It is Wednesday, August 26th at 3.30. I'm sorry, not 3.30, slightly after 3.30, 3.36. So first on the
agenda is public input for items not on the agenda. Do you want to acknowledge? Oh, that would be good,
too, because. I don't know if we have to do a roll call. No. But that would be good. So present in the
Nattie Hill Room is Surveyor Tron and Wright Rondoff.
I'm here as Commissioner Jody Madeira and also Commissioner Julie Thomas. So first on the agenda is
public input for items not on the agenda. We have no one here in the Natt U Hill Room. Would anyone
online like to offer public comment on items not on our agenda? Seeing no hands, I will move on to the
second item.
item on our agenda. Approval of minutes. I actually have an item. I would actually like to move that
we amend our agenda to re insert something that was struck off, which is the long range dream, long
range stormwater plan contract award with WSP. Yes. And then also as suggested, but
that we should make it contingent to legal's final approver approval prior to final action. That's for
emotion. I'm just putting it on the agenda. Okay? Sure. I. That is fine with me. Do you have any comments
on putting that back on the agenda? No, I'm happy to voice vote. Yes, let's do a voice vote all on all
in favor of putting the long range
That is back on our agenda. Would you like to keep it in its original location? It's fine. Okay.
All right. So any other modifications on the agenda? Okay. Then we'll move approval, move forward with
approval of the minutes for July 22nd, 2026. Any comments or questions on the minutes? All right.
I believe we can do a voice vote for that as well. All in favor of approving the minutes for July 22nd,
2026, say aye. Aye. Moving forward to our stormwater expenditure report for May, June, and July 2026.
Okay, for May.
pipes, we spent $4,084.76, and backfill $5,339.10, and then gas was $5,619.16. That was our main expenditures
on that month. Any questions? We need to make that change, too. Yeah. In the minutes. I already made
it in my motion.
No questions. I don't have any questions. Okay. Pull up the packet. Other one out, so I'm just trying
to dig through my email. I had not really planned to attend, but then was trying to make sure we had
a... Questions? The packet should be in there. Going through the website. Okay, there's two of them now.
I just had to refresh it. Yeah, because I sent the agenda separate, then the packet is a totally separate
document. Is there any large expenses that you wanted to bring attention to? If not, then no questions.
Not in May. The large ones were the ones I read off. Yeah, summer.
And then for June, we had field crew supplies, $5,183.16. And backfill, $22,924. Fuel, $5,978.43. Contractual
services, $22,081.35. And that was for traffic control. And we also paid the IU fellows.
Close all fees, $4,904.22 cents. That was for street sweeping. And then public education, $1,850. And
that was to rent a room for Ivy Tech for the work. Contractors workshop. Contractors workshop. That
was back in January. They billed us a little late for that one. Yeah. Yeah, they did. Okay. Any questions?
a comment not a question. Just with the out of category transfer from professional fees to backfill
slash pavement repair maintenance. Is that a reflection of us taking on some in-house projects and instead
of paying those services to contractors? We did have several more projects this spring in-house to repair
or replace
And so that would be where some of your backfill and the back, the pavement repair is coming from. Yeah,
our crew has been very busy this year. So it's not exactly a one-for-one, but it does show our initiative
of taking on more in-house projects, which I applaud and are very supportive. So I just wanted to bring
that out and bring attention to it, not just for the board, but for the public too. So bravo. They've
been very busy replacing and repairing a lot this year.
Okay, for July, we had the gas was 7,675.86, professional fees $14,857.51, and then the service, maintenance
service, fleet maintenance, 9,520.49, and the grade all needed repair again.
the cost on the repair for the greater. It gets a lot of use. Is was that divided between high that
was my question is actually how did that get divided between highway and stormwater or did storm is
this storm waters great all. Okay it's not it's not okay got it thank you. Just verify. What was that
dollar amount trying to look on my phone it's a little difficult. For the repairs or maintenance of
the greater nine thousand.
Five hundred and twenty dollars and forty nine cents. Okay, that's A lot of money, but it's a very expensive
piece of equipment. So So not as much as you would think Awesome, thank you The questions comments on the
to new business. So first item of new business, we have the shoes, very contract amendment number five
for the baby Creek redesign. And I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve, um, the shoes,
very contract amendment number five. I will second that. Um, so I'm sure you have not to exceed on that.
What? We can, um,
about it first, maybe. So you have all seen projects, design projects related to Baby Creek several
times now over the last almost decade. And we hope that this is the final one, the final plan that you'll
see. So notably, this plan will include a new schedule down here.
partially on pages eight and nine of the packet for the next four years to staggered design and construction
of each of these crossings. One of the biggest cost savings that we will see is not including a run
around. The replacement method will allow us to keep one lane of traffic open during construction so
that residents
will still be able to access their homes with very limited interruption. And that also means that we're
not disturbing their property or the creek area as significantly as if we did include the run arounds.
So you'll see it as a staggered approach with the final construction happening in 2029. Go ahead.
I was just going to ask if you could then give us what the change order amount is, because there are
things cut off and things added, and what is the outcome of that change order financially? That's a
great question. I think that the original, when they bid out the first crossing, the anticipated cost
was almost half of what the bids came in at.
which I think the beds were close to a million dollars just for one single crossing, which is a lot
of money for a single crossing. And so the hope here is that this design will be at least a quarter
of that. When we do go to construction, it'll be much in the couple hundred thousand dollars for construction
rather than a million.
But my question is, when you have a change order, there's usually a dollar amount involved. Is it higher?
Is it lower overall? How has the contract changed in terms of the time? It will be lower overall because
they've already done a lot of the design work. And so this is just checking to make sure that this new
design matches
the figures that they've had before. So there will be just a hydraulics check to make sure that things
haven't changed since they did their initial hydraulic modeling, and to make sure that these new structures
that are going to be part of the design all line up together to adequately convey the drainage and not
give us the same problem that we're seeing now. That's it. Thank you. Got it. Perfect. So I don't have
exact dollar amounts for you, but we do know that it will be less
Well, I guess to that point, the amount that's on here listed, if we put it not to exceed, that's fine,
right? Because any change order we would see in the future. Correct. And to be clear, this is only for
the first crossing. We don't really want to do that.
the hydraulic modeling check and then the design of the first crossing, it doesn't include construction
or anything else. So it is limited in what they're giving us with this initial. I would recommend we
do not include a dollar amount because it's lower overall and we let this play out and see how it goes
because this is something where they are, we're doing something outside of a traditional bridge project
here and so
Let's see what happens. It doesn't mean then like during each phase the construction phase would be
presented with the dollar amount again. Yes. Yes. So this is for the preliminary design. We'll get the
final design which would include a quote for the engineers design quote for the construction. And then
when we bid it out we'll see what the contractors think. I guess.
I don't see it being problematic having the not to exceed, especially if they're going to come back
here for the construction cost. If it creates some difficulties, I would want to know that outside of
us needing to approve a higher amount for the same type of work that you just outlined.
be able, depending on how the vote goes or the motion, I don't think able to support a not to exceed
clause. Also, just it would be nice to have some visualization aids or graphs, maps within this proposal,
because when you say structure,
1345, 1349, 1362, you know, that's good because you're reviewing the design plans and things of that.
But, you know, unless I come over and ask you to kind of point to these on a map, you know, it doesn't
really give me any spatial understanding of where these structures are. So just even like just a simple
aerial with some points on it, you know, with labels.
would be really nice especially when we're talking about you know a potential over all projects and
construction you know million to half a million to a million plus to get this to the finish line so
that's just something personally that would be very helpful for me and then just to be very transparent
I did have the
conversation with our stormwater program manager just a second ago that I think I have confidence in
our stormwater program. I think we have a very expert team of people over there. My concern is still
some unknowns. So this might be a project I can get behind, but I would really like to see what happens
with that reorganization discussion before
we potentially commit more money and obligate stormwater dollars to projects without knowing what that
impact may be. And I know November's not that far away. So to get behind this, I'm going to, again,
have confidence and faith into the program and the program manager and their team. But it'll be hard
if we see another project like this come on the agenda before
we understand what's going on with that reorganization effort with the town of belts. So that's just
a general comment. I know we don't need to get into that or address that. That's just I want to be very
transparent and let everyone know kind of work time because it will impact our budget moving forward
and also have a long range plan. And I think getting that thing in place will really give us a
ability to do a forecast of our expenditures and know where those obligations are going to fall. Our
operational costs and our personnel costs. So I recognize that there is no map included with this, which
would help clarify some things for you all and the general public. So I hope you can see this map. The
first crossing is kind of right here, where this first little bend is past the big bridge.
And then there's other crossings. The second crossing is not too far. And then the third one is a little
further back, which is the worst one back here. And then there is, right around here, the fourth one
is a little further back even. So this final crossing is not part of the scope of this, but these,
and they get a little complicated because of the way that the water has winded around the road, crisscrossing
it multiple times, and so it's coming in at odd angles. Thank you for showing that. Appreciate it. This
first one, yes, is just here at this little bend. Are there questions or comments?
I don't know if we got seconded. Yeah, I seconded it. I would like to just put the not to exceed $107,700.
Complicating anything. If you're going to do a not to exceed, I'd recommend something like $120,000.
There are some things that may change here. Okay, that's fine.
even 130 would be okay. You know, I doubt, I doubt they're not, I doubt they're going to go to over
200,000 without coming back and talking to us. But you know, I, I like to make sure we put in some of
those parameters also. Can you name a number please for a motion? I would like to offer a friendly amendment
to, but not to exceed that 120,000, $25,000. You said 125. Yes.
I will second that because it does not matter. Can we do a voice vote on that? We have to do a voice
vote to amend the motion. Yes. All right. Voice vote. All those in favor of amending the motion to approve
the Shrewsbury contract amendment number 5, Baby Creek redesign, with a not to exceed clause for $125,000, say aye.
Aye. That motion passes. So then I believe we can go to the public. We have no one here in the NatU
Hill room. Would anyone like to offer public comment on this online? No one? You have to do.
Thomas? Yes. Madeira? Yes. Enright Randolph? Yes. Motion. Wonderful. All right, so now we're on our
added item of business, bring back the long range drainage plan contract award, which was says on the
agenda continue to September 23rd, 2026. But again, we amended the agenda to move that forward to today.
I'm going to make a motion
that we consider the long-range stormwater plan contract award for WSP. Yes. And I was just going to
say that that is not the drainage plan. It is the stormwater contract. What is the title? It's the long-range
stormwater plan contract award. Yes. And yes, so. Is that going to be the official name, even though
it says drainage?
Well, it'll be the long range drainage plan. Um, I added contract award because this was, we are awarding.
I don't know why, because the drainage board isn't doing it. No, I true. Yeah. I guess it's county drainage
in general. So, um, I call it the stormwater long. It's always been a stormwater long range plan as
far as I've been like the last one we did. And the last one was to, we can just rename it. We don't
have to do it. No, no, no. Yeah. No issue with us renaming it to stormwater.
Okay, good. Okay. So, uh, Yeah, I guess that's a shilling question. No, no, I'm just saying he can give
us information about this contract. Do we have to vote on that? Okay. Yeah. All right. Mr. Dilling.
Thank you very much. Uh, the, um, I understand that the stormwater board met with Debbie SP and others to
do interviews and selected WSP. So the WSP sent us a project or some proposed contracts. One is the
master services agreement which would apply to any type of contract we have with WSP and then there's
the work order contract which is the specific one for consulting services. So the master service agreement
is written as if it covers
construction design construction documents and so forth so it's not really applicable to what we're
doing here and so if my feeling is if the county were ever desirous of hiring WSP to do construction
or design work that I would I would not recommend signing this master service agreement because it's
It limits their liability to $50,000. It requires the county to fully indemnify them, even against the
contributory negligence actions, which the Tort Claim Act gives us coverage on. So I would never recommend
signing that. But if you are going to just
have them do a consulting contract where the likelihood of damages are minuscule. I think it's okay
with a few corrections, and I shared what I suggested
with Erica, she sent it to WSP, and they sent us revised contract back. And those changes basically,
they have a, the contract starts out and it refers to WSP, then it shifts to consultant, but there was
nothing that really tied consultant to WSP, so we made that connection. Then, let me see if I can find
my email to make sure my, yeah.
get this a lot where companies say that the documents produced are professional services, and we always
have to change it to work for hire. And that's a copyright thing, which means we own the documents,
we can do whatever the heck we want with them, and you can't stop them. But we did put in there that if
if the contract ever involves construction documents or estimates, that we would not use them on any
other project without WSB's approval. And that seems fair to me, because if they design a project and
they construct it, and then we have somebody else come in to do an addendum or an amendment or an addition,
and they refer to those plans, and they make a mistake that creates problems. WSP just wants to be off
the hook, and that's reasonable. Then, let me see. Okay. Finally, we just said, let's make this master
services agreement
contract good for two years. That will cover the 15-month projected time for the consulting contract
to be completed. And then if in the future we ever wanted to hire WSP to do construction design and
so forth, we would enter into a new master services agreement. But we'd have to wait two years for that.
So those are the changes. And with those understandings, I feel
about it, but you know, it's the kind of contract we see all the time now from engineering companies
where they just, it seems like they don't want to take any responsibility for anything they do, and
if they can get away with that, good for them, but we hope that we can not agree to those things. And
WSP agreed to those changes that you've outlined here? Yes. Okay.
that. Okay so I'm good with that in this contract will then go to now it's had legal review. It will
now come to the commissioners for final approval. Yes. Yeah. I guess. When said and I guess there's
probably some subjectivity. Um.
you know, to maybe recommended practices or solutions. And I guess what I'm trying to get at is let's
say there's a project that is recommended and they provide some best practices and we have the capability
to do that in-house
and we're not gonna maybe contract that work out, where does that line come from us being able to use
the document to execute that project and it not be considered them actually almost providing us construction
plans? I mean, there's some ambiguousness there or uncertainty of what a full on engineering shovel
ready project within this plan to what is just,
best practices? Well, I would say best practices are best practices, but construction design would have
measurements, specifications, things that relate exactly to the project site. So yeah, I don't see a
lot of opportunity for confusion there. Okay. And then just to drill in a bit more, we couldn't utilize
those for in-house purposes?
I feel like if we're going to pay for that, they're going to provide it, and we have the means to do
it in-house, that seems fair. As you stated, that if we were going to do contractual services, we need
to get their approval, but like... Yeah, if we're doing it in-house, we're doing it on our own design,
okay? Our staff is going to go out there and figure out
how to install this pipe, you know, what size pipe they need to order and so forth. So that's all done
in house. So that wouldn't be something that WSP is providing us. That kind of... And they wouldn't
have to kind of give us the thumbs up approval like if we were going to... Okay, I just wanted to clarify
that because I understand using another company's work to, you know, offset some of your own time and
effort if you're a private
service provider, but using that internally for us, the stormwater program to tackle some of these issues.
And if you don't see the issue for us being able to do that, then yeah, everything's good. I just wanted
to clarify that a bit. So if that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. Well, and within the scope of what the plan
that they provide us is they're not giving us any plans. They're going to outline potential projects
for us and give us a ranking
based on the criteria we all established with them, but they're not giving us any plans. The plans will
come at a later date. Even if it is like a recommendation, like replace this pipe, that's gonna need
to have specifications as Dave said. So we don't expect to have- They go from a six to eight inch, is
that that measurement? Is that the ambiguity? It would probably be increase this pipe size. It would
be more generic. Be determined? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So we don't expect them to give us any
specific plans that say you need to redesign it in this way. It just says redesign this intersection
for drainage. And that's what I'm anticipating. I just wanted to drill in that we had the liberty to
execute things within that document. So thank you. I have one final question on this. Is two years too
long from your perspective as a stormwater program manager?
No, I mean, there's always delays that can happen with the getting the plan together. So, you know,
we've got our 15 months ideal situation for getting the plan to us. But as we know, there's just delays
that could happen on our end on their end. But I mean, seven months. So if we end in 15 months on time
and we want to use them, we can't use them for another seven months.
We could use them for additional consulting. I just wouldn't use them for construction or design. We
have other firms. Thank you for entertaining my questions and answering them. I would hate to have a
contract that's too short, too.
I have two questions. The first one is, do you feel like the milestone points are specific enough within
the contract term that we are very clear about, you don't get paid until this happens, you get paid
this percent, then you write. So you feel comfortable with all of that, right? And Mr. Schilling? That's
something that
I mean, you're talking about the task payments? Yeah, these are just estimates, and I don't have any
feel for what stuff costs or what might be involved. There is a provision in the contract that I don't
think is applicable here that I didn't like, and that was if each of the stages has a not to exceed
clause, that they could exceed those
as long as they didn't exceed the final amount, which I would not recommend agreeing to, because they
can just push it off to the very end, and then walk away, and there you are. But that's not part of
this that I can see. I guess that's why I'm asking, because we've had difficulty with contracts and
planning relating to consultation services over a long period of time, and that's why I'm asking. And
I'm going to ask a question.
as well about GIS data and whether that becomes ours. And I just wanted to verify that that is in the
new, because I don't have the contract in front of me. So I just want to make sure that that's in there.
Yes. We did work with Tron and John, the GIS coordinator, to include the correct language so that we
would know that we were getting our GIS data from them in the correct format. OK. So yes. And it's ours?
Yes. OK. Thank you. That's it.
We have no one here in the Nattie Hill room. Any public comment online on this issue? Seeing no one.
I will do a roll call. Okay. Did we need a not to see. There'll be information on the at the commissioners contract.
we're really just, we're just really recommending to the commissioners and commissioners approved this.
I think we have to approve it too, but let's for another day. Okay. Um, so all in favor of approving
the, uh, WSP long range stormwater plan scope and a master service agreement, uh, that legal, uh, is
that how we were doing it?
we're not doing the master service agreement, right? Just the. Well, the work plan is attached to the
master service agreement. Oh, so. Would approve the master service agreement and the work plan. Oh yeah,
and you're OK with that. Yes, OK, I mean, it doesn't sound. It doesn't sound advisable like what you
wanted. Yeah, yeah, it sounded to me like we could separate them and you're saying we can't separate them.
But that's why you're saying, don't do any construction design with this particular company until this
contract lapses. Yeah, I mean, the only reason you're doing the master service agreement is because
of the work plan. But the work plan is a separate agreement of itself. So you'd really need to do the
master work service agreement and the work plan component. I'll buy that. Feel comfortable making a
motion? Do you want to? I feel like there's some legal
that needs to be. Well added in this. So like, how would we go about they did? David provided the comments
and we sent it to them and they incorporated his comments already. No, I meant from our motion. No,
because what? Yeah, I understand your question. So yes, it's already been revised and accepted by WSP.
So those revisions from legal review have already been made and accepted. So at this point, it just goes to.
the commissioners. Yes. And you got another bite at the apple if anything comes up. Yes, Mr. Schilling
was just, I think, walking us through what had been problematic. Yes. OK. All right. Sorry. I just was
like, what? Yeah. All clear? Yeah, I want to make sure you know what you're voting on. We're clear.
Thank you. I'm glad you said it, actually. Thank you. Yeah, it was a great clarification. OK. So Thomas?
Yes. Madira? Yes. Enright Randolph? Yes.
Excellent, thank you so much. Thank you. And the last item of new business is the Curry Pike Phase 2
Televising Contract with Groundbreakers LLC. I'm going to make a motion to approve the Curry Pike Phase
2 Televising Contract with, is this? Wait a second.
I don't have the contract here. It's the last one. It's not, because that says Hydrovac and West Third.
It's a CCTV. It is. It's West Third Street. It's Groundbreakers. That's their contract. OK, sorry. So
the Curry Pike phase two, televising contract with Groundbreakers LLC.
in an amount of $28,489.80. So this is phase two. Phase one is nearing completion. So if you drive on
Curry Pike and head south from third slash west 48, you should see some nice freshly paved road there.
And so that's the goal with this is to televised those pipes before we pave it to make sure we replace
anything and make any drainage improvements before
it gets nice and freshly paved. Any questions? No. Just for the public, if they look at this, it is
very confusing because it says hydrobreakers doing business as groundbreakers. Hydrovac services. Yes,
hydrovac services. But yes, the contract is actually
on the agenda as Groundbreakers LLC. But if you look for this on the agenda, it says Hydro-Vac Services,
LLC, DBA, or doing business as Groundbreakers LLC. Yes. So this is what you're looking for if you're
looking at this online at home. So I do actually, I just want to note that I did ask Ms. Ridge about
this because this is actually on the commissioner's agenda tomorrow morning because we had done this
before and I said,
wait a minute, Curry Pike televised, I remember this. And she said, look, it's a different contract,
it's a different phase, it's a different company, in fact. So I just wanted to explain the question
and the answer I got, and I'm satisfied with that answer. Thank you. Yep. And I think, yes, that's definitely
important to emphasize that it's a different phase. This is a multiple phase.
project. So I always like to kind of make sure that we bring a little bit of awareness that this is
one of those proactive measures and one of those things that we are now kind of working in tandem with
highway to do. So like we're actually making sure that all of these underground
issues, pipings, water conveyance measures are upkept before we finish the road so we don't have to
come back after the fact and tear up a new road and then dig down and unclog something and then reconstruct
that road. So I just wanted, I always kind of try to make note of where that partnership and where that
collaboration and where that benefit does come into play. So thank you.
Something else that I found really cool in a nerdy fashion was that the mapping files are accurate to
the sub-centimeter. GPR is pretty cool. Yeah. That is really cool. Any comments or questions on this
contract? All right. We have no members of the public here in the NatU Hill Room.
Would anyone online like to offer any comments on this matter of new business? Seeing no one No roll
call votes to approve the contract with the groundbreakers for televising curry bike phase two Thomas
yes, Madeira. Yes, and right Randolph always a yes to maintenance. I
and we have one item remaining, and that is staff reports, emergency watershed protection program, litter
of intent has been submitted following the June 17th, 2025 tornado damage. Yes, so we had another significant
weather event in Monroe County, and I was actually contacted by my contacts with the NRCS asking if
we were going to apply for the same funding, this funding again, and I hadn't anticipated it,
this due to the scale. But they encouraged me to get our letter together. And then we're going to meet
with them on Monday to narrow down some of the locations for the maintenance and potential log jams.
We just know that the amount of debris that's coming through some of these valleys is going to be significant
after every single rain event we have for the foreseeable future. So we're trying
narrow that down to the ones that are going to be most impactful to our roadways or residences and or
residences so Look for an update on that in the coming months after we get our feedback from them Probably
not until November or December so the the partner agency is For this we're not doing this alone because
there's other work getting done so
Well, the review and the funds are passed through the NRCS, our local chapter, so the Indiana NRCS and
USDA, because it is federal funds. So then it comes down through them to us. But we don't have a partner.
We are the applicant, but they work with us to make sure that we have a feasible project.
Yes. Initially you had mentioned some work with Morgan Monroe State Forest. Can you explain that part
of it? Yes. NRCS has also been working with DNR at Morgan Monroe because they have significant damage
and debris there as well. And so we're exploring the possibility of partnering with them
that we will be able to partner with someone on some of that joint jurisdiction area. But we know that
there will be other areas that are Monroe County only. Um so we'll see how that all pans out. It's always
great to be able to partner with someone. But I know that the scope of this is much larger than the
Clear Creek project that is hopefully finishing up the within the next month as well.
assigned or divided or we don't have any idea yet. It's we're just applying for us. But we do recognize
that there may be a cooperative relationship with DNR in the areas where we intersect with the Morgan
Monroe. Thank you. Thank you. We did sign to approve that letter. The commissioners. Yes. So, okay.
certification. There is nothing formal to approve yet because we're not accepting any funding yet. It's
just preliminary. Do we know what the time frame will be, by the way? So we had 60 days from the event
to submit our letter, and then they have 270 days, I believe, from our letter submittal to give us back
a damage survey report and the recommendation.
So hopefully it can be a little bit shorter than that, but it is a significant area. So they may need
that full, the full timeline. And in the meantime, if something comes up like it's going to rain today,
tonight something comes up and we end up having to do some remediation work as a result of a big rain.
in that specific area, we're logging that. We're logging it, sorry. Sorry for the pun. We are keeping
track of those expenses and can potentially use that as maybe part of an offset or a match or something
like that because we're already doing the work if we have to do it. It's a little tricky with work performed
already. So we'd have to be careful about that. But yes, we are tracking all of it, especially to know
the areas that are going to be
the impacted the most. So yes, we may not be able to be reimbursed for anything, but we're tracking
it to show we're already doing all this work and it's going to end up costing us quite a bit, especially
the channels into a jam that our crew cannot, doesn't have the equipment to access. And we don't know
anything yet about whether there'd be a match required or a local match or anything. We don't know any of that.
there is a match requirement. So the funding would pay for I believe 75 70% 70 75% of the project. Um,
and then so we would bring the remaining portion of that. That's what I'm asking about. Can that go
toward a match potentially if you're already doing some work in that area? Because
I know that we can use man hours towards the match, but I don't know if it's retroactive. Got it. Well,
that'll be a good question when we get there. Thank you. That's on my list for Monday. Perfect.
Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Hopefully we'll have cause to address that. Yeah. Yeah. That'd be nice.
It's not related to that. I just had a quick announcement. I want to bring some awareness.
The GIS division has launched Monroe County Precipitation Viewer, and I know that Ms. Pennell has seen
it. You can check that out. If the public wants to see it, it tracks the precipitation. And we also
created flow lines from derived contour data, from LIDAR data.
So you can actually like kind of see where the water flows. Yeah. If you want to bring it up. So you
just I think this is kind of unfortunately a good time to bring awareness because of what we
just experienced. But you know if the public is kind of interested of trying to track some of the
precipitation, look at different hooks. And also when you zoom into a certain scale, it'll show different
flow lines, it'll show different critical watersheds. And this is something that we just recently deployed
and made. I just thought it would be a good time to plug it. And thank you for showing it online as
well to the public.
And thank you for being so innovative with everything you guys do see the flow lines. I had someone
Well, this was our GIS technician Nick and Angelo's and I he Created those I actually had someone in
my office just the other day that was experiencing a little bit of flooding and ponding and you know,
you can tell what's going on with contour lines, but these
arrows make it so easy, and they were able to visualize it instantly and was super happy and impressed
by these flow lines or flow indicators. Thank you. That's it. That's wonderful. Thank you. Yeah. Absolutely.
And speaking of flow, we have flowed to the end of our... So any other business?
Alright, then I believe we are adjourned until September 23rd, 2026.