00:00:05,970	Go ahead and call the November meeting of the water resources or Canadian Water Resource District to order. Wendy will call, please. Andrew Smith. I’m here. Manager Re. Here. her. Here. And in vinegar. Here. Chamberer. Here we have a core and we will continue.

00:00:32,130	Uh, looking at the agenda this morning, uh, first item up is the approval of, uh, we had 3 separate meetings from last month. October 9th, October 28th, and October 30th, a couple of more special board meetings to discuss the Hogue Island Project. Move to approve, Mr. Chair. All 3? All three. OK. Say again.

00:00:53,600	Got a motion by manager Jones and the second by Manager Smith to approve all three of the last month’s meeting minutes. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Minutes are approved. We went on to item 3 this morning, Amendments. In the amendments to the agenda, I think we do have a couple this morning. I think we’d like to add the North Dakota DOT permit.

00:01:15,970	Michael Dave to the discussion under old business. A that as item H at her old business. Uh, Roger does have some uh update regarding the joint powers agreement that we’ll discuss with the Missouri River Joint Board update. Under the EAE meetings they’re under old business. Anything else did. OK, we do need to look at a new date. For next month meeting.

00:01:45,900	Uh, it’s currently scheduled for Wednesday, December 11th. So we can add that to the agenda at the bottom of the agenda as well is to look at new dates and hopefully by then we’ll hear availability of the. Meeting room as well, so. OK, there’s no other amendments, I’d entertain a motion to approve as amended, so moved.

00:02:07,200	second. Got a motion by Man Jones and then seconded by Maninnegar to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. I haven’t motion passes. Gentta is approved. Moving on to item 4 comments from members of the public, not seeing any. We can move on to McDowell Dan this morning, Mainnegar.

00:02:37,130	Yeah, uh, have not heard that we have any of the, uh, tattoo appraisals completed, but I’ll turn it over to you for a head update. Yeah, I, I did talk to Wade. He had, uh, Some family friends that passed away, so we didn’t have time, but he should have it together within the next week or so.

00:02:51,530	Good. So yeah, so, uh, that’s, that’s the status of the, uh, easement. Negotiations, um, Michael gave me some good news. He’s had some breakthrough on the water supply simulation work that he’s doing, so, uh, Uh, hopefully that’s, uh, that’s back on track and moving along any more you want to add to that, Michael? Um, hopefully

00:03:23,000	by the time next month rolls around and your last meeting. Pardon me. We’ll have the uh results in the. graphics that uh we had for the prior simulation so that we can present that to.

00:03:46,200	OK, yeah, um, and then Michael, any update on the emergency spillway stabilization work plan for spring of 2025? No, just the fact that, uh, we’ll be putting it on the agenda for staff to, uh, put that together similar to the last ones and get the permit and stuff all in place. Uh, we talked a little bit about the um. Option to put that out for bids to deliver materials in the winter because of load restrictions, so.

00:04:03,070	That’ll all come up probably right after the first of the year, so. OK. And then, uh, you all were made aware that we had a request to do an emergency exercise out there, uh, at some point, but, uh, we’ll leave that decision up to the rest of the board, and Mr.

00:04:20,730	Chair and Randy, on that, I do have the, um, going back through, um, had the opportunity to review the EAP and update it. Uh, none of the landowner contacts changed, but there were other contact changes within that, so that document is updated. Um, I’ve got an email list, we will email the uh.

00:04:39,200	revised document out to all plan holders. And so we’ll have that out shortly, so be ready for an exercise should you choose to do one. All right. Do we, we don’t post it on our website, do we? No, OK. And uh then finally, Mr.

00:05:04,570	Chair, uh, on October 23rd, David Robinson and myself, uh, were present for the, uh, inspection that was completed by Kateate Staley from the NRCS. And, uh, inspection seemed to go well. She was, she was, she was very thorough, but, um, at the end, she indicated she didn’t find any, um, major issues.

00:05:31,230	Um, that, um, hadn’t been, hadn’t been discussed or, or talked about in previous inspection, so we’ll just wait for their, wait for their written report and, uh, don’t, don’t expect to have. Uh, any, any major issues coming out of that. uh, David, do you have anything to add to that? No, yeah.

00:05:52,130	So, that’s all I have on McDelam unless, uh, Parks and Rec would like to give us any updates? No, no, that’s. With that inspection, is that, would that be the last inspection. I, I understand they do, they’re gonna do a one next year and that will be their final next year. Be the final Then the state, often they do their inspections. Once every 3, once every 5, depending upon the facility. OK.

00:06:19,600	Hm Imagine starting to button up, Dave, for the, for the winter, get things. Yeah Good. Good season? Yeah. Good. OK. All right. Thanks, Randy. Anything else for Randy? OK, hearing none, we can move on to financial reports this morning, Dennis Chair board members, um, so I’m on pages 10 and 11 are the balance sheet.

00:06:45,870	I, uh, will just go through some of the details from October. Staring balance and our checking of $852,377.70. We paid bills in the amount of $79,348.77. We had income in the amount of $61,341.66 which included uh real estate, state aid, um, income from McDowell Dam activities. Um, small amount of interest. Uh, reimbursements through Hogue Island.

00:07:20,600	And, um And, uh, And some other miscellaneous income for O&M funds. Um, so we ended the balance in our checking account $834,370.59. Um, we did Um, in the interim, since the last meeting transfer. Funds from CDs that came due intovero wealth.

00:07:49,470	Fund Um, it’s basically a glorified savings account that earns pretty high interest um comparable to CDs. Um And we transferred 127,000. $567.52 into that fund. So that is in there, um. Uh, so net result is we earn $27,567.52 on those two CDs in that 6-month period. What was that number again? The total, yeah, uh, 12, no, the, the interest. 27,000. 27,000, OK. 5.

00:08:24,600	I reserve unbalance that remains unchanged from previous months. We do have, um, 3 other CDs in the amount of 1300 $3,784.60. Since so Uh, everything adds up, um. I move for approval, Mr. Chair. 2nd, 2. Got a motion by manager Reepen and second by manager Jones to approve this month’s balance sheet.

00:08:50,730	We do you take roll call vote, please? Andrew Smith. Yes. Manager Re. Yes. Manager Jones. Yes. He Benagar. Yes. Chair La burger. Yes, motion passes. One more item before I forget on next month’s agenda we’ll have another CDU do that comes due on December 12th in the amount of $303,000. Um, but they’ll come with recommendations.

00:09:15,400	One of them might be just to transfer into this wealth fund, but you might give that some thought in the interim. OK. So, that’ll be on the December meeting. OK. Makes sense. Mr. Chair Dennis, what, um, what are the interest rates right now on the CDs? varying all over the place, you know, I haven’t checked in the last couple of weeks.

00:09:32,600	I assume they’re still up in the 4 to 4.5 I think yeah. Are they? OK. 4 to 4.5, you know, yeah. This, this wealth fund earns right now is earning about 4.9. Again, that adjust some monthly so it can go down in a heartbeat without and, and, Almost need to monitor it.

00:09:53,270	Plus they charge us a maintenance fee of 0.25%, so that’s not bad. But thank you. Moving on, Mr. Chair, on pages 1213 are the profit and loss statements went through those, those look good. I move for approval as presented. a motion by Mangereep and the second by Man Jones to approve this month’s profit and loss statement.

00:10:18,870	Any discussion Any questions. If not, Wendy take a roll call, please. And Smith. Yes. Manager. Yes. Jones. Yes. And. Yes. Chair Landenberger, yes, motion passes. Um, this is under financials. I, um, it’s in your packet page 14, um, there’s a website proposal. Website update proposal, um. I guess uh I don’t know Wendy wants to talk about that or not.

00:10:48,770	I, first time I saw it was in the packet here, so. Yeah. So, we, uh, we hired this company before to do our website. Uh, actually, we ended up going with them. The company we had before was no longer hosting. Yeah. That’s what, yeah, the. It’s. Yeah, so we ended up switching over to Tao. OK. How.

00:11:11,230	Yep. That’s kind of what I call. When I talked to him about the issue we were having connecting. He said that It would probably be a good idea to update the website. Yeah. To make it more user friendly. That would be a good idea. Make it more mobile friendly. Yeah. Yeah.

00:11:30,870	So, he wrote up a proposal, To update it. I do find like I, I cannot get onto our website from my work computer it gets cut down by a firewall, and I think this would solve that, right, Wendy? Hopefully. Yeah. Yeah, I can’t get on the phone. OK. I guess, Mr.

00:11:50,230	Chair, one thing you’ve noticed with websites is the, um, storage available. You know how much, because, you know, the district continues to put more and more documents out there, and as you put more and more documents because of the storage component, it tends to slow things down, so it would be a question I would have for Tawa State.

00:12:05,800	As they reformulate it. I think now they kind of segregate the operational site versus the storage site, but still you have to have sufficient storage to put the documentation that you have all this. Yeah, it talks about creating web forms to help manage content and things so in there.

00:12:25,900	They have an estimate of 2 hours, it looks like, so I know Wendy, if this was kind of just an estimate and then they’d bill by the hour. You know, but we can. OK. OK. All right, any questions for Wendy? If not, this looks good to me, so. In a motion to approve and so.

00:12:51,070	Second, OK, got a motion by Man Binnegar and a second by Manager Jones to approve the appraisal, the proposal with Tau Interactive to rework our website. When you take roll call vote, please. Andrew Smith. Yes. Manager Re. Yes. Andrew Jones. Mander vinegar. Chair Landenberger. Yes, motion passes. When Wendy you reach out? Yes, I will. OK. Thank you.

00:13:17,730	And then on page 15 is pledge securities that were approved at our last meeting, so, um, I guess that’s just for information. OK. Yeah Sounds good. OK. Thanks, Dennis. We then can move on to item 7, drainage permits and complaints. This morning, Man Jones, anything, any update that’s a or Michael on the Randy Cook. Yeah, I’ve got, uh, one update.

00:13:43,400	I’ve been corresponding back and forth with uh. Um Michael Gerre with the City of Bismarck and he’s noted that historically that area has been subject of, uh, gravel mining. And he said that may have influenced the topography out there.

00:14:02,600	I’m not sure I totally agree with what he’s talking about yet, but, um, I will look into it further and like I said, the request has been for a meeting with them to have a conversation, so, hey. Thanks, Michael. I, I do know that to the south there is right across the highway, but I don’t think that’s going to affect this property.

00:14:18,600	No, actually this property, um, and again, it’s a historic thing that I’ve got to look at for. Yeah. There was gravel mining to the north, not on this property on this quarter, but on the quarter to the north and then there was some where the current residence is and there was some relative to, The, uh, West side of the Metro Industrial Park,

00:14:35,230	but I don’t know that there was actual mining within the low area. Which was kind of the, the question, so we’ll do a little bit more research on that and like I said, uh, the city’s open to a conversation, uh, obviously, as it says in the memo, uh, they really don’t have any authorities outside.

00:14:51,670	They’re, you know, Set limits to do anything, but, uh, it’s just a function of understanding what that is and where it’s going, uh, Mr. Greer brought up the issue of the ability to move the water uh downstream because obviously there’s some significant low areas further west.

00:15:10,530	Um, and I pointed out that the, uh, highway department was open to taking it down Sibley Drive, which has the capability of, you know, removing that water, so, uh, we’ll continue to have conversations on that, so, OK, thanks, Michael. Yep. Uh, so, in your packet is the, is the memo and all the information with the maps and some of the.

00:15:27,470	Spreadsheets that kind of explain what’s going on out there. Any questions for Michael this morning on that topic. If not, we can. Probably get an update next month as well. OK. Thanks, Michael. We can then move on to item 9 this morning. Projects, any updates on Sibi Island, I imagine. No, we could probably look at taking that off the agenda.

00:15:50,570	Um, maybe there’s one more item. Probably could. There would be a few things we can leave it off, you know, take it off the agenda because it’s probably gonna be a while before we get to the final close out. Right. Yeah.

00:16:04,530	It’s just a matter of, you know, file documentation and a few items, and then when we get there, we’ll put it back on the agenda, OK? OK. OK. So, yeah, you can probably take that off for next month. OK, thank you. OK, moving on to item B there under the projects. Hogue Island.

00:16:24,600	You Yeah, it’s the board knows we had a couple special board meetings, uh, this last month, um, regarding the assessment and certification of Bond and we had one, protest put in, but I’ll, I’ll turn over to Michael for a recap. Yeah, very quickly, Mr. Chair and, and Randy on the uh protest, we went back through the uh background information as to why the rock was placed where it was at based on uh Barley’s request.

00:16:46,000	Uh, for consideration on his protest, um, had clear documentation that the fact of rock was put where it was supposed to be and he was understanding relative to um how that material was going to be paid for and that it was gonna be assessed to him. So the board action was basically to decline the.

00:17:05,270	Um, protest and issue the certification of assessment to the county auditor, which has been done. Um, since that time, I’m kind of roll into the other ones, Randy, if you, if I may, um, since that point in time we’ve worked on the uh record drawings for the project so that we can document for the state where the materials went,

00:17:22,300	all that’s going forward, um, looking pretty straightforward, we just have to balance the numbers on the plan set versus the actual numbers that were installed, um, and the install was based on the contract amount, so it’s just a matter of making sure the numbers match, um, so that would be the record drawings as moving out.

00:17:39,400	For on the bond sales on go ahead. Just one question on the record drawings. Are we also providing a set to the core? Yes, OK. Yeah. OK. The, the transmittal letter of the record drawings will go to the core and to the state engineer.

00:17:57,530	OK, so, For that because obviously from the Corps of Engineers standpoint, from a maintenance perspective, they’re gonna wanna know what rock was put. Right. On those, um, In the past when, uh, Section 32 projects were updated on Hogue Island earlier after the 2011 event, we had, we created record drawings for them as well. So we’ll be able to. Provide them in a format that they are looking to see.

00:18:16,200	Yeah. OK. I was just curious too. I think Roger may this might be a good piece to update the Missouri River Joint Board. just kind of this whole process that we did and Because I’m sure this is gonna.

00:18:33,000	Occur in other places along the Missouri River too, so maybe just something to think about that we could. During that meeting, they usually go around and ask counties for updates for projects and. Yeah. And if, if necessary, Roger, we prefer, you know, a short one page statement to share with the other board members because there’s a lot of aspects as to, you know, how this came about and how it was actually done.

00:18:51,930	Yeah, a little summary summary, a little summary. I think that’d be good. OK. That doesn’t We put one together for another purpose, so it’s gonna be pretty easy to put that. Yeah, I supposed for that word. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good idea. And then on the uh bond sales, um.

00:19:11,130	Dave and I’ve been talking to Scott and John relative to the bond sales. It looks based on their projections that the uh initial amount of 460,000 might be just a tad short for a full reimbursement to the board, so they may up it one.

00:19:28,200	Level based on how they sell the bonds, so we’ll get you an update on those, uh, Bandemont’s probably, you know, when they actually head for sale. OK. But that’s all moving forward now, so. OK. All righty. Coming up on almost 2 years, you think about it, that project, right? In January, and then January, it’ll be 2 years. Yeah. And you have you done the access easements.

00:19:59,670	Um, the access easements, we had, um, there was one landowner that had a question out there. We had one landowner that actually sold their property. Um, the easements you have out there are certainly adequate for the purpose that you intended.

00:20:15,800	It’s just a, uh, clarification, so we’ll have to work through those this winter and work with Dave on new language, um OK. I will put it out there that if the landowners don’t want to change the easement, they don’t have to, but obviously it’s in their best interest for. a number of reasons, uh, specifically if the easement goes through the residents, which in a couple of cases it does.

00:20:32,600	So But we’ll be working in a kind of a winter project, if you wanna call it that, so. OK Then Michael, do you want to Mention the, um, Award this the board nominated Houston for on this, so. Yeah.

00:20:57,400	AC, EC has a number of award categories, um, the, we were looking at it and based on the context and the complexity and the background of this project, uh, we decided to ask the board for approval of a sponsorship for the ACEC award and the water resources category. So sometime this spring after they go through the awards review, um, we’ll see where it lies, but at.

00:21:16,200	At that point in time if um we are you know, given that award, we will ask uh somebody from the board as a sponsor to come and uh receive that at the same time. Thank you. So I got on Ho Guy. Good. Any questions for Randy or Michael? OK? We can then move on to Burn Creek this morning. Manager Jones get an update regarding the.

00:21:38,800	Agreements or contracts. The agreements and contracts are in your packet. Excuse me, um. And I would, I would, uh, move for approval on both. Um, the Cowboys have seen them. And have no problem, we’ll do the bidding per project annually. Uh, for cost factor.

00:22:07,870	Um It starts on page 37 in your packet if you guys are looking for that. Um, So I would, I would make the motion that we go ahead and approve these contracts as stated in the packet. Second OK, I got to motion my manager Jones and the second by manager Binnegar to approve, you’re saying both agreements? Yes, both agreements. With the Cowboys for maintenance.

00:22:32,930	In spring on the Burnt Creek floodway. Any discussion on that. And then there’s the other one’s low key. I’m sorry, Dennis. The, there are two different contracts, right? Yeah, ones with low key. Oh, they’re not both for cowboy? OK. That’s, that’s right. I’m sorry. That’s, uh, Travis. Yeah. OK. So, let’s just approve this, to just the one for cowboys.

00:22:52,370	Just the one, and then we’ll go forward. Just, uh, I got a question. So neither, neither of the exhibits were in the packet, and so I assume somebody has seen those, um, in an exhibit I have seen them.

00:23:09,800	One’s exhibit A is a map of the project which the standard map that we’ve had before the board on several different occasions and exhibit B is the rates. Have you seen those, you’re OK. I’ve seen them, I’ve have no problem with them at this point. But in talking with David, I do think it’s necessary that we go out. And have it bid annually.

00:23:31,600	Uh, some of these chemical prices have gotten outrageously high. And we have to be careful on that creek that we use something that’s water soluble. So, I’ve asked for an update and a bid. So is there a timeline on that agreement of one year from the I thought it was 5 years, 5 years, I believe.

00:23:50,530	Yeah, so that kind of gets, uh, that’s kind of a conundrum then if you’re thinking of annual. Well, would you like a change to one year? Um, Mr. Chair, I think Dave and I had that conversation I think Kathleen, you and I as well, um, is that the agreement is established to where each year.

00:24:10,130	They come in with a Upd updated quote so you, uh, it’s a 5-year agreement, but they’re gonna be providing it every year from a cost perspective. So if there’s a rate change or a chemical cost change or something of that nature, you’ll be approving it every year based on their activity which would be an awareness, but is it a, is it a position where you can

00:24:27,200	terminate the contract based on the price and 30 days written notice terminate the contract for basically the way it’s written in most any. So it’s very liberal in terms of the, of the way we drafted this.

00:24:47,530	Um uh, obviously I drafted it in favor of the, the water district and, um, as the, as the vendors look at this, they may object to any particular provision, which is fine. Uh, that’s the way it works.

00:25:06,300	If they don’t, uh, the way it works, I believe the language is for any reason or any cause which is quite, uh, quite liberal, but it, it, there is precedent for having those contracts written that way, so that’s the way we have drafted it and now. Yeah. OK. Another thing, uh, Mr. Chair, I think this might have been referred to, but in Travis Johnson’s contract, uh, he does not yet, to my knowledge, have low key as an entity.

00:25:28,070	So, he’s working on that, but I, we drafted this, um, as though it were low key in place. Obviously, we can change it. These are simply drafts, but as Travis proceeds with his own work, at least we’ve got the uh the contract in place, uh, the guts of what we can modify it from here. OK. And And, and we got we got to the end of November.

00:25:44,130	Well, and I talked to Travis and he said that he would have something by the end of November. But I believe we call for a signature in January. Do we know? I think so. So If there is something In the December meeting. That we want to change, we can still move forward with that change.

00:26:06,000	OK, so we currently have a motion. Thanks, David, thanks, Michael, um. For the Cowboys. Agreement, any other questions or thoughts on that one this morning. We do have a motion as a second on that one. Mr.

00:26:26,800	Chair on the exhibit the Dennis brought up, um, we’ve used a general exhibit, kind of a Google Maps area that just shows here’s what we’re gonna be spraying, uh, we’ve gone back to the actual uh easement and ownership document map. And we’ll be clarifying that so they’ll know exactly the properties that they’re gonna be spraying from us. Um-hum. Um, more specific perspective than just a general mapping. OK.

00:26:43,970	Uh, we haven’t completed that yet, but that’s, that’s what will be in the agreement, OK. So, because I, I, I go back to our original discussion, Kathleen, when they were here, we, there was talk about, you know, spraying. You know, the actual creek bottom there was talk about spraying the slopes. There was talk about spraying the tops, the back slopes, so.

00:27:01,530	Just moving forward, I assume that rate sheet would give. You know, options for us to, let’s spray this or this and then those maps we can determine what that would be and then. You’re on the board next year, then you’d be able to come to us and say that to the board annually.

00:27:21,330	And asking, About the brain, you know, we have to do the creek bed. Um The Down slope going into the creek needs doing real bad. And the top of the burn needs doing real bad. The south side slope. The farmer who farms that land has been taking care of that. And I’m not gonna monkey there.

00:27:40,000	OK. Um, So We’re in good shape. OK. And then there was there were some trial things they were doing with different sprays and chemicals they tried different chemicals up there. Um Most of them were mixed with. Roundup or what was the other one, the, on the top, I think, Caron. If I remember right, um.

00:28:05,070	And they seem to have a mixture that worked. Uh, will they continue to do that. It depends on the weed crop. And right now, even though it’s dying off with the weather, we’ve got quite a wheat crop. And particularly thistle, it’s popping up all over the place.

00:28:28,000	So we’ll have this discussion again this spring to see what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. OK. Makes sense to me. Any other questions? Well, after being ignored for 3 or 4 years, it’s. That And hopefully with these contracts we can stay on top of it. I no longer than that. Yeah. OK. Very well.

00:28:53,070	OK, we have a motion in a second to approve the Cowboys agreement. Have we discussed When do you take roll call vote, please? Andrew Smith. Yes. Manager Re. Yes. Me or Jones? Yes. And vinegar. Yes. Chair Leenberger. Yes, motion passes. We’ll move forward with agreement on low, low key as David has stated. is being established as an LLC.

00:29:24,570	It’s Travis Johnson who was with Houston Engineers very familiar with the area. Um And he is basically looking at Cutting the berm. Once a month Need pending Next year to see if we can’t get the weeds under control. There is a good crop of grass up there.

00:29:51,370	And according to the people I’ve spoken to, if you get the weeds out of there, the grass will probably Reunite, and it’ll be a beautiful erm again. Um So that is that contract. It’s also a 5-year contract. Here again. He will come to the board annually and get our approval. As to what we think. And this is beyond as Burt Creek though.

00:30:14,400	He’s, he’s also got. Included in there be Fox Island flood control and the MRCC foot control any of the any of the creeks that we have jurisdiction over. He would be right, Mr. Chair, the other projects would be the, um, Basically observation and status in the ONM review.

00:30:38,900	Casey and working with Casey’s and, and, and us as necessary, but very similar to what you saw with the uh MRCC report earlier that, uh, Nicholas did. You’d be doing the same thing you’d be filling out those reports and presenting them to us and we’d carry them to the board, so. OK.

00:30:58,200	And just so Kathleen, it does say March of 2025 through December of 2030 in the, yeah, yeah, for the dates for. We have Some time to kind of get his. Well, and that’s why I want them both to come to the board. Because who knows what this winter is going to bring.

00:31:16,070	And you never know about next spring if we have a spring like we did a few years ago where it rains continually. Um-hum. We won’t be spraying until, Who knows? End of September maybe. So. Yeah, we got that well covered. Um The only other thing on Burt Creek. I Under the OM. I have yet to find anybody that’s going to fix that fence for me.

00:31:44,970	So I’m going down today and talk to the, uh, fencing company down on the Expressway. And see what they want. The last time I talked to them, they wanted $1200 to run a wire, which I thought was absolutely absurd. And it’s one wire that’s broken now, I have not been up there since deer season opened.

00:32:05,830	So it could be more than that, but it’s, I just can’t find a local person to do that. You know, Michael, I wonder if, if Casey or at Burley County Highway if they I’ve got somebody. Yeah, I’m going to call Casey. OK. Um So that is there and then. On the south East Corner.

00:32:31,100	Of the, of the, uh, Burn Creek, we have a stream. that flows to the south and fills Burnt Creek. In past years, North Dakota DOT has gone in there and cut that and kind of did a little drainage work. Uh, they no longer wish to do that. It’s kind of out of their re. So here again, I’m talking to the highway department.

00:32:55,030	Now, the issue That comes up As I understand it. That is actually For option. Forgetting the creek to flow south. So I’ve got to call in. But I have yet to have a return call. Um, it needs cutting, it needed cutting badly. This year Um, it’s not a big area. It’s not 6 by 6.

00:33:27,400	It’s Huddly type of grass. The only other option we have, and I have yet to find the chemical to do it. is to try to put something in there that would. kill out all the grass. Unfortunately, they’re not water soluble that I’ve found so far.

00:33:47,270	And I’ve got to call in to Tom to see if he can come up with something. Um I am unaware of anything that we could use in there, to be honest. But we have to find either the highway department, Or go to an individual. Get that cut next year because this year it did clog up really bad. Mr. Chair Turn the mic on.

00:34:11,370	Um, from that area and, you know, Kathleen’s kind of explained it well that portion was the original lowflow bypass. That portion was run down the DOT right away and as I recall, there’s been debates in the past and There’s probably some documentation somewhere, but it’s probably needed to be cleaned up because we’ve had changing people, if you will, at DOT, uh.

00:34:36,930	Redistrict engineer, etc. um, it’s always been my understanding, if you want to call it institutional knowledge, that that portion was never part of the original project. It was always part of the DOT right away.

00:34:56,130	And unfortunately it is steep side slopes, it, uh, collects sediment because that’s the base flow scenario, so, um, it’s kind of, it’s difficult to get in and maintain, but DOT has done it in the past because my understanding is it’s been, it’s DOT right away.

00:35:12,130	And it isn’t part of the project, so we may need to go back to NRCS and say, can we clarify this somehow that this is in fact not part of the project, it’s just the bypass, because that’s where the original Burt Creek was before the Flood. The floodway was constructed, so that’s kind of the issue needs to be. Kind of cleaned up and decided, you know, whose is it, if you will. Michael? Yeah. I, I have a question for you.

00:35:30,870	Could you and I get a hold of someone from NRCS. And sit down with them and explain the predicament where I’m. Yeah. No, we can’t. I just need to figure out. Let’s do it this month. OK. Or December.

00:35:46,530	I’m thinking that it, I don’t know, a dentist, you know, at the NRCS folks, is, is this where Christy Fisher is probably gonna pass it to somebody. It’d be nice to know who she might pass it to so we can bypass one step, but. I can go both ways. It doesn’t matter. I would start with. Well, why don’t we meet with Christie because the fellow that called me was Steve.

00:36:01,900	And they just feel that it’s a waste of their time and energy. From DOT’s perspective. From DOT. From DOT. Yeah. Yeah. OK. I will check with Christy on the front and give her some background information on that, and then she can assign it, so OK. How far, we’re, we’re south of this floodway, is that what we’re talking about a quarter mile.

00:36:15,630	It’s, yeah. A quarter to a half mile. And it’s a West channel or it’s, it’s right along the highway. Yeah. And it’s in the right of way. If you walk down the bank, You’re gonna go maybe 5 ft before you hit water.

00:36:36,500	I don’t, I don’t remember that ever being part of the project, um, that’s my recollection. To me, it’s a, a right of way issue. We did talk at one point in time again institutional knowledge, uh, we did talk at one point in time, going in and widening it out, doing flatter side slopes, so it’d be easier to maintain, but it would go outside the right way and we’d

00:36:50,530	have to secure an easement from the adjoining property owner that would be preferable, but obviously I don’t know that the. Owner wants to give up another 10 number of feet along that whole road, so. How many number of feet would we be talking about there, Michael? I’d, I’d have to determine that.

00:37:07,530	I don’t know, but like I said, it’s a quarter mile, my guess is it’s probably going to be 20 to 30 ft of additional easement. So explain to me why is the NRCS involved? The scenario is when the original project was constructed, this was a, uh, mitigation aspect where the low flows and burnt creek went down

00:37:26,600	the original channel. So NRCS. Built the structure at the highway to bypass those low flows going that direction and the question is, is, you know, who’s channel is it? Well, the NRCS, if it’s part of the project, one could argue that the district’s responsible for it.

00:37:47,000	If it’s not part of the project, it’s in the DOT right away, it’s DOT. So, I think that, I think their project ended at that by lass culvert, I think I’d have to look, you got the, yeah, no, I did. Yeah, or or or prior to me. OK, but I, you know, yeah.

00:38:05,900	Yeah, I will look up the measure plan and put the documentation together for Christie, because I think it would be nice to have from her or from NRCS is documentation they say yes, this is not part of the project. OK. So, sound like you’ll gather some information and get back to us. Kathleen. Thanks Dennis. And the signs have already been paid for and installed.

00:38:24,800	OK, so you can remove that from the. Yeah, we can delete that off. How about the gate? I know there was some gates and things of that nature. We’ve gotten all that taken care of every, everything is taken care of but the fence and the grass. OK. Um. So.

00:38:42,770	All right, so let’s jump back up to um What’s Travis’s company, Lowkey. Agreement we have not had a motion to approve that one yet, so um is there any anticipation of trouble in establishing low key, I don’t suspect so, but. I don’t think so. OK, I’ve talked to Travis about that, about options, um, and I know he’s working on that.

00:39:06,430	And then the other question I have is, um, so at one time we were talking to the county highway department about doing O&M inspections and whatnot, and so this would overlap that, which is, which is totally fine. I just want to make that clarification, right? So I’m OK with KC to help get those done, yeah.

00:39:25,430	Quite frankly, the highway department really doesn’t have the the. appropriate Really County Highway Department doesn’t have the appropriate type of equipment. To get in there, I’m just talking the inspections on projects and then the same question about the the uh exhibits aren’t contained in the packet. I assume they’re satisfactory to to one of our board members.

00:39:47,530	OK, Michael has seen them and I believe David didn’t you get a copy of him too? Oh. OK. That’s all I have. All right, then we can entertain a motion for approval. Moved to approve, Mr. Chair. One second. Motion by a manager Jones and the second by manager Smith to approve the low-key.

00:40:12,630	Agreement for operation and maintenance on those 3 projects. When do you take roll call vote please? Smith. Yes. I’m sure. Yes. And. Yes. And your vinegar. Yes. Chair Laber. Yes, motion passes. OK. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

00:40:36,130	Uh, comment, uh, with regard to the record, uh, next month, we can simply amend the agenda minutes to include the exhibit and any other related documents that are there. Yeah, that’d be a good idea. Thanks. OK. Thank you. OK. Moving, any other questions for Burn Creek this morning? I hope not. OK, if not, we can move on to MRCC this morning. I think there’s a. Kind of observation report in your packet. Um-hum. Right, Mr.

00:41:04,000	Chair, per your, uh, instruction last month, uh, we went out and conducted the 5 year top of survey levy or the top of levy survey, excuse me, um, and, uh, we found a couple areas that were down a, a 10 or 2, I think the most was like 3/10, uh, understanding that upon original design there was

00:41:21,470	an issue or a design settlement of 2 to 4 inches. Um, so it was basically surcharge for that, so this is well within the tolerance. Um, so it’s just a matter of after after 5 years, you know, per the manual, it’s not been documented. OK.

00:41:39,670	Other than that, everything looked pretty, pretty good in order look good. OK. just one comment as I go through old plans, you know, you look at the old projects. I always have a question, especially ones like in the from the 90s, which vertical datum was that surveyed in. And I noticed that this didn’t have any reference to it, at least that I saw.

00:41:56,770	Could that just be added real quick? Yeah, no, we can do that. Just, you know, 30 years down the road datum changes and say that we actually believe it or not, internally had the question, this is, OK, now that we’ve got this data, what are we comparing it to? But yeah, we didn’t document it on there,

00:42:12,870	but they are the same datum from original to whatever, but 30 years down the road, probably the ’88. Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was 88, but again, to document that valid point. Yeah, especially when you’re doing vertical in the river and you know, protecting homes and things, that’s a good point, Dennis.

00:42:29,930	So there, there is a multiple discussions on those projects were built because it was the discussion of the geoA relative to the Burle County projects versus the water Resource District project, so, um, we need to document all that stuff in there. Right Right.

00:42:55,930	OK, any questions regarding the MRCC? If not, we can move on to item E, the Apple Creek You Mary slide. Man Smith and Michael you have E. I’ll confer to my he’s put together the, grant application summary.

00:43:19,500	Yeah, a couple of things, um, the impact area mapping is what you were handed is a kind of a 50 page document, but the 1st 3 pages are the ones that matter, um, the impact area mapping is in there, um, shows where the projected damages may occur.

00:43:38,200	Um I’ll talk about that in a little bit when I go through the grant application, but or the grant summary, uh, the slope drainage, just to let you know that, uh, Wiis andun supposedly is going to be out there within the next 3 weeks to regrade some areas and to install the um. Water interceptor drains on that slope to take the water to the creek, so, um, I don’t know if they’ve actually started or not, we’ve been in touch with uh. The project manager from Bar.

00:43:57,330	They were going to tell us when things are going. Of course, it’s been raining too, so I’m not sure what their status is, but those will be installed, uh, I guess the kind of the item for the board today in the. Management plan, um, I’m gonna go back, see if I can find this.

00:44:14,400	Um, there’s a number of exhibits that are part of the uh ONM. Or the uh grant application summary,, 11 that I wanted to touch on. If I go to, Attachment aid. Which is the first one. Yeah. Attachment a page 2 of 2, to give you an idea of the, uh, the impact area that we have 3 categories for impacts.

00:44:49,130	Uh, category one is basically the direct impact it’s 174 rural residential parcels. That are at risk Um, category 2, it’s 84 parcels that don’t have structures that are at risk. Um, in category 3, there’s 147 parcels downstream of the landslide that would potentially be restricted access, if that, if that failure occurs to the catastrophic level.

00:45:14,130	Um, so from an impact standpoint, I wanted to point that out, and that’s where the, the mapping shows that as well. Now, the ongoing discussion, which is the where the memorandum comes in is the two different grant applications where funds are available to do a study, uh, obviously you need to study what’s happened, um, and on the first page of the memo, I’m

00:45:32,530	just gonna read through these so everybody understands the project evaluation scope, uh, the original design review basically what occurred and why, uh, and it would be. An independent review from the original design, uh, site stability for potential for additional movement and failure, obviously you take a look at it, it, it may be stable now after

00:45:53,300	it’s moved to the point that it has, uh, that we do not know, uh, corrective action to stabilize long term both the upper and lower slope. Um, opinion of probable cost and schedule, uh, that goes to a later grant application and or you know, completion of a potential project scenario and then what I added from the, um,

00:46:15,130	Stakeholder meetings completing an emergency action plan impact area and economic analysis. Um, there’s two different funding opportunities. One is the HMGP grant through, uh, Department of Emergency Services. That basically is uh FEMA funds, it’s 75% FEMA, 10% state, and 15% local.

00:46:43,670	Um, that has a requirement, uh, the funds are available at least currently pending, you know, FEMA’s reallocation of those funds based on availability. Um Through the state application would be submitted, uh, anytime in November, probably reviewed and considered, uh, in the January, February timeline for approval.

00:47:07,070	Um, the geotechnical group would like to actually do some analysis this fall and do some drilling, but FEMA’s got a restriction on doing any ground disturbance. Prior to the grant being approved, so you, in essence, you know, wouldn’t get that cost shared, so you probably wouldn’t go there because of the dollar value of the uh the drilling costs.

00:47:27,730	So that’s kind of set up that way, um, so Michael, would they be two separate grant applications, one for the study, one for any potential project, or does that roll the ball under one, as it’s set up now, they would both be for study. You do the study portion and then you’d apply for the actual grant afterwards because you do need to know what the probable costs are and you do need, need to know a BC ratio. Got you.

00:47:42,830	And we do not have either one of those at this point, so talking to Justin Messmer, he said, apply for the grant for the study. Uh, get the study out of the way and then the minute you know what the study is, you can apply for additional funds.

00:47:59,070	Um, the second grant opportunity is with the Department of Water Resources, that’s a rural flood control grant, um, that’s a 45%, um, state, 65% local, um, talking to Pat Fridge in his first comment, he says, I’m not sure this one’s eligible based on, you know, what you’re actually doing, however, you know, one of the uh DWR staff who was at stakeholder.

00:48:23,900	actually suggested it, so, um, the discussion between Justin and I, um, and Mary Sanger was the standpoint, maybe it’s best to just apply for both. The application for the DWR grant might set up the longer term perspective from a project scenario if FEMA funds were not available, and it would also determine the eligibility.

00:48:43,530	So that’s where, you know, kind of where those two components are at, um. what you have in the packet, Mr. Chair, um, so I, I actually was talking to Pat separately and I brought this up and I got. You know, I have my preconceived notions that it’s not eligible. And, and, uh, and I think Pat reaffirmed that.

00:49:03,800	I, I think it would be worth before going through the effort of even going and, and standing up in front of them with it. I would say, let’s have another discussion just to verify. Get a better feel and here was my discussion with him, and I don’t know if he got the, the same.

00:49:21,930	Point with you is, is the fact they will not determine eligibility unless you actually submit the Web grants application online. And that’s all this would do all our proposal is just give it to them and then they’ll decide whether it’s eligible or not, but he said we will not determine eligibility unless we have the grant app.

00:49:37,500	Did he indicate or maybe Danni, your thoughts on why you don’t think it’s eligible? Um I’m not recalling exactly why, but OK. It’s no, it’s a nontypical flood control. In other words, it’s a, it’s not related to a flood. It’s related to a earthen failure. So it’s outside of the normal process, at least that’s what I gathered from him.

00:50:04,130	Yeah, and then, then the other part of it is, you know, the economic analysis of going through that. Would it, would it pan out? Right. Um, maybe it would. So how much would we expend. To to apply. Um, the application’s probably about 3500 bucks. It’s not much. It’s gonna take some time and put documentation, but we’re already applying for the.

00:50:27,700	Um, if you, if the board goes ahead with the HMGP grant, so we’re gonna have duplication. It’s gonna be just a, you know. Probably a day or so to put the form paperwork together. It’s not gonna be that much. Yeah, I, I guess I would just. I, I got a negative impression.

00:50:48,570	Again, and maybe I was going in it with, with my own shaded glasses too, but um I, I would feel more comfortable just having another conversation with him. Um, well, probably what I would do is I will have a conversation with uh Aaron Carranza because Aaron was the one who suggested it. Right.

00:51:08,730	And he’s not, you know, he’s regulatory, right? So that was kind of the impression I got from Pat as well, yeah, but you know, he’s not, he doesn’t deal with the cost share day to day like we do. And so, Um I would, I’d feel more comfortable if we did.

00:51:25,730	Just, just from a, almost a red face standpoint I can do that. That’s not a problem. That would be. So how does that affect your timeline then? Um, they really don’t, the, um, It’s kind of a funding availability question. Number one, the HMGP grants, according to Justin are available currently.

00:51:47,270	Um, that could change, um, they both would be considered, uh, the HMGP grant would go through about a, a two week review at state level and the FEMA review would get it in January, February timeline for approval. Um because the dollar amount that’s involved, um, roughly about $290,000 study that’s on page 3. that would.

00:52:09,130	take you, you’d have to go before the state water commission itself in order to get the funding for that if you, if that route was the one that was used, so that would put you into the March meeting. Cause you’d have to go through subcommittee review in Because they’re they’re meeting in December, they meet quarterly. So either one is gonna put you in that. February, March timeline. Mr.

00:52:27,200	Chair, and one more thing, I have one more point I had on that conversation. We have, like I mentioned before, we have a similar situation up in Ward County, um, and that was part of my reason for contacting me separately, um, because, you know, if, if this would be eligible, my contention is that would be eligible up there and

00:52:46,470	through those discussions, um, I just got the impression it would not be worth the time, um, up in Ward County and I, I would apply that same here, um. Mm Because one of the things Ward County in my mind has going for it is its sovereign lands. It’s OK, and this is not.

00:53:03,630	And so I thought, well, maybe there’s a a nexus there from the state perspective because it’s, it’s affecting their land, right? But um, anyway, just another data point. Important. Thank you. So what, what it amounts to is the standpoint in this packet, you have um.

00:53:28,170	In the conversation you have an action item meeting summary, uh, with DES, um, emergency Man, Roger was on that call as well, and the action items and we’re kind of carrying it forward to complete the, um, Draft emergency action plan, which the outline is provided in here.

00:53:48,930	We have a quote from Bron Intertech and BGC, BGC is a consultant out of Colorado that looks at these types of slope failures, um. Uh, Additional expertise, if you want to call it, you know, a peer review, um, and with their I think they’re 2 totals are like 400 and or excuse me.

00:54:11,330	246,000 or 247, uh, the remaining cost of the 290 would be to complete the economic analysis, the completion of the EAP and actually rolling that into the grant site rather than expending a whole lot of dollars finishing it though, um, in talking to Justin, there’s a quote in here, um, and I’m just going to read this because it’s important.

00:54:30,170	Uh, FEMA will allow applicants to start work early, that would be pre-grant approval, as long as it does not have any type of grounded. disturbance, but anything with ground disturbance needs to wait for their EHP approval. So in part of the application, I think the request would be.

00:54:48,900	Uh, Ken run and BGC start a review of the existing documentation that’s out there in the background so they can understand where they’re gonna put the boring sport, you know, additional instrumentation. So long story short, um, the two applications, you know, subject to your direction, um, the, um, HMGP grant is not a complicated form.

00:55:13,930	It’s basically a letter along with some background information and all the information is available to actually complete that and get that to to DES, um, and then we’d have the conversations with the DWR relative to the submittal and see whether or not we should route it through that process to get them a definitive answer, so. OK. Thanks, Michael. Uh, question, when they say ground disturbance, is that also.

00:55:36,800	Would that affect the borings themselves or the actual boring, yeah, that’s interesting. So I would think that would almost be like construction like you’re actually moving material and putting in cheap bile, but yeah, it’s interesting they’re actually ground disturbing right out there now because they’re regrading the scarps that have failed. And then they’re gonna be putting in their drain tilewel system.

00:55:54,330	But would that be worth the clarification or are you pretty certain they’re not gonna allow us to. No, they won’t, I, I got that from Justin that and if you’re gonna put a boring in, you’re gonna have to have their, in other words, if you want to get paid for the boring.

00:56:06,270	You could put it in, but in order to get paid reimbursed for it, was there a separate cost item line item for that with the boring themselves would be. I believe the borings, and don’t quote me on this because it background conversation the brain believe the borings were about 500. No And the review of the background data.

00:56:26,430	Again, rough numbers review of the background data, the existing information, how the thing was designed is about 100,000. So that’s 150 out of the 250 total, 290. 2 a.m. Oh So, how, how does this all line out time wise than Michael, if, if we apply, would we still have some time this winter to get those borings done.

00:56:50,130	Um, the way it’s, well, it wouldn’t, well, it would be winter, it’d be the first part of next year. It’d be February or March, depending upon accessibility still work within our time frame that we’re trying to accomplish here. It’s the time frame you’re stuck with relative to the grant.

00:57:06,470	So yeah, um, would we have, I’m a little bit concerned about having a, um, a project ready by spring. Because obviously you have to do the analysis the first part of the year or first quarter and then you would have to apply for a second grant to actually construct the project, which means you’re going into default. At at and that’s fine.

00:57:24,230	Yeah. Uh, I was trying to get to what would there be any? Thought to the board moving forward with. Borings without understanding what our funding options could be, but one conversation I had, Mr.

00:57:46,230	Chair, with, uh, with West Dickcott is talking about the, you know, when would you install the boring so we wouldn’t install the borings until after we’ve um done a review of a peer review of the original design and the original data so that would be done first, and I think, again, I have to confirm with that when the application, we could be doing that in the next couple months, um, pursuant to.

00:58:05,270	what DES was saying and so we’d be probably wouldn’t be able to drill until. You know, February or March anyway, still affects the overall the issue you have is obviously then after you get the grant approved, you have to have EHP actually. Reviewed the documentation and approved the drilling, so that may take a couple months.

00:58:23,430	I don’t know what their timelines are what’s EHP again? I don’t know the environmental group, right? Right. OK. It’s their environmental environmental hazard something or other. OK. So, I have a question. Um, So if the state uh would not consider this, and it’s the grant, they don’t consider as eligible.

00:58:52,200	So, then, Would, uh, the district then be responsible for 25%? No, no, no, what they have, the, the FEMA 75,,,, 1015, the locals are responsible for 15 in this particular case under the HMGP, um, the 10% is a different fund than DWR. It’s a, it’s an emergency fund grant and it’s those dollars are already set aside. OK.

00:59:15,430	So your, your contribution is still the, the 15%. Regardless Mhm Mr. Chair Michael, the question I have is, my understanding is there’s, there was just a project that finished up out there, and, uh, was, was it bar engineering firm and So they’ve, they’ve done some work, I would imagine they had done some borings and, and, uh, I, I haven’t had a

00:59:42,330	chance to fully read through. Um, the proposed Proposal in the document here, but I just wanted to make sure we weren’t. Duplicating any of their earlier work. No. And the scenario is, is we have and I’ll try and summarize it.

01:00:05,200	That, um, they’ve done several projects out there, and this was the final one, and this one was designed, built, constructed, and Yeah In short, failed. In other words, there’s things that didn’t happen the way they anticipated they were going to happen.

01:00:25,000	In other words, there’s additional movement out there, so, um, Bar was having conversations with the University Marion saying, hey, you know, we’ve got some things going on out here, we should go further and University of Mary said, no, we’ve done what we’re going to do, so we’re, we’re kind of stuck and Bar could not do anymore in this particular case, um, from an independent peer review, uh, the Water Resour district would come in and take a look at all the information that’s currently done so that there’s no

01:00:41,170	duplication. And say based on that information, what additional data might we be looking at, um, the conversation, uh, goes from the standpoint that they had uh an inclinometer, which is basically you can measure slow movement.

01:01:03,600	Well, they’re inclinometer that was out there basically sheared off, you can’t use it anymore, so the instrumentation failed, um, part of this process would be to go put in two additional borings, one for, well, both for, um, actual data gathering to see what’s. into the soil profile, has it shifted, and then, uh, put in the inclinometers at the same time to monitor additional movement. So none of it would be duplication.

01:01:21,130	It’d be more a review of what was there, what they did, how they did it, and to see if anything was missed, um, based on conversations with uh uh. BGC and Braun. We don’t know, we don’t believe that anything was probably missed.

01:01:40,800	It was just one of those things that the conditions on site were slightly different than, uh, what the design was intended for and something in the in the component just didn’t work the way it was intended. What that is, we don’t know. OK. OK, good discussion. Any other questions or? Michael, regarding this.

01:02:04,470	All right, so the action that we’re looking at this morning would be whether or not we want to as a board. Um Have Michael and Houston move forward with applying for those two grant opportunities. Uh, Mr. Chair, I would move to go ahead and apply for the grantportunities and Make the further decisions after we see the outcomes of those. OK. I have motion by manager Jones. Seconded by Manager Smith.

01:02:37,000	Your thoughts or questions this morning on that motion. If not, when do you take roll call, please. Andrew Smith. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Manager Jones. Yes. Benagar. Yes. Chair Leenberger. Yes, motion passes. Michael, you got good direction there. We’ll move forward. All right. OK. Anything else this morning regarding Apple Creek slide. Think so. OK.

01:03:14,270	Right, and we can move off of projects this morning and move on to old business, first item up there, any updates regarding the CRS uh Mitch is here too, but. I know, Mitch, if you got an update this morning. Morning, Mitch.

01:03:37,730	Good morning, uh, Chair Landenberg, uh, morning managers, uh, We have, um, last communication I’ve had with Tom Bernie was, we’ve had with Tom Berney was in October, uh, the, he was being deployed from the storms and stuff, so they’ve moved the cal visit up to either January or February. Yeah, of next year. OK. We have submitted most of the information that they requested.

01:03:58,000	Um, we’re waiting basically they are reviewing that or waiting for a response for that, and then acknowledgement of the visit when that’ll be taking place. Um, we did get a notification from the Department of Water Resource. Uh, about an existing Complaint That is in Applecot Township.

01:04:23,670	Uh, because we took over there, uh, we, we took over their inspection services for about a year and a half ago. They’re, um, we are also doing the floodplain management. But this was an existing Uh error in uh they they issued a a building permit for uh agricultural structure. Basically it’s a pole barn.

01:04:50,500	Uh, they issued the permit, inspected it, and they approved it, and that’s fine, uh, it is basically aggU so it’s fine, but they built it within the floodway. And so Uh, we have to take care of that. We’ve inherited it because we took over their inspection service. We didn’t issue the permit. hypocrite. But because it’s uh. Still a uh an infraction basically on our.

01:05:15,030	Uh, policies that the flood plain uh management is that we have to take care of it. I’ve been in contact with him several times. I sent him notice to owners twice, registered twice. I met him twice on site. And explained to him that this building has to be removed. There’s no exception. And Just kind of blew that off.

01:05:39,530	And ignore it And that was in 2022 when I first started 2023, I sent him a second letter and all that, and he has not, I’ve, I’ve met him after that too, and he’s just, he’s not doing anything. So that will probably Not allow us to join the CRS according to the Department of Water Resources.

01:06:01,070	I have uh been in contact with the state’s attorney about it. I sent, sent her copies of the emails, copies of the notice to owner. Uh, she is inundated over overworked, does not have the time to address these situations. So we’re in the process of trying to find an attorney to help. Um Short of going out there with us.

01:06:26,100	Well the sheriff, uh, there’s that we have to, we have to follow. proper procedure and I don’t know. The steps, legal steps, the, that should be taking place here. I don’t have legal advice. I have none. And So we’re in the process of trying to find an attorney.

01:06:48,000	The, uh, we’re gonna be discussing this at the next commission meeting on the 18th. Um The use part of the state’s attorney’s budget to hire an attorney and outside attorney to help with these civil matters. And so it’s. That’s where we’re at.

01:07:09,770	If we don’t take care of this little problem down there in this, uh, Nathan Jensen will not remove his building, that will prevent us from going into the CRS program. Very frustrating. Yeah, yeah. Thanks Mitch for that update. Um, So Michael, is that kind of your understanding as well regarding that CRS application that if, if, if there’s a violation within the county that that will essentially kick the whole thing out there, if there’s any ongoing violations that are not

01:07:31,300	resolved. They need to be resolved as part of the CRS, um, scenario going forward. I mean, granted, you can apply for all the documentation, that might be the last check box, but yeah, it would hold up the scenario. Um, Mitch, I got a side question on that, um.

01:07:53,530	Has the landowner Contacted any engineering firm relative to the option of doing a uh Clomar in a. If you want to call it compensatory conveyance for the floodways. Or haven’t they even Probably won’t consider that, but that’s a, that’s an expensive proposition as well, so it’d be cheaper for him to tear it down. OK.

01:08:13,530	There’s room on his property to get it out of that floodplain. OK. Um, and Paul barns are fairly easy to take down. Um-hum. Uh, He refuses, so. Um, yeah, the, the idea of getting a. The no rise certificate in Clomar for this. I don’t.

01:08:34,830	I think he has the money to do it intentions to do it out of curiosity was there a slab? Did he have a slab down for his pull barn as well, or it’s it’s just. That’s pretty, I mean, if FEMA has exceptions for forraic structures, they’re they’re um And repeat 2140, uh technical bill and it allows them to have them in there, but when it gets in a flood way. Out the window that goes.

01:08:55,930	building. Um. OK. Um few exceptions. So, um, you know, I was just curi was. We as a board as Burley County Water Resource District, do we have any? I mean, powers in these. Type of situations or any sort of jurisdiction. I mean, um, well, generally speaking, as it’s set up with the county.

01:09:21,530	Being the entity and Mitch for the, you know, regulating the, the floodway scenario, uh, as is typical with the crossover where the Burley County Highway Department is assisting the water resourceur district with stuff.

01:09:39,230	I think the opportunity is there for the water district to, you know, potentially look at this and say, you know, where, where can you be involved if, but it’s obviously your choice and, um, the cost of doing so. That’s just my opinion. I mean, we probably looked at Dave a little bit on the jurisdictional question side, but. Yeah, Mr. Chair, we’re looking at the issue and mention I had visited it.

01:10:01,070	It’s, it’s a, Um, it’s something that, uh, perhaps the county and the water resource district needs to talk about in terms of the allocation of legal resources. To this kind of a project, this probably won’t be the first that will probably be others, um, I talked to Comm Jones here recently as well, uh, about, uh, whether the county commission

01:10:20,830	has funds to hire their own lawyer if they wish to do it. Uh, I think there were a number of options here that we could pursue that, that it may well be that counsel for the water district could assist, uh, the county, the county’s attorney in doing that if they, they have one, I’m, I’m not clear

01:10:39,470	and it’s beyond my daily wick, uh, Navy Comm Jones for manager Jones, I guess you, uh, you might have some insight on that, how we move forward on that. Well, the, uh, as you and I discussed earlier, and, uh, we need to make s and our Comm, Mr. Woodcox, and Michael.

01:10:59,270	Um, we need to have a meeting. And discuss How to proceed on this. Um, there are specific Legal counsels That could take on this project. Um Here in the area. But I think we, before I make any firm comments. I think it’s very significant that you and I and James Michael. And Mr.

01:11:28,430	Woodcock’s get together as soon as possible. Uh, prior to our next meeting. So that we can make a decision as as a water board. Because we do have funds. Available Um, but it’s going to take some persuasion. To do this. Mr.

01:11:51,200	Chair, I, I have an opinion just based on my work with water resources because I don’t think the waterour district has any type of authority and maybe not responsibility. I’ll definitely defer to legal counsel on that though, but I just my experience, I’ve never seen any waterboard come into a floodplain regulatory process. um.

01:12:10,200	You know, can we assist? I’m, I’m certain we can assist, um, you know, if, if we need to, but I don’t think we have any type of authority or or responsibility. That’s right. We don’t. And Mr. Chair, I, I would agree with that, Dennis, that, you know, from an authority standpoint, it rests with the um Floodplain administrator, whether it’s city or county, uh, as far as the assistance, obviously would

01:12:28,470	have to be a formal request for assistance. Um From the uh from the regulatory body. Yeah, you know, that’s my opinion, but I agree with you, Dennis. Yeah, thanks, Dennis and Michael, and you know, Mitch and I had a conversation yesterday and like my concern is you have these townships that are taking on jurisdiction and they’re,

01:12:48,230	they’re proving, you know, infrastructure and permits and then all of a sudden they say, oh, OK, now can you take it over. And then I was back on the, you know, Mitch and, you know, and us to have to walk through these things, and now it’s affecting our ability to apply for, you know, some,

01:13:04,170	hopefully some insurance relief for our county residents. And now this is going to affect that and So, um, yeah, it’s interesting. It’s, it’s kind of a quandary, but it is a quandary, and it’s, um, So, to To ask the townships in the county to give up their permitting, right? Not their zoning rights, but that is a uh.

01:13:24,230	Um They don’t want Burleigh County out there, right? Um-hum. And they don’t want to give that right up, but yet they don’t issue permits. They know the flood plain regulations. Um-hum. And these townships are being mapped now.

01:13:44,400	And the only reason why, well, not the only reason, but the big reason why Apple Creek Township turned over there, uh, flood plain or the permitting was because of the floodplain. The owners out there that live in that Apple Creek Township, we’re getting letters from FEMA. Because Apple Creek didn’t have the didn’t have anybody who would regulating the form. Um-hum. And so their insurance was being denied.

01:14:04,100	And this is what’s gonna happen to the rest of these tens eventually. Right, but It’s Well, and this is becoming a a Problem countywide, to my knowledge, and I’m sure some of the counties around us are also seeing some of this because I’ve had several calls on the issue.

01:14:23,130	Yeah, well, FEMA’s, uh, they’ve mapped all the way over to past Sterling now. Yeah. Um, and so it’s. The McKenzie Township, Sterling Township, they’re all being mapped. And so, either they enforce these or manage these uh floodplains, or they The FEMA will drop their insurance.

01:14:47,200	So that’s 11 effective way, but it’s also, you know, the county, in my opinion, uh, if we could step up this regulatory into the, into the Apple Greek or not, not the Apple Creek, but the rest of the townships who have the floodplain. They, they, if they were to give that up to us, they would benefit from having a CRS program and they discount in the townships as well.

01:15:02,670	And it’s, it’s they’re not doing anybody any favor about it, not regulated that’s right. I imagine other counties are having similar. Oh yeah, they are. Yeah. Yeah. Chair. I assume that this structure was installed. This building was installed after the county had adopted these floodplains? Huh-uh. No. No. No. Before. So, it’s not grandfathered in then? No. It’s not. The Flo The Flo FEA grandfathers very little.

01:15:34,270	Approved it. A Creek issued the permit and they approved the inspections, uh, the 2021. And it was in the floodway prior to that. Yeah. The floodway was defined a number of years prior to the structure ever being put in place. OK, yeah, that’s what I, that’s what I want to make sure it happens. Yeah.

01:15:52,400	And, and M Mitch, if I, if I may ask the question, just to, to clarify it, the standpoint that if. The FEMA sent a letter, the floodplains changed, and all of a sudden you have a loan.

01:16:14,700	And the insurance is denied, you lose the loan, where do you get the money? Any financial institution requires the insurance part of it, so you have no way of refinancing or financing that home going forward. I’m presuming that’s correct, Mitch. Yeah, that is, any Feder federally backed loan is affected by this. And so they’re out there. There’s, there are many that are out there and, you know, we got quick attention.

01:16:36,370	And so It’s a basic thing, if they don’t, if they do have a loan, they’re, they’re gonna have to, you know, uh. Rescind that loan. Um-hum. Um-hum. And they do resend them. Mr. Chair, if I, if I may make a suggestion here. I would like to schedule this meeting with the appropriate people. David yourself, Mitch, Michael.

01:16:58,530	And, um, discuss this in detail. And have at least a plan. Um And perhaps bring in some outside counsel. We’ll talk to David about that. That have handled some of these issues in other parts of the state. Um, and the sooner the better. Absolutely, yeah, we, we, uh, Mr.

01:17:23,130	Chair, the, we, there is going to be up for discussion on the 18th in front of the county Commission too. So if you have anything, anything to bring to that meeting or that I, you know. Well, I, I don’t want to bring anything to that meeting until we have a plan. Um, and then I’d be more than happy to do it, having worked with FEMA.

01:17:42,330	I know the regulations. Pretty diehard. And um Eventually, and this happened, I believe either in New Jersey or Connecticut. Eventually the local authority did go in and take down a building. Um, after many, many legal battles, I might add. It took about 2 years. I don’t think we want to go there.

01:18:06,930	I think we can come together with a plan. And Um The appropriate council to represent us. Well maybe Mitch could at least, you know, update the Burley County Commission and, you know, he could do through Jerry too that, you know, we will be trying to schedule this meeting.

01:18:26,600	And try to see if we can come up with some assistance or some, some way of helping in this matter. Mr. Chair, would you have any objection if we scheduled the meeting right now? We certainly could. What’s everybody doing November 15th and 8 o’clock. AM 15th and Friday I’m not gonna be around. All right, what about the 18th? Yeah, Friday wouldn’t work for me either.

01:18:56,000	OK, the 18th, a Monday. And we could do late afternoon if that would work with everybody’s schedule better. And say PM on Monday would work. Yep. After lunch. Yeah. Monday would work. Afternoon works for me as well. OK, um, Somebody threw a dime at me. Three o’clock. Uh, I was even thinking like 1:30.

01:19:21,030	130? That’s good. That’ll work. And Mitch, can we get that small conference room next to your office? Oh, I’ll see. I’ll, I’ll see. I’ll, I’ll, um, I’ve got your email. I’ll let you know. I’ll let everybody know. I’ll send out invites. OK. Um, because this could end up into a nightmare.

01:19:43,100	And I, I think we can handle it better than that. Mitch. I had one question. What is the, what is the process through the county on situations like that. I mean, there’s an order to remove. It does not complied with. I mean, what are the next steps that are spelled out in ordinance or policy or what.

01:20:00,170	The, the process would be to send send him send another notice to owner and give him 30 days, then after that they can find them. I think it’s $30 a day, um, the, I’m not sure about the demolition, it’s, uh, you know, the missions are based on, uh, situation of dangerous conditions.

01:20:21,030	Um, but I, I’m, I’m again, I’ve never been in the situation. I’ve been condemning building I’ve, you’ve done that before and demolished buildings. Uh, from flood damage, but, um, this is not in that situation, but I, I absolutely don’t know the process forward for this. Thanks. And for this situation.

01:20:39,600	I think that we should be able to tear it down, but. It’d have to be, I, I’m not sure the process for that. Yeah, well, you’d have to check the entry code, but I’m pretty sure we need a court order to do that. Yeah, absolutely right. It’s a condemnation, but it’s not based on dangerous conditions, kind of. Yeah OK.

01:21:03,200	Mitch, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Any questions from Mitch or anybody else? OK. Where, where are we going to be on. And the small conference room, unless you’re is he is Roger Apple Creek? Portfolio holder? Uh, no. No. I don’t think so. No. I’m not sure who that one is.

01:21:22,500	We’ll look that up, but yeah, I don’t think we were thinking full board. I think, yeah, yeah, maybe just. Well, no, we don’t. We have to get a plan first. Yeah. And then we’ll. I was making sure Roger didn’t know that, you know, it might just be a few of us for this first meeting. OK, so November 8th, 1:30. 18th.

01:21:42,200	November 18th, excuse me. Yeah. 1:30 Eh is my favorite day. water. Yep. That’s Roger’s got the Apple Creek watershed. Yeah. 3 people. Yeah, but I think if it’s just me and Roger. Or if it’s Caffeine and Roger, then I won’t go. Well, that’s your choice or we had to post. You’re, you’re the ultimate. OK.

01:22:11,930	Well, would it hurt to post the meeting? Huh? We just have to post the meeting. Yeah. Yeah. That anybody can go. OK. Poor. OK. OK. Yeah, I think I feel more comfortable with it being public. In case. Somebody else has an opinion, we’re not aware of. OK. OK. That’d be in the Interesting, uh, Upstairs.

01:22:36,530	Where we were. Yeah Yeah. OK. Maybe upstairs, yeah, that one. Yeah. OK. I think Mitch is going to, Mitch, are you going to check on that small conference room, or do you want me to have Wendy do it? No, I can do it. OK. Good. OK. Thank you. All right.

01:22:56,370	Moving on then to item B this morning I didn’t see anything on the updates on the years of service submittal to Mr. Chair and board members, I failed to this point to submit those again, we didn’t have anybody that would have been eligible at this juncture, but I think it would still be good to submit them just for

01:23:12,730	somewhere down the road, so, um, I’ll keep that on my list of things to do. OK. Thank you. Uh, I think, uh assessment. Any, any updates regarding the, uh, assessment district project. I don’t think so annual assessments. Uh, yeah, just a, a quick one on Mr.

01:23:38,470	Sherman, I’m not quite sure why that was on there, but, um, the annual assessments, the burnt Creek Project has done. Uh, the wholegue Island project is done. Uh, we did take a look.

01:23:55,470	I didn’t report back to you, but I did take a look at the balances for the other, uh, assessment districts and everything’s adequate at this point in time, so there was no need for any additional actions, OK. Thank you, Mike. Sorry, I didn’t. Follow up with that good. OK, moving on to the Missouri River Joint Board this morning, uh, Roger, any updates about the only update is, uh, prior to the water conference in December.

01:24:23,270	Um, I think the board should, um, Be in agreement on whether or not we would sign the joint powers document that would Um, be the document that then makes Burleig County part of that Missouri River joint board. So, I have, uh, uh, I’ll ask Wendy tore. Uh, put that in the agenda book for, uh, our meeting on the. But would we decide on the 9th? We haven’t decided yet actually, OK, um.

01:24:51,130	Next meeting. So anyway, it’s prior to that. OK. And so, if you, uh, Want to review that document and uh and have an opinion, but my recommendation is that we would, um, Sign it. OK. Yeah. And just to clarify, it’s, it’s basically the same form that’s in the October 9th agenda book.

01:25:12,130	So if you want to go review it prior to. OK. Thank you, Roger. Alright. Uh, any updates this morning regarding the Corps of Engineers AOP meeting, Michael, I think you attended, right? Yeah, I attended.

01:25:39,700	It was, actually, it was fairly decent attendance, probably like 30 or 40 people there, so it was the general, um, pardon the expression, dog and pony show, um, obviously there’s certain drought conditions going on in the. In the overall basin. Excuse me, so, uh, flows and targets and the projection for the next year is always based on. Um, Normalized runoff. So, I mean, there’s not any, they’re not predicting drought and.

01:26:00,400	Managing drought, they’ll manage with that as it comes along, so that was kind of, it was a basic general meeting. There were a number of discussions afterwards, um. Since, uh, manager Royce and uh Chair Bachmeyer were not there.

01:26:21,730	I stood up on behalf of the joint board on the EAE side, which I’ve done before, um, and expressed what the EAE process is doing and, um, information and the attendance at meetings, etc. um, there has been an interest expressed by the Corps of Engineers to potentially become involved in that EAE program. We’ll be having a conversation with them. Um Upcoming later this month to see what that, what that might entail.

01:26:42,200	So, but the ALP that, like I said, it’s pretty general process as to what’s out there, so. For the materials for that because I’ve got a setting in my office. No. OK. No, I’ve got everything I need for, for that meeting. OK. Any questions for Michael? Right, moving on, uh, no, I think no updates this morning regarding the policy manual.

01:27:04,100	Um, Missour River I jam, I, I think some things are still pending. Yeah, that’s just, uh, it’s on the list to do and based on the other stuff, it’s not the priority, so. Yep. Si. OK, and then we did add under old business item H, the North Dakota DOT permit, so I don’t know if Michael or.

01:27:22,230	I’ll kind of just set the table at this point, so as you know, we had the, you know, the. Subdivision that was getting basically the summit point subdivision, um. In the way the Raleigh County handles it.

01:27:41,400	They have a stormwater management plan that’s submitted along with the plat, um, they went through the stormwater management plan and went through the details, um, they were having issues with some of it, then the applicant is required by DOT policy and I’ll let Dave talked about this in a little bit. Uh, DOT policy to submit a permit to work within there right away. And that became in front of the water resourceur district.

01:28:04,870	Um, I expressed my reservations relative to the um stormwater management plan and the details that were presented in that, um, Nick Collinn in her office was before you and, uh, made a presentation to HIF’s concerns, uh, you authorized use an engineering to go back.

01:28:21,930	We did go back, we did look at that and we resolved the major items of concern relative to the modeling aspects and then brought that back before you and this board. Um, per the state form filled out the sign that said it was received, uh, DOT then reviewed what uh the final stormwater management plan by Burleigh County Highway Department.

01:28:47,000	They ended up declining the permit and the developer went back and did some additional models and came up with um some things and they said, OK, now this is acceptable and then now they’re turning around and saying that the water resourceur district has to approve The right of way permit, which Runs into the regulatory issues and, and Dave maybe I’ll just let you take it

01:29:05,670	from there. Uh, Mr. Chair, I, uh, I believe I sent a memo to Dennis and to, to James. um, as I read the form from North Dakota Department of Transportation. This is FSM 50908, which apparently was submitted by SP developers on May 21, 2024.

01:29:30,330	Uh, this, uh, is the form we’ll put it in, uh, your packets again, you’ve probably seen this before, Chair Landenberger on May 21, 2024, had signed the form. This is a request for drainage on highway right of way. Now in the form itself, Uh, it says to be completed by the water resourceur district and NDTOT. Uh, this says the signature receiving or.

01:29:56,930	Approving the water resourceur district should be by a water resourceur district representative. Chair Landenberger signed the box that said receive by Water Resource District. And he also had sent an email to DOT explaining the review. There’s a separate box for approval by water Resource District That was not signed by Chair Landenberger.

01:30:24,330	He received it on behalf of the board, uh, we go to page 2 of this document and it says request for drainage on highway right of way. And the language says landowners’ requests for drainage on highway right of way must be reviewed or Approved by the Water Resource District E or, not both.

01:30:45,630	So in my view, it seems to me that the water district has done its job. It has accepted this for review. It has reviewed it. It has made comments, but, uh, at least according to this form, there is an election here by the Water district, you either review it or you approve it, that’s what the language says. The board has reviewed it.

01:31:07,930	As to the approval process, I think might touched upon this a little bit. I would be concerned about approving this without the board having done its own analysis and its own handiwork. Without having analyzed it itself, that raises some exposure issues. And I, it seems to me that it makes sense to have reviewed it.

01:31:31,430	You’re taking on more responsibility in my view, if you werererove this. Secondly, jurisdictionally, I don’t know how the board can approve a permit, I see nothing from the statutes that says, uh water district has to approve, uh, a county transportation issue, it just isn’t there.

01:31:53,330	So with those two issues, I think the board has done everything it needs to do, I would advise that the board not, uh, the issue some sort of an approval where they haven’t done the homework to figure out what this is, what the board has done, the district engineer said, I have reservations about this whole thing, and he has made those comments known.

01:32:12,000	Again, but that’s a part of the review process in my view, it’s not the approval. Uh, if you approve, you also deny. Well, you’ve got to have the authority to be able to approve a permit, I don’t see it here. *** it. OK. Thanks, thank you, Dave. And it’s interesting, right? Because the piece on the front page of that application says, you know, received.

01:32:34,000	By water Resource District or like Dave said, or approved. And then the second page is that we have the option to review or approve. I don’t even see the language lining up as far as what we’re signing on the front page versus what it’s telling us to do on the second page.

01:32:51,070	And so, you know, I, I, I completely agree with our legal counsel that I, I, according to what they’re. Providing to us and having us look at, we, we’ve received it and we reviewed it, but we’re not going to approve it.

01:33:09,930	If you look at the information above, the location of the proposed work, and it looks like they’re doing some extensions that I don’t know if Michael if they really did any different like resizing of culverts or anything within the. Highway right away. Uh, I don’t understand why the DOT is just is pushing this back to us. It’s a simple culvert in their own right away. There’s no changes to it.

01:33:27,800	Why do you have to have our approval for that? So I’m, I’m in complete agreement with Michael and, and, and David’s Chair, the question for Dave, you know, the two boxes, yeah, received or approved.

01:33:51,870	I mean, would, if we, if we, um, um, redlined out, approved and wrote in our own and reviewed and signed it then, would that be, would that solve the problem if they changed their form to say reviewed instead of approved, would that solve the problem? I think so. But It’s worth, worth a, a try. Sure. Um, I, I guess, you know, crossing the box out would be sort of saying, well, I really, really mean it.

01:34:11,430	So to me, you signed one box, the other is blank, it’s self-evident that you reviewed it, you didn’t approve it. I, I would. And you certainly could do that, but I think the, the statement is very clear that the board has reviewed this and they haven’t approved it.

01:34:27,070	Another question on the page two, you know, we talked about land, it says landowner’s requests for drainage and highway railway must be reviewed or approved by water Resource District. Is that statutory? Did you just say that and I missed that? I don’t, I didn’t look up there, uh, in the statute in DOT statutes as to whether it is or not.

01:34:44,270	Or is it just wishful thinking on their part? It’s my understanding, Dennis from Casey, that that is in that language or whatever, there’s a small reference in their stormwater manual. But that’s it, so it’s policy. It’s not statute. It’s not stat statute, it’s. At that point. I think we’ve done what we’ve been asked to do. Um-hum. Um-hum.

01:35:08,730	in form, Marked accordingly, but But we don’t want to penalize anybody because of this fight either. I mean, I get that, right? And so if they’re gonna hold it up because we’re not. We’re not, you know, calling to their process. I, I know that’s. The right thing to do either, but I don’t want to take on responsibility, that’s for sure.

01:35:25,870	Because I don’t think it’s there. Mr. Chair, do we need to send them a letter and he explained to them why we’re reviewing and It’s their form that is the issue. Yeah, we could forward, you know, Dave’s memo and.

01:35:47,870	That we discussed it as a board and I have a call to the DOT’s legal counsel to talk with him and we just have been trading phone calls and haven’t been able to get back. OK. OK. good. Seems like a simple Also, Mr. Chair, Casey at the county level has reviewed this extensively, understanding he’s reviewed it 18 times. Um, and so to me, and like with the county being primary here, they’ve already done their work.

01:36:12,430	I guess if this is not a possibility I recommend, but were the board to say, well, we approve what Casey did. Well, that doesn’t work either. Uh, in terms of malpractice insurance, in terms of liability, uh. We would, we could just say hey, Casey’s experienced, he knows what he’s doing. Well, we don’t know that.

01:36:32,170	Right. We have to be aware of our own exposure here and the limits of our responsibility and authority. OK. Well, we’ll wait to. Your conversation with I can report next month. Um Yeah, I guess we’ll see where this goes, but everybody kind of.

01:37:01,730	You know sense is that I think what we’ve done at this point, we’re kind of we’re good at doing what we’ve been asked, but OK. Fair enough, Mr. Chair. Real quick, I do have another commitment. I will take leave of you now, but uh if you have any questions, you can let me know. OK. All right, thank you. Thanks, Michael, well, we talked about December 10th.

01:37:19,870	Did you, were you part of that? Yeah, yeah, I’m, I’m available. I was going to be going to a conference, but I canceled that, so I’m around all that whole entire week, so that’s fine. OK. Thanks, Michael. Now, Available. They are. OK. Thanks.

01:37:38,730	And Kathleen, you were saying the 3rd did not work for you, correct? The 4th. The 4th of December doesn’t work for me. Didn’t work for me either. So I guess we the decision would be do you want to do the 3rd or the 10th, I guess at that 0.10 would work better. OK, let’s do the 10th then. 10th.

01:37:57,030	OK, so we will move our next meeting to Tuesday, December 10th. At 8 a.m. And it will be At this point, as we as we’re seeing in this room as well. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do still need to make sure with, Um, community them. Yep. Yep. Go ask. available. Yep. Yep. Very good.

01:38:30,530	OK, uh, new business, I don’t anything Wendy regarding the US Geological Survey, the JFA. That was in there for a reason this month or is it just a update. OK, FYI. OK, I don’t use anything in the packet either, but.

01:38:55,530	The uh joint water convention is scheduled for December 10th through the 13th, uh, here in Bismarck, so uh they’re The uh Application or you want to call it the some metals in your packet there if you’re interested in attending that. We talked with Randy. I assume you’re not attending. Just happy hour, just a happy hour. That’ll work. Uh, so yeah, certainly encouraged everybody to. To attend that. Submit that for expenses. I’m going to that.

01:39:22,270	OK, moving on, uh, this additional correspondence and documentation for you on the Platts and stormwater management plans that are listed there are available upon request if you want more information on any of those. And there’s no questions on that. We can move on to approval of this month’s bills. Manager Reap. Uh, Mr.

01:39:44,730	Chair, um, Yeah, start on page 77 or the this month’s bills, they total $65,171.91. I checked out the math on that. We did receive 2 additional invoices in the interim since this was prepared. Um, I would certainly, uh, Recommend paying those. There’s, there’s, uh, one is for $500 to the North Dakota Irrigation Association is an annual membership.

01:40:10,970	And one is $300 in North Dakota Wa Users Association as an annual membership. Um, if the, you know, if the board um accepts that. premise, uh, the total would update to $65,971.91. OK. I would move for approval of bills in that amount. OK, a motion by Man Rein and seconded by manager Joan to approve this month’s Bills, I do see in there too.

01:40:38,900	Dennis regarding the you know the county of Bur Burley County there regarding the Apple Creek tree removal for the 13,000. That’s kind of what we agreed with, right? because the bill was more than that. We’re gonna send that. OK, just making sure that was.

01:40:56,870	Documented, so any other questions regarding the bills this month? If not, Wendy you take roll call vote, please. Andrew Smith. Yes. And. Yes. I go. Yes.ander vinegar. Yes. Chair Landenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Bills will be paid in the amount of 65, 971.91. Thank you.

01:41:25,130	additional information in your packet there just on the, on the details of the bills as we discussed, our next meeting will be Tuesday, December 10th at 8:00 a.m. in this room. Uh, we’ll check in with Dakota Access too to make sure that they’re available to record that meeting. Anything else this morning for the good of the order. Hearing none, no more business, we are Adjourned.