked at and and they're not, they are not part of the recommendations here.

Not because we don't think that there should be recommendations.

It just wasn't a again, it wasn't a focus of this study.

We were looking more at flood damage, flood flooding as a factor.

And I view that as a weakness of this report.

And I wonder what we can do going forward to increase the public uh awareness and involvement in our activities.

What's the gentleman's name, Jordan?

Uh yeah, so to kind of add on to what's being discussed, uh I was involved with a uh zoom meeting with uh I'm sorry, let me grab my phone because I forget the young man's name.

Um, my question really was for our um consultant, our consultant will do to um acquire promote more public involvement, we have two more public meetings planned as part of the plan.

Um right now, my understanding is that those would be planned to be basically here as part of a regular meeting, but if it makes more sense to have that elsewhere, somewhere where we could get more people, more involvement.

Um of sorry, maybe at U of V.

University of Evansville.

Okay.

Um we would not be opposed to doing a presentation like that.

We would not be opposed to doing something maybe outside in the field by the creek or um, yeah, we we we do have two more public presentation spots.

I'm gonna say, um, so if it would if it would help to do go somewhere else, which I think it probably probably would.

That's so location is part of it.

What else would you do?

Timing perhaps an evening meeting would get more people.

Do you do press releases?

Do you do appearances on local TV?

Those are the things that get a people involved and aware.

Um we don't have that set up as part of this contract, but I think someone from the board could certainly do that and would probably better represent the board for that.

We did do that.

We we got it on Facebook, we tried it on uh like using soil and water conservation, uh SWCD guys, um, Facebook news releases, posters, um, word of mouth, uh, I mean, I blasted, I mean, I blasted it out there two or three times on the last one.

Um, I know, but it's it just didn't it just didn't result in enough.

Yeah, we can't drag them in.

I mean, I don't know.

Then like uh what one of the meetings we had, it was a gully washer outside, so it kind of blew everybody out of that.

Um but I mean we've been but then like I said, there's a new there's the renewed interest, the gentleman from U of E with the kayaking and stuff.

Um he's been uh posting and stuff, so we're utilizing him as well.

So we'll definitely utilize him to try to get the word out, plus his group of people, so that opens us up to another uh a different group.

What about a younger group actually?

I understand that you are um handcuffed by your contract, although that we could agree to make that a you know an additional add on.

What about under your current contract you inviting people to come to the meeting?

Specific people that you know or organizations that you know would provide relevant input, like for example, engineers.

Oh, I see.

Um, yeah, the way I believe the way that the contract is set up now that it is the board is arranging for and planning for and getting a location and all that, and we're just sort of invited speaker.

Um if there are particular people that we want to reach out to to invite, I'd be happy to pass along that invitation.

Um I know we developed a massive list of people and agencies, organizations that we thought should be involved.

Did anybody actually invite them?

Yes, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

I like said I blasted an email out, and in some cases I had to apologize just in case you've already got this.

I'm sorry, but we're trying to get the word out.

Um, you know, we did we got uh we had a gentleman that lives downtown that he he saw it and he wanted to talk about it, but he really I mean honestly wasn't like impacted per se.

He lives in an apartment downtown, but he wanted to come speak to it.

Um so it's just a matter I don't I don't know if it's apathy or well, and in my opinion, what else kind of information would we actually need because it's a creek, they're gonna have woody debris removal, we're gonna be looking at the banks, we're gonna be all of the things that I've read in here as active measures are pretty much covered in everything that we could do.

I mean, it's just a matter of putting it into order as to how we're gonna do it, which ones we're gonna start with.

So I mean I think we need the public involvement too, but I don't think that we have done a bad job or that Christopher Burke has done a bad job in putting the plan together.

No, I didn't think I wasn't implying anything.

I was just saying I I think that it's pretty much covered in what they have proposed.

So I mean we'll be we'll be reaching out, like I said, to another group of folks.

Um we've reached out to USI, but we really haven't gotten any action from them.

The U of E group with the kayaking is a new within the past few months.

Uh that generated a lot of interest on Facebook, so we'll be hitting them up and uh I'll post there.

Like I said, I make a little flyer and post it up.

Uh got it at the libraries.

I if I was somewhere and I had a poster with me, I stuck it on their bulletin board.

Uh, you know, grocery stores, uh, uh clubs, you know.

If it if it looked like it could be posted on their board, I posted it up.

So it was it was out there all over the place and I mean we got who we got.

And then I did reach out to like the other uh townships, uh county surveyors, um, some of the some engineers, um you know, we can.

I think I even blast I probably picked up some area plans contacts too.

So I just they were probably like, oh my goodness, Linda, thank you.

But I was trying, like I said, trying to get the word out.

Please pass this along.

Uh you know, we'd love to hear your input.

Okay, I'm gonna go on with chapter four.

So the alternative analysis.

What I want to note about this chapter is again that four starting with 4.3 is a list with some explanation of management strategy strategies that we are saying are not recommended and why.

Um this goes through the the dredging, the channel straightening, realignment, the clearing, wholesale clearing of trees from the banks, and then there is a section about Ohio River flood protection.

Like if you were to somehow you know construct a levee across Lower Pigeon Creek with a structure that allow water out.

Um occasionally you have people talk about increased tile drainage or ditch drainage to try to drain areas to uh reduce flooding and improvement of drainage ditches, all of these are the types of things that generally come up as recommended ways to reduce the flooding that have various reasons as to why we don't believe those are the best ideas in this watershed right now.

So I wanted to just stop and ask about this section.

I don't know if you've had a chance to read these or not, but um are there any thoughts on whether or not we you like including these reasons or oh I I think it's a very good uh little group of things because I've been um asked about some of this as um the Vanderburg County surveyor with our regulated drains, because our regulated drains are more set up for getting water away, they're more drainage channel type things versus like Pigeon Creek being the meandering thing that it is with the biodiversity that it has.

Um, you know, some folks have like, well, why don't you straighten it out?

Why don't you dredge it out?

Why don't you do this?

And then uh I was also asked now if a tree falls across one of your regulated drains, you get it out right away.

I said, yes, because we have it's a different, it's literally a different situation.

You know, it's a drainage channel versus this being um a creek, like it says here.

This I don't know if I can say it, the sinua sinew.

Sinuous city.

Nice try.

Yes, I'm like, yeah, but then um, you know, strategies focused on reducing the sources of sediment and runoff.

Um, that you know, falls under the soil health practices and floodplain reconnections.

You know, that's more durable flood damage reduction, like you stated here.

So I mean, even though we're not looking at some of the um some of these strategies also mention why, for water quality purposes, you don't want to do some of these things.

So I think it's a good point.

These are good points that you make, and I like I really do I'd like to show some folks that one.

Yeah, I I too think it needs to be included in in there because it gives an explanation as to why the that's not the approach we're gonna take or will try not to take.

Yeah, I was it was I was hopeful that as you get those questions at least there would be something in the watershed work plan so that people would understand that you did consider that idea.

It wasn't like you just we didn't just just dismiss it.

It was right.

Yeah, it's based on evidence and previous experiences from your folks.

Okay.

Well, uh if it if you read into it more and and you change your mind or feel like something needs to be added or removed from there for whatever reason, um that would be good.

Um, chapter five goes into the recommendations.

Um back to that.

Yeah, you may want to reference the presentation and um by is it Bob?

Bob Barr.

Barb Barr that he came and talked about um the you know removing debris at length.

Oh, the wood the woody debris removals, yes, presentation.

Yeah, good point.

Okay.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah, sure.

If we're talking about things that have been brought up that we have addressed and so forth, I know that a considerable amount of our time was taken up uh last year with regard to something in Warwick County, and none of that is in here.

My question is should it be?

The potential that that sludge pond that potentially could potentially fail and all of that.

We've um we did not go on site to review that actual site.

Um we were aware of the news and the information that the Warwick County surveyor was talking about.

Um and I believe that it went to the state office and regulatory and they looked at it.

So we we chose not to address it as a not part of the management of Pigeon Creek and that would be handled as part of a regulatory or required legal action.

I'm not sure where it exactly went.

Also, this body doesn't have the authority right now because they're not a member county.

Well, we we talk about many other things with regard to Warwick and Gibson County in this, and I would say that I just feel that it ought to be referred to for Linda's point that she would have something to show to someone that it was looked into.

Well I was I was gonna defer to Christy.

I know that it was it's up I don't it it's not your area per se, but you did hear or we really didn't get a um definitive.

So it it's a little difficult because a lot of the original concerns from the Warwick County survey were not legitimate concerns.

Some of them, yeah.

Some of them were unfounded.

Of he was misinterpreting that site.

Um but yes, I will say it is gone through the regulatory part where DNR is working with the private property owner.

I mean, they went into agreement with DNR on how compliance would look.

So did you say they went into an agreement?

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Would would there be documents that are publicly available that we could ask Burke too?

I don't know what is publicly available.

Okay.

At least maybe a um synopsis or a paragraph or two.

Yeah, you know, just reference that we a request can be made and our legal team can determine what is allowed to be provided to the public.

My intent here is not to fan any kind of flame.

Right, but to prevent anyone from saying we omitted it.

Oh, by the way, this guy was talking about this.

Um I think I understand what you're going for, Cheryl, just to acknowledge it that we were aware of it and that it's I mean it sounds like it's basically being handled outside of what we're doing.

Okay.

Yeah, I think maintenance to show that we're aware and we'll monitor as needed.

Yeah, that's it's in the state's purview.

Purview.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um so chapter five recommendations.

Sorry.

What page were you on?

Oh, I'm on page 32.

Sorry.

Sorry.

I'm getting busy.

I know I'm not gonna look at the speed.

Okay, so that now we're going through the recommendations.

There are some individual sites that we looked at that we have put into sort of general categories, anticipating that there may be other sites that we would find.

The first one is an example would be so a selective permanent access for debris removal.

This would be if you encountered areas where the creek formation or there's a bridge or structure or some sort that you continually have debris build up there that is causing an issue.

These are the types of areas where you may want to get permanent access so that you just have the access to go in and remove that debris anytime.

It would be very select locations, I think that you would have this.

And the one that we did see was Stringtown Bridge.

Um you see some pictures there just from our site visits.

The reason for this one is because it is we think the only bridge in Vanderburgh County that has an actual pier in the creek.

So it just does often build up debris, and while a little bit of debris is probably not a huge concern as it builds up, it does cause more flooding upstream, it does continuously build up, and we looked at an area there for that made a lot of sense for access that was a property adjacent to it.

So there are recommendations there, and if as there may be sites that we find with the aerial photos, if those become regular things, we may end up finding areas where if the debris just accumulates there year after year, we need to remove it.

So is there some local access that we can just permanent permanently obtain so that we can do that?

The next section is wood debris removal in the channel, and this is just to remove debris as it becomes an issue where it is in various places, and I know you had the Lair grant that uh we had a spot that we looked at, um, which is figure 16 on page 35 west of the day school, I believe, was going to be the Lair Grant, and I think that section moved, but the Lair Grant you're able to use for utilize for various areas.

Um, so the recommendation would be that in Vanderburgh County in the lower flatter areas of Pigeon Creek.

If you do have debris accumulation all the way across, that would be good to remove because it does add to flooding in the area.

The next one is okay.

This is where I said we really want to look at this language and make sure that this is something you agree with.

Again, Bob Barr did review this, and um a lot of discussions with the idea that yes, natural creeks and streams do have large wood accumulation, and for habitat they do add to the value for creating sinuosity and flood and riffle areas and um sinuosity, Linda.

So Woody Woody debris, would large wood can be important to a stream, and so you really want to evaluate those areas, and I'm gonna I'm just gonna read this word for word and some sections to talk about the S curve.

Accumulation of debris should be evaluated over time.

Um if it is temporary, and we're defining temporary as expected to move with flooding events, or is it more permanent, which means it does not move or dissipate over flooding events?

A determining factor could be debris that remains through two or more UAV aerial imagery collections or debris that is causing bank erosion.

So as you're doing the aerial photos, whether those be every six months or every year would be a way to evaluate is this just a temporary little chunk of wood that stayed in there and then next rain it's going to go down through, or is it been there for two years?

So these accumulations should be evaluated for removal.

If it's if it's temporary, if the wood is moving or the location is in an area of the floodplain that is very connected, which means that when the water gets up through that area, it very quickly spreads out over the floodplain so that that debris is not causing erosion next to the channel, adjacent to it, it is not causing flooding of houses and structures immediately adjacent to it.

If it has a nice open wetland low area that can flow through, then that's something you might evaluate to say maybe this one's okay to stay.

So the recommendation here based on the aerial photos that we're seeing is that that at that S at the S curve that you evaluate and look at removing.

At the very least, the bottom one that's causing a lot of erosion, but I think based on the fact that those have stayed for a long time, it's worth evaluating to remove those what I'm gonna call log jams at this point.

If it's truly a log jam where it's been there for a long long time and is starting to erode around it, that is where we are recommending that you evaluate actually removing it.

Because I know that is a really big deal for this board and Warwick County and whether or not Warwick County is part of the commission could be a factor as to whether or not you want to consider those actions, and that is something that could also be part of the work plan if you wanted to include that, or whether you just want to leave that as a decision for the board.

I think uh in your table, I think it talks about a high cost of removal for those types of things, and I know from previous experience those have been expensive to remove, and then they come right back, or they just they're basically been in that same area for how long did we look back on those photos?

Um I saw in pre-I'm sorry, in historic uh imagery that area, that S-curve area that Beth was referring to, that it's kind of moved a few different times.

There's I think there's been deposits and the deposits have moved.

Moved some.

I think I do think that the one that was brought to our attention last year has grown since last year in looking at the photography we had from last year versus the photography that we just had done in uh March of this year.

Um it has grown and it is starting to erode further.

Um I was gonna try to have that picture up.

Do you know what page that was on by chance?

The original one.

So the photo kind of illustrates what I'm talking about.

That the part kind of where the arrow is under underneath the arrow, that is actually grown since last year.

It's it's a larger area that is being eroded, and the debris field itself has gotten bigger since I was there last summer.

Um, and this was obviously for March.

So, yeah, and if you notice there's a uh a tree, it looks completely across uh right there at the left, between the two arrows on the left.

Uh yeah, there and keep going up a little bit right there.

So I mean this area is notorious.

Um then I would guess I would have to ask who's it harming.

There's there's questions about whether removing it would do any good given that there are two more upstream.

Um so a study, a look into that, certainly not a refusal to do anything, right?

But the desire to understand what the effects of removal would be, if any.

So and the benefits to the benefits to Vanderburg becomes if you have one like the southern one that's adding a lot of sediment downstream to Vanderburg, that becomes more important to Vanderberg than the other two that you're seeing is which is why we say if they stay there a long time and you're seeing a lot of erosion, maybe it's worth Vanderburg or the commission evaluating that and perhaps that southern one where so much erosion is coming down.

It looks like erosion, but I don't have a set of data in front of me to show the sediment level.

Right.

Exactly.

Right.

I I I think it warrants further investigation.

I don't know that it necessarily warrants action at this point.

Okay.

I'll say yeah, I guess going back to your kind of original question, Beth.

I I personally think that yeah, all problems should be included in the work plan, and then we can figure out later on how we want to address them then.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um see we're back on page thirty-six, Justin, and going on with the recommendation.

Um the next one is about creating storage areas for flood storage, and I've listed the example ones.

There's some that we have looked at.

Um Wesselman Woods.

We we visited Chandler that has a small flood storage area that could be expanded quite a bit.

Um Stephen Wilson is here from BF and S, and there's one that I I have from them that is um a potential storage area.

I'm forgetting what's a what's the description of kind of where that is, Steven?

Uh the north to come to the microphone.

Can you come up to the phone that later?

So there's there's an existing smaller uh storage northwest corner of the Lynch Road Bridge.

Right, go please go ahead.

Oh, I know where it's talking about.

It's on my side of points, but there would have to be a brand there.

The piece of land looks like there's already an existing little pod, I guess, but low line area based into the tree.

You're talking about uh just north of Lynch and just west of Green River?

Is that correct?

No.

Like the Lynch Road Bridge, Northwest property property.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, that's that's where I'm referring to.

It's there's a big lake.

Yeah, but it's not it's that's kind of where we're talking about though.

I understand where you mean.

Um those kinds of areas, the school, yeah.

Thank you.

Um item number four is an area we looked at just west of Timber Road.

We we did a site visit there.

I'm sorry.

I don't remember that one.

Timber Road subdivision.

This is uh maybe I'm not using the right.

Off of Stockwell.

It's it's just northwest of the day school where that bend is, and there's the uh this Oh, timber apartments and all that, that area.

Yeah, yeah.

I think it yeah, okay.

That's southwest southwest of day school.

Is that where you're talking about?

Yeah.

Where there's yes, right.

There's large woody areas that are adjacent to the creek itself.

Yeah, I have very low area.

There's a little tree mitigation spot.

It's the city's property, isn't it?

Yes, it's that area is owned by uh either uh Board of Public Works or Parks.

Yeah, the BPW or parts.

So there will be uh an exhibit for each of these that kind of gives gives more information to evaluate these for storage areas, just as a note on the Chandler one.

I mean, I know we know Chandler's in Warwick County, but could you maybe just make a note that within Wart County's boundary or within Warwick County?

So that way.

Can I ask something here?

Are you talking about doing a storage area not inside Vanderburgh County?

It's just I think it was it was brought up.

It's kind of a bring up thing.

Yes.

Well, not that we're looking because we we don't have jurisdiction there, but if they would it was discussed with Mr.

Michael Bell.

Michael Bow.

Yeah.

He's the town manager.

With the town manager.

Well, it would be a coordinated effort, not a.

My thought would be you've already asked, we've already asked our attorney to do um a memo about the board's powers.

You may want to ask him to add a what a cooperative agreement with an agency to do something like this if that would be possible, and how we would do that.

When that would be if it would come to fruition.

Yeah, I would say we would do that for you and we would get ready to.

I mean, if it's if we decide to do that, we would come up with a proposal and agree with what we could do.

Do we need to put it in?

But this would be outside of our jurisdiction, so I mean, I I think Cheryl's I I understand what she's thinking is it's outside of our jurisdiction.

Yes.

And it and it would need to be laid out that this is outside of our jurisdiction, and we're trying to work with an outside entity or county or or uh municipality.

Just make sure that nothing in statute prevents us from doing that.

Yes.

I'd be happy to look into that.

Thank you.

I think it should be part of the agreement uh the work we've already asked you to do because it's stormwater and we within stormwater, we may need to work with entities that are outside our jurisdiction.

Yes, in non-member counties, correct, because they're currently not not a member county.

So anyway, just make it a very robust report.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, would you list the bridge analysis based on if there are if we want to determine whether or not the bridges, especially Lynch Road Bridge that was mentioned, that would be part of a hydraulic analysis.

Uh the next section is retrofit of existing developed areas.

Uh so um some urban, some some developed areas were not built with the storm water storage or treatment that would be part of a normal ordinance.

The one site that we did look at was Evansville Day School.

There are a lot of there's a lot of erosion and ravines next to it, and we looked at it, there's no stormwater storage.

Um, so that would be a retrofit of going in basically adding some storage to reduce that peak flooding to the creek.

That's looking at existing um public buildings and properties that did not have that storm water originally, next we might do the retention call.

Is that what she said?

Sorry, is there a question?

No, she answered it.

Oh okay, good.

Um next goes into the passive management.

So these are um actually some really great things that have already done is the UAV flight with the aerial photos for that, stream gauges, I list stream gauges, but we have one stream gauge that is pretty close.

Yes.

Okay, um flood response plans and uh are more safety related.

The flood resilience strategies in that next section is dealing with um flood hazard areas and trying to like get get things out of the flood zone and to work with the areas that you know are going to flood and make it more resilient to the flooding versus trying to stop the flooding.

The next section is the three county ordinance and technical standards reviews.

So that section can I ask a question?

Yep.

Um, what agency monitors or enforces compliance with state law regarding stormwaters when it crosses jurisdiction.

Does anybody ever make sure that the plans conform to state requirements?

So IDEM manages their the statewide requirements, and it kind of falls back to IDEM if a county doesn't have county or municipality doesn't have their own specific.

It's not well enforced.

Okay.

So no one is really the answer there.

Got it.

It's items I regulates.

They pretty much give the jurisdiction down to the local agencies, and they step back unless there's an issue.

That's what I've found in dealing with them in my 20 years.

They that's what they did with the MS4s, too.

They develop these standards and what we have to meet those regulations, and then they hand it down to the municipalities to do.

In any way they seem to fit.

Well, we have to meet their state regs.

We can't be more, we can't be more restrictive to what the state requirements are.

And that's basically where they leave it.

We have to meet their state regs, and then we can't be more restricted.

Okay, and I do have the note written to send Justin that example language in case that's something you want to look at prior to any recommendations from this report.

Um the next couple of sections talk more about on farm agricultural items, and I think especially when we talk start talking about incentivizing soil health practices.

This falls in line with what kind of Cheryl was just asking is a lot of this you'd want to incentivize in Gibson County or areas where we are talking where we did see that the farming was happening right up to the edge of the creek and where those types of practices would be better implemented.

So when Justin, or I'm sorry, when Craig checks out, you know, where and what you can legally do, the idea would be that you would be supporting incentivizing those practices in that county.

I just would like to make a note on record.

Uh, Miss Musgrave needs to uh excuse yourself, and just for the record, 1120.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

Sorry I'm taking so long.

Um the last couple of sections there.

Let's see.

So we have public input as we've talked about.

We're gonna do an inventory and you're gonna have uh the the website you have the website, so you'll have the GIS inventory, area for public comments, um, an interactive site so that you can share the things you're doing and gather information from the public about if there are specific areas that they have concerns or questions.

I want to be clear, whenever we're building that, we want to have some form or fashion that they can send us problem areas.

That's what I'm looking for with part of part of the GIS inventory that we referred to.

And you would like it, so remember when we did the survey, they could go to a specific spot and enter comment.

Do you want it similar to that?

Yeah, I think that would be good.

Um, you know, basically that they can if there is an address, they can enter an address.

If there's not an address, they can plop a basically a pen on a map and explain what is being seen out in the field.

Then that way, you know, we can evaluate what needs to be done, what needs to be tackled in that regard.

Okay, that was my understanding is how you want it to be kind of interactive like that as well.

Okay.

So I know I've been talking a long time here.

We have the implementation considerations at the end again, which is just a table to summarize all of these items that we talked about, references, and then I'll be adding the exhibits and the attachments as well as that will have graphs and pictures and further explanation type of items.

Um, what I would like to I'm not sure how you want to handle it.

What I would like is if you have individual comments or concerns other than what I've already written down several things here, I'd like to give you um maybe the next two weeks to gather any additional board comment before I move on with updating and doing another version, and then the plan would be um I'm gonna talk about this potential on call contract here, but pending that I think we're coming back in August, and we want a plan for um Matt Rummel to come down with me to show you the inventory GIS tool and kind of show you the you know, kind of the draft of that, and if the aerial photography is accepted as this um task summary sheet to the on call, then he would also be showing you that with um how that looks with the stationing and be able to tie that into.

We'll begin referencing everything along Pigeon Creek by stationing that is tied into that piece that he's going to show, and Burke would be inventorying that to mark out all the different areas where things are happening for like debris, and then we can monitor that over time, and then we can show also and comment where things are happening and what we're seeing.

So August is what we're aiming for, but um I wanted to talk about this, and Justin and I have had a few discussions.

This is sorry, let me just write down.

Let's let's just choose a date.

If you all what would be two weeks, um what date would next two weeks from today?

Yeah, uh two weeks from today would be June the 29th.

June 29th.

Okay, I will send an email too just to remind everyone if any comments back to me by June 29th on the draft work plan.

Um so just and I have a few conversations.

He thought it might be good if I explained this on call services contract.

The idea is, and we had written this into the original contract was that when all of the work plan items were recommendations, and you chose to do any of those items that would be a design or a study or a set of construction plans, or uh, you know, we want you to let's say, for example, you decided to remove the lower log jam at the Warwick County line, um, and you wanted us to go do um a set of plans and a cost estimate and work with the contractor and set all that kind of stuff up, that would be an additional small contract for us to do that work.

The work plan contract agreement describes that any of those items where you're choosing to do something that you need additional BERC help for, we would set up an on call contract, and then you could do each of those items as a task order to it.

So what it is is instead of setting up let's say you choose to do five different things, and we're also including Bob Bar and BF and S in this.

So if you needed any of our three groups to do something, we want to set up this overall umbrella contract that that is zero dollars.

This doesn't this doesn't put any money into it from your standpoint.

It's just setting up this umbrella to get the terms and conditions and our hourly rates and all of that all set up so that Craig has all of this reviewed and it's all good.

And then if you want to do something, we write a task order.

It's like this drone information here is task summary sheet.

This is for aerial mapping and baseline inventory related to the aerial photography that you already did.

We would put a dollar value on this to say here is the work, this is the estimated cost, and anytime you want us to do work, you have to approve each individual task summary sheet.

It just prevents you from doing a whole new contract with all terms and conditions and all the additional paperwork.

It just describes the work and the cost, and so every one of those the board has to approve for a dollar value.

We can't do any work without your individu your approval for each individual task summary sheet.

So there was some discussion, Justin was asking about putting a $20,000 limit on the on call for the rest of the year.

Um, and then we decided we're not sure that makes any sense because there is zero dollars tied to the on call.

It doesn't allow us to do anything in every individual test summary sheet has to be approved for whatever dollar amount.

So you all can decide you know, yes, no, or 20,000 is our limit for any on call related work.

Justin, am I explaining what you wanted to explain or yes, that that kind of covers what what I wanted relayed from someone besides myself so that everyone understands I I didn't understand that that's how this was necessarily to go, um, and I'll I'll leave it up to the board as to what how they want to proceed in that regard, but uh it's my recommendation that makes sense because there is an approval process involved before any work is done.

So I'll I'll leave that part to the board to discuss and see whether or not that's how we want to proceed, or if we want to uh pursue other options in um secondary work.

Um I have a question.

At the last meeting, did we not discuss this?

And did we not approve an amount already?

Good, sorry.

So along with that, at the March meeting when this was presented to us, we agreed that'd be up to twenty thousand dollars for one year and to have Craig review it because Craig had not reviewed this at all.

I've seen no updates, I've seen no indication that Craig has reviewed this, so I'd like to get more information on that.

What happened?

I um did not get a chance to review this or follow up.

I apologize.

That was um that um must have not gotten done.

So I don't think I don't think it's all your fault though, because you know, we mentioned up to 20,000 one year and there was no revision that was provided.

So, and then I think they they we they came back with this type of agreement, which I think is a good a good agreement uh based I can have it if we have it back for the next next meeting.

Yeah, with legal review, then I I mean overall I think the idea of how it would work is I'm fine with idea, yeah.

I'm and then I'm concerned with some of the terms in here also that like for example they have still in here like 30 days or something like that a month to pay invoices.

Do we want to get that extended?

There's just some small things I I do think Craig should have opportunity to review, right?

Yeah, and mind you I was not saying oh we need to vote on this today.

I just we need to get moved forward on yeah, I think the idea is great, and then yes, depend b because of the meeting um situation, sometimes we can't we haven't been able to meet every 30 days, so I'd like to make a motion that we table this issue and well Craig's gonna let Craig review it.

Yeah, correct.

Yeah, okay.

So we have a motion to table for Craig's review and hopefully bring it back at where we at June, July.

Sorry, the months are going.

Yeah, I'll second to table it.

So we have a first and a second all those in favor?

Aye, aye, so three ayes.

And uh sorry, a quick clarification for me.

I think that the board has decided that 20,000 is the limit for an on for the on call for the rest of the year.

I think that's a board decision.

There's zero dollars once once Craig reviews this one and we make language it's I think it's gonna be a thing.

So if we go with this type of agreement, it's it would be a case by case type of situation.

I do not feel comfortable with an agreement set up this way.

I mean, we can do the same thing with an up to a certain amount.

Okay.

I agree with that.

Okay.

I just was clarifying.

I just I didn't know because I saw the um, yeah, I feel I feel like if we don't put a cap on it, then it's an open door.

I would just assume have for the year 20, and then if we find that there's something big that comes along, then we can revisit it.

Yeah, revision.

Okay.

Along with it as well.

I know that it can be done.

Is it possible to show as well the hourly rates for the different job classifications?

Oh, yeah, they're all in here.

Well, I'm sorry.

I I meant that for um when you go to do like the the general proposals like for the UAV work that you had mentioned, it was just a general amount in general if for the future if it can be broken down by how many estimated hours by you know this job classification.

Okay, you're you're sorry, yeah.

You're talking about the uh you're talking about the task order, uh, yeah, the actual task order, not related to this.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Anything else on our Christopher Burke draft work plan?

Any other questions?

Nope.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you, Beth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so we are new business B executive directorslash chairslash stress secretary treasurer.

Discretionary monthly payments.

And he has included a yeah, I wrote a short a little memo note to us.

I wrote a short memo.

Um this was discussed at our last board meeting.

Um and I was asked to bring something to the board um in writing.

Um basically in my opinion, all that I'm asking for is the ability to but between meetings.

If we have an issue where like for instance, we didn't have a May meeting because we we couldn't we couldn't um get enough board members here because of scheduling um to have a quorum to have said meeting are there is there a way to continue to function between meetings for small amounts that have to have approval at the next board meeting um and that's kind of what I've outlined here basically saying um if we if we have purchases below five hundred dollars um and then I I did reference in particular the uh fuel wex bill fuel and um auto maintenance um that would be done there under that wex bill that already has a cap on it of five hundred dollars because that was our restriction for our account so that's why I referred to that um if you don't feel that's appropriate that's fine I just there's a certain I know we have vendors that we can we've been able to let them know that hey yeah we had a we had a we haven't had a meeting to have approval of a claim but like the WEX bill that's like that's a whole separate entity that I'm not sure that we can do that.

Yeah just not pay the bill for I think they're nation national so they have late fees and things and so that's and I don't want to mess we're a new vent or a new uh client for them and we had to put the five hundred dollars down in that account so those that would be I don't want to I didn't want to mess up Pigeon Creek's uh credit rating so uh like the fuel bill with WEX that comes in monthly regardless of whether we have a meeting or not so that's that's why he included that and then the five hundred dollars like if we come through and need something uh that he needs to conduct business for instance was what we talked about a a drive to house an external hard drive aerial photography so it's not completely taking up space on the servers that we are given access to by the county um and it's also a backup in case something happens in that regard too well it's not taking up space on the laptop so that the laptop has the capacity to manipulate the data as we all know you even though I don't know how big the hard drive is on that thing but once it hits a certain point then it bothers down.

That's that's generally what I'm referring to if you don't feel it's appropriate that's fine but it just it kind of hamstrings conducting day-to-day operations to a certain extent if we don't have a regular meeting that's what I'm proposing so here's my motion I move that the board authorize up to 500 in discretionary spending between meetings for office and routine operational needs limited to approve budget line items with no additional expenditures permitted until any prior use of these funds is reviewed and approved by the board.

So we have a motion I will second that motion and we've got a nod from Craig so all right we have a first and a second any further discussion all those in favor aye aye aye three ayes moving forward old business I did provide um we got the actual two new CDs from the funds from that matured uh back in at the first of May at the old at old, I'm sorry, at old national bank.

Um the two amounts.

We basically split it in half as we were were as we discussed in the previous meeting to have a certain level of liquidity.

Um we had a three-month and a six-month CD.

Uh the three-month was at an interest rate of 3.70%, the six month was at a 4.11%, and these both were at United Fidelity Bank, um, the branch here in uh Evansville.

Um, so this is some of the paperwork to show what we what was done and just uh to update the board on the status of said investment.

Any comments or questions?

No, just would like to say that it took a little bit.

We had to jump through some hoops since we were moving the money and um we had to provide a lot of documentation and then I had to make another trip to the bank after everything, so just the just to because it is a quasi-governmental entity, we had to provide a little bit more uh so that it was clearly clearly clarified by the bank.

The uh the next item on old business is the web the update on the website.

It is very close.

I plan on um I'm gonna be out of town the rest of the day and tomorrow, but I plan on sending out a link to everyone to review, hopefully, by the end of the week.

Um I was still tinkering with the calendar and some of the upload um like our previous meeting minutes and things of that nature.

I was still tweaking with that, so wanted to try to get that finished before I sent it out to everybody, and then we will link once we have the inventory from Christopher Burke, we will link that GIS website web map, um, to this website.

I've shown a little bit to Linda and Karen the the way that it looks.

That was kind of a battle with the web developer to get in the minute, didn't it?

We don't like the colors that they originally presented, and it just didn't look very good.

I didn't I don't know where they it looks a lot better now.

Um, and I'm still getting up to speed on being able to um edit and manipulate everything, so bear with me, it's a process because I'm not a web designer.

Um but that's the status of that.

Hopefully, before the end of the month we go completely live and it's open to the public then in that regard.

That's all I had for old business and were there and just because we jumped.

Were there any questions on the CD or the investments?

No.

No, I was wanting some general updates on the USGS gauge project and then also the LIRA grant for any reason.

I sorry about that.

I should have provided in any agenda, but I can definitely do that.

Um I actually spoke with uh this morning, um, and I am totally blanking on his name.

I've got it in my email, but I can't remember his name right offhand.

Um with USGS.

Um I know we were gonna try to get on the agenda with the commissioners tomorrow if we can.

Otherwise, we may we'll have to wait two weeks and get on the next agenda.

Um the encroachment agreement.

I had emailed Craig.

Um, there's kind of a standard encroachment agreement that the county uses, and I think we could probably adapt that to fit what we were trying to do.

Um could you speak to that, Craig?

Yeah, um were we going to did we want to approve that today or this?

Uh I'd sent a draft.

You sent the draft?

Previously, yes.

Um, not the one before that had us and USGS.

This would have to be between Vandenberg County and USGS.

Because we don't own the gauge and won't own the gauge.

Okay.

So looks like we need to.

Well we'll have that, yes.

We'll have that on the agenda for tomorrow at the commissioners.

We can get that done.

And have that ready to come back to us.

Well, we could just then forward it to the USGS folks.

Because we're yes, because we're out of we wouldn't be a party to this to this.

Yeah, we're not a party.

Right.

Yes.

Yeah, that one has that has been sent to uh that has been drafted and I guess it's been sent to President Elpers on the commission to be included tomorrow.

It ha it has been you said that.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes.

So then that that will be then we can just forward that as soon as we get it.

Yeah.

That is that correct.

We would just once it's approved by the county, then we can we can send it to USGS for them to sign, approve and sign.

Yes.

Okay.

Um the gentleman that I spoke to on the phone, he did say that as soon as that is done, they will put boots on the ground and start construction.

Cool.

So they're they're ready for us whenever we can get all of the of the paperwork.

So that's that's where we are with the uh USGS stream gauge.

Um the um Lair grant.

Uh I have I had sent an email to uh Mr.

Doug Newsbaum with Lair, and we spoke about how that the grant can be used in another spot, and we do have until 2028 to use those funds that have already that we already have been approved for.

Um he did relay to me that if we choose to apply for an additional grant in the current cycle, which would end I believe in January of next year.

Um that at least the way he talked to me, and I will clarify this to make sure that that basically resets the clock for those additional funds if we want to combine multiple efforts.

Cool.

Um we are going to meet at some point this month.

Um he wanted to come down and evaluate what we have as a whole, and I was going to try to take him around and show him areas that I'm aware of, and then maybe we can um have additional efforts, have additional projects that we take to the lair grant uh committees to possibly get a new grant as well.

So that's so it would add that to what we've already got?

That's my understanding currently.

Didn't we apply for a second one?

Yeah, that's he's talking about that with the second like that.

No, there was one layer grant applied for.

Oh I thought we there was there's a DOM.

So we so originally we had applied for a layer grant with help for help with the work plan.

We did not get that.

Right.

This was the layer grant for log jam woody debris removal in the specific spot of the near the school near the zones of day school.

Um that is what I'm referring to as being able to be moved to a different spot on the creek.

But I thought the other grant is uh IN.

It's an ID, it's it's a DOG.

It's an IDEM.

Yeah, 205J.

Thank you.

That is for the stream gauge, that's for the stream gauge.

Yeah, I know I understand that, but I I honestly thought that you just you filed the second lair grant after we got the approval of the first one.

I don't know why I'm thinking.

No?

Uh uh.

Okay.

Sorry.

No, sorry.

Dang.

They're all running together.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So those are the updates on the grants and the projects associated with said grants at this point.

Like I said, there will be some new evaluation.

Um I will say as well, I've heard that they're also gonna be changing the Lair deadline to potentially the end of the year rather than January 15th.

So just be aware of that potential change.

I I think the best course of action for us is for me to meet with Mr.

Newsbaum.

Yeah.

Evaluate, hey, we've got this site, this site, this site.

Yeah, and if he's willing to come down and look, that's great.

To give us guidance of so we're not guessing of spots where they may or may not approve this spot is good because of this reason or that reason.

And we focus on our grant efforts for likely approvals like you had referred to previously with the original one.

So that's kind of where we are.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for the updates.

Um we we can do them all at once if they're if we're okay with them.

Is that right?

Is there any question or discussion?

As long as it's unanimous.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent items as presented.

I will second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion for the consent items to be approved as presented and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Yay.

Three eyes.

Unanimous.

Okay.

And then claims paid, that's just kind of for informational purposes, correct?

We're just we're just we're just having it there so we so we keep track of everything.

It's another trail, so to speak.

Um, and then I would like to say that we our new bookkeeper is uh working diligently, and uh she created the financial report.

She condensed it.

Basically, I wanted to say that uh this is the type of report that um the county presents to um state board of accounts, and then um there would be more for the end of year.

So this would unless someone needs more information on the financial report, this is where she would like to be with it.

No, I just have a comment.

Okay, my apologies because I forget if it's the State Board of Accounts or the Department of Local Government Finance, but they are offering one-on-one sessions to go over budget reviews before for everybody, so I don't know if that'd be something that you know that you guys be interested in.

I did get your email on that.

I hadn't had a chance to get to it yet.

But now she did also say um she checked with her contacts, and I can't remember that.

Yeah, you do not have to submit a budget.

Yeah, for whatever reason.

But I I do think it would be helpful to me to be able to understand um and some of the yeah, because um not very bright whenever it comes to those sorts of things.

So, it's just not in wheelhouse.

I mean, it's just it's just not it we've never I mean as long as I've been here.

I mean, the the auditor's office is all this is something they've taken care of, and for those guys for the city, it's the city controller's office.

This is not something that I mean we're uh very aware of these things, but we're not not responsible for these.

Um she did also say that uh there was some like categorically with the like 1,000 is personal service, 2,000 is supplies, three thousand is other services, and four thousand is capital outlay.

She was kind of looking at that and getting us more in line with county uh standards, I guess, or county the way of doing it.

I I think that I think that will help us whenever we start talking about future budget because then it can be.

It'll help her when we come to the end of year stuff too.

Oh, go make some more no it's over there.

Um she's uh really reviewing our things, and I would like to just reiterate that I also would like her to look at 2025 and make sure we're in compliance with everything there.

Um because she has a lot of experience with these things, so uh I don't know when she'll be doing that, but I just wanted to reiterate that uh I would like her to look at our 25 submittals to make sure that we are and she has already looked at January 1.

Yes, she's been looking at 2026 to make sure.

Because I was doing the best I could.

So do I need a motion to uh approve her to um look at 2025, or is that just kind of part of her?

It I mean it may incur some additional cost, but her additional hourly cost is only $25 an hour.

Is it above it's remind me is it above and beyond what her uh approved contractual?

Yes.

Yeah, let's have a motion and approval then.

Okay.

What do I want to kind of have to look at the 2025 budget to two in the middle?

2025 submittals, yeah.

Make sure that they're in compliance with straightforward account and DLGF and DLGF.

Okay, because I'm I'm a little bit concerned after looking at some of the things.

There was some misspellings and some of the calculations in the salary spreadsheet was and we don't want to get on their we don't want to get on their bad side.

We want to we want to be proactive rather than reactive, so I wanted to make sure that everything was um in line, and we're not that far.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, thank you.

So we have a first and a second to allow Jamie uh Rutherford, our bookkeeper, to review 2025's filings and make sure that we're in compliance and that everything adds up, so to speak.

All those in favor, aye, aye.

Christy, did you I?

Okay, sorry.

Okay, uh public comment.

There's nobody was she no.

Anything anyone else has for anything that maybe we've oh, and then the when is it did the kayak gentleman say uh I'll have to get back with him.

He just said he wasn't gonna be able to make it today.

Okay, because he'd be I'm sure that'd be interesting.

He he is a student at at uh University of Evansville, and they actually put a presentation together um that I was potentially gonna have them uh present to the board about some of their findings and it it was geared more towards recreational side of things and some of the water quality stuff.

Um, and some of the things that he's you know, yeah, just a general overall.

And this may speak to what uh Commissioner Masgrave was talking about getting more public involvement, because they did have a pretty high response rate to what they what they posted, which they had asked people about, so it may be a two-fold thing, it may help us with some of those things and yeah.

Well, well and it's a it's a younger group.

So okay.

Anything else?

Motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye, yay.

See you next month.

Eleven fifty-five.