STORMWATER REGULATIONS BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 8, 2004
MINUTES
I. Call to order.
Douglass Stein
II. Attendees:
Bill McDonald – Administrator of Public Works
Kimberly McClurkin – Stormwater Management
Carolyn Fisher – Stormwater Management
Milton Jackson - Stormwater Board
Clyde Sawyer – Stormwater Board
Jim Hoff – Stormwater Board
Mary (Cissy) May – Stormwater Board
F. Douglass Stein – Stormwater Board
Ray Adkins – Stormwater Board
Mike McMahan – City Attorney
Rebecca Robinson – Stormwater Management
Steve McKinley
John Damico
Chris Theobold
Ray Childers
Julian Bell
Harry Tate
(The following Stormwater Board members were absent)
Jim Moegling
Ken DeFoor
III. October 11, 2004, Board Minutes approved.
IV. NPDES Permit Status Update.
V. Discussion of Proposed Enforcement Protocol.
a. Comments from Clyde Sawyer
b. Written Comments and Staff Recommendations Received Since October Meeting.
c. Comments from Attendees.
d. Board Discussion, Revision and Adoption.
VI. Recognition of Persons Wishing to address the Board on Non-Agenda Matters.
VII. Adjournment.
Transcription of Minutes.
Douglass Stein: We have a quorum. I’d like to call the meeting to order. I’m Doug Stein. I’m serving as chairman in Jim Moegling’s absence for those of you who are not used to attending these public meetings. The first order of business is to address the minutes which were sent out to everyone. Were there any corrections or additions to the minutes? Did you get a chance to review them? I’ll entertain a motion that they be approved.
Clyde Sawyer: I so move.
Ray Adkins: Second.
Douglass Stein: All in favor?
(ayes were heard on the tape)
Douglass Stein: Oppose? The ayes have it.
Douglass Stein: Bill, are you going to give us the NPDES permit status update?
Bill Payne: Yes sir. I’ll take the opportunity while I’m passing out that to also pass out information for the next item as well.
Douglass Stein: Is this the enforcement protocol?
Bill Payne: One is the consent order for C T Construction. We’ve already sent the information on the protocol. I didn’t anticipate having to pass those out. For the permit status, that’s the spreadsheet that I passed out. This is just to give you an idea that we have fifteen (15) permit requirements that are still outstanding and we’re working on. Four of those are future ones that we’re working on. The other eleven (11) are currently in progress. But just to bring you up to date, we did have one requirement due in September which was submitted on time as well as three in October that were also submitted on time. TDEC is now requiring quarterly reports on compliance activities. The first one was submitted in October.
Douglass Stein: Have they issued an approval of that?
Bill Payne: They have issued a receipt of our report. They have issued some things they would like to see in the future reports. They have acknowledged receipt of all of our submittals on time and have not, so far, notified us of any deficiencies of any of our submittals.
Douglass Stein: I see the next thing on the list is Complete Municipal Guidance Manual.
Bill Payne: Yes. We have been working with Gene Hyde, of the Urban Forestry Office. Gene is a certified pesticide applicator by the State of Tennessee and he already has prepared a draft manual on that. And we will be finishing that up hopefully by the next Board meeting. We’ll already have that completed, I hope, so we’ll have it competed by about mid-December.
Douglass Stein: Well, all these completion dates; are they a part of an agreement with EPA?
Bill Payne: We negotiated and submitted all these through staff level personnel at TDEC. They have sent it up to Nashville. To my understanding, there has not been any agreement order or anything else that has been entered into by the City and the State, although we have agreed informally that these are the timelines that the City will meet in achieving these requirements.
Douglass Stein: Well, so we’re on schedule?
Bill Payne: Yes, sir. Everything is on track.
Douglass Stein: Any questions about that?
Bill McDonald: If you don’t mind, let me respond to Doug on that. I have been to Nashville and had meetings with the folks over in Nashville on our progress and our status and I think that, at the staff level, we have satisfied them that we have got a realistic schedule that we can meet and one that they are satisfied with. That does not mean that somebody might decide that we haven’t done enough soon enough. But, so far, there has not been any order come down that they’re not satisfied with it. And we sat with their people and worked the schedule out. So, we’re hopeful that everybody from EPA to the TDEC commissioner and everybody’s going to be okay with the effort that we are making. And I think that they recognize that we have made a turn-around in our program and are satisfied that we’re on the right path.
Douglass Stein: Is there a part of this schedule – is there a date which we anticipate going back to them and saying ‘we’re no longer in violation’ and the NOV is removed?
Bill McDonald: Yes, there is. The date is actually 2008. Some of it extends out to 2008. And the reason for that is one of the major things that we have to accomplish is the As-Found program. This is the surveying of all of our conveyances and structures throughout the City.
Douglass Stein: That’s the second and third on this list.
Bill McDonald: Right. And there are some things that we have to have that information in order to do, so that everything won’t be accomplished until we are able to accomplish that. But I think everything that we can accomplish up to having that information will be done at the end of 2005. Am I remembering that right?
Bill Payne: Yes. There are five things that will extend past next year. Two of them are related to the As-Found and three are related to a long-term sampling project that the Permit requires. Three years worth of sampling data must be collected before that can be completed. We’ll continue taking the samples at this time. In 2007, then we’ll have two months to finalize all the reports associated with that long-term sampling.
Bill McDonald: Right.
Douglass Stein: Is all of Engineering sampling? I guess it’s chemistry required to meet this part of the regulations, is that done in house?
Bill Payne: The majority of it is. All of our sampling is. From time to time we do have consulting contracts for analysis. All of the sampling, the set-up equipment purchasing, equipment maintenance are done in-house. We are contracting out the As-Found part of the program, but the first item on that list, which is locating the inlets/outfalls under drainage structures to be completed by next year by using in-house staff for that. We have them re-assigned from various divisions to support this effort. While we are talking about it, anybody that wants to see, we kind of have a “war map” so to speak, set up in our office where we’ve got a map of the entire City. We’ve got stick pins to kind of show progress and that sort of thing. We’ve been working on since August. We are 25 to 30 percent through the initial field work that’s required for doing that work. We have an eighteen month commitment to the State. We are on track to do that at this point.
Mr. McDonald: Did that answer all the questions on that item?
Douglass Stein: That does for me. I’m fairly familiar with the City’s mapping department. I would encourage the Board members that have not gone back there (maybe all of you have been) back there and see.
Mr. McDonald: Yes, we would be glad to show anybody through that would like to see it.
Douglass Stein: Next is this Consent order with CT Construction.
Bill Payne: Yes sir, there is a copy of the Consent Order that I passed out just a moment ago to all the Board members. It is an agreement between Stormwater Management and CT Construction. It takes into account the current enforcement protocol recommendations that we have for calculating the amount of the civil penalty, also the expenses that CT Construction had for doing work on their site, which they have been given credit for. Some of those expenses and the difference between the two is $750.00 which CT Construction has already paid and by agreeing to the consent order, CT Construction has withdrawn their appeal. There are copies of the calculation method, the civil penalty, and the receipt as well as CT Construction’s expenses and the summary for what those expenses were for. All that is included in the packet.
Douglass Stein: This has all been negotiated with your staff?
Bill Payne: Yes. That’s correct. With myself and Mr. Theobold.
Douglass Stein: I was not at the meeting where we looked at the site. I guess we will need a motion to accept this consent order on the part of the Board.
Ray Adkins: So move.
Douglass Stein: Discussion about it and that will be recorded, right Mike? So do I hear a motion?
Ray Adkins: Yes.
Douglass Stein: So, is there any discussion?
Douglass Stein: Second?
Jim Hoff: Second
Douglass Stein: All in favor?
(ayes were heard on tape)
Douglas Stein: Oppose? (Motion Carried)
Mike McMahan: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that consent order processes go into the Ordinance and the Stormwater Manager typically has authority on his own to enter into consent orders. However, this one had come before the Board having an appeal. So, that’s the reason it was brought back.
Douglass Stein: Right. We had an ordinance that was inflexible.
Mike McMahan: Yes.
Douglass Stein: That’s what we are going to be discussing next is what I’m assuming will be the end of it and the adoption of a final protocol.
Bill Payne: That was all we had on the consent order. At this point, Mr. Sawyer said he had some comments he would like to make to the Board and then there are some staff recommendations that we had sent out to the Board members that we’ll be glad to answer questions on as well as anyone who may be here to address that as well.
Clyde Sawyer: There are several things that I would like for the Board to keep in mind as we consider this revision to the enforcement protocol. First, the people of this City are paying over four million dollars a year to have a stormwater management program. We need to insure that money is used efficiently and not wasted on unnecessary and unproductive activity by the Stormwater personnel and that the funds expended achieve the desired results. Second: We need to keep in mind that the enforcement protocol will not involve the good contractors and developers in the City. They will be ahead of the curve in implementing the stormwater and erosion control program. What it will apply to are those contractors and developers who are not able or not willing to adhere to the requirements of the ordinance. Third: The Environmental Protection Agency has twice reviewed the progress of the Chattanooga Stormwater program and was not pleased. Unless we show significant progress, that is we institute a viable program, EPA will have no choice but take punitive action against the City. Fourth: We have each received a copy of a synopsis of various enforcement policies (not operational documents) used by various Phase I Municipalities. There is no assessment of the success or problems of the programs although there are a lot of words about the programs. My impression of the document is that it deals with policy and not with operations. I find very little correlation between the document and our needed enforcement protocol. Remember too that the Chattanooga Stormwater program has been in effect for eight years. Anyone involved in the construction industry is aware of that. And I have a pass-out I would like for you to hand out if you would. And I propose a Stormwater protocol. Item one says Land Disturbing Activities Without Obtaining Necessary Land Disturbing Permit. I am recommending that the civil penalty for the second offense should be raised to a thousand dollars rather than five hundred. And the civil penalty for the third offense should be raised to five thousand rather than one thousand. There is no excuse for any contractor or developer to undertake land disturbing activities without a permit. Any contractor or developer who ignores the requirement for a permit three times is doing so because it is an economic advantage to do so. Raising the civil penalty to five thousand for the third offense will reduce that advantage. The second item is Failure to Install, Maintain or Use Proper Construction Entrance (Tracking Mud on the Street) I feel the first and second offenses should need to be combined as the first offense as a Notice of Violation. Each additional offense needs to become a (b). And item three, Failure to Install, Maintain or Use Proper Structural, Erosion or Sediment Controls (Sediment Discharge). Again, the first project offense and the second offense need to be combined as a Notice of Violation to read: Notice of Violation issued to Land Disturbing Permit Applicant and Property Owner if different than applicant. Cease and Desist Order until necessary erosion and sedimentation controls are installed and maintained in accordance with the Best Management Practice specifications for the City of Chattanooga. Issuance of Civil Penalty for twice the cost of City expenses if City crews are required to clean up sediment discharge. The third offense becomes the second item and (d) would become (c), etc. Failure to Properly Maintain Erosion Control Self Inspection Sheets, I have no comment on that. Failure to Provide Proper Final Stabilization: Whether it rains or not has nothing to do with the site being properly stabilized and certainly 1/10 inch of rainfall would have little or no bearing on rainfall runoff. This section needs to be changed to read: First Offense—Notice of Violation issued to land disturbing permit applicant or property owner. Second Offense: Issuance of civil penalty of a hundred dollars per day for sites less than one acre in size and two hundred and fifty dollars per day for sites larger than one acre not stabilized within five working days past the issuance date of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Number six: Failure to Comply With Approved Stormwater Design Plans. This item needs to be amended to state a maximum of twenty working days rather than just straight thirty days. Item seven, I have no comments. Eight, no comment. Well, eight to amend the item to read ten working days as opposed to ten days. I mean to seven days, excuse me, I think it was fourteen days, maybe. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the following motions and request that they be temporarily tabled until we have heard from the others present. And that is the items that I have listed here as motion one, two, three, four, five, etc.
Douglass Stein: Very well, Clyde. I appreciate your diligence, your attention to the protocol. Is this the first time that you have seen this, Bill?
Bill Payne: Yes.
Douglass Stein: Some of these changes, I recognize as coming from some of the things we saw from other cities do, I think.
Clyde Sawyer: No, I don’t think so. I went by primarily what we do here.
Douglas Stein: Five thousand dollar third offense penalty. I’ve seen them.
Clyde Sawyer: You’ve seen something similar, I’m sure.
Douglass Stein: We’ve got a lot of comments. Some of them may also be some of these same sections. So we’ll just hold this on the table until we have heard from everybody. Have we got other comments still? Staff recommendations?
Bill Payne: The staff recommendations were sent out to the Board members about two weeks back. I do have some additional copies if anybody needs those. They reflected all the written and verbal comments that had been received from AGC, from the Homebuilders and from other parties and things that had been discussed outside of that.
Douglass Stein: Is that this three pages?
Bill Payne: Yes.
Douglass Stein: I’ve got a copy that had comments from David Wilson on it. Is that the final? I’ve got so many papers here, I want to make sure I’m looking at the correct ones. Does every member of the Board have a copy of that? Are there some other comments or recommendations in regard to this latest iteration?
Bill Payne: I think, just to summarize it, if I may for just a moment, the revisions that we made were based on stating that item number 1 was a contractor specific violation and the remaining ones that are on this list are site-specific issues. We also addressed the point which the property owner would be copied on these so that it reflected not being sent out until the second offense.
Douglass Stein: Say that again?
Bill Payne: The first version had talked about sending copies of the first offense written warning, sending copies of that to the property owner and the permit applicant. Some of the comments that we had received were to give the contractor an opportunity to correct those on the first offense prior to notifying the property owner. So, we made those changes to reflect as well.
Douglass Stein: So, that’s one of the reasons you’ve got the first offense the contractor’s the only one notified and the property owner might not be notified.
Bill Payne: Right. Under number 1, that’s going to be a contractors specific. It was for items 2 through 9 through the end where we removed the property owner from getting a copy of the first offense.
Douglass Stein: But it does say the property owner gets a copy, does it not? Copy to the general contractor and property owner.
Bill Payne: Yes, you’re right. On number 2, it does. But, that must be one that we didn’t catch. The others all have been changed to reflect that. That’s a change that would need to be made. (My apologies)
Douglass Stein: So, Clyde, one of the recommendations you’re making is that the Written Warning and the Notice of Violation and to all interested parties should be all one time.
Clyde Sawyer: Notice of Violation is the first thing that the Board would take action, I mean that the Stormwater people would take action on. You wouldn’t come out with any type of written warning. Your first notice would be a Notice of Violation. What I’m saying is, we’ve been around this program now for eight years. People know what they are supposed to do. Some of them don’t want to do it. Some of them may not know what they’re supposed to do, but, if they don’t know what they’re supposed to do, they’re in the wrong business. And it’s time to begin to efficiently use the staff. And having to run out there to do all these other things, you know, that aren’t…you’ve got to get on with it is what I’m saying. And it’s time.
Bill Payne: If I may just make the Board aware of our operational procedure; the reason that we have written warning in this policy is because we provide that written warning at the time that we do the inspection. The Notice of Violation is a documented procedure and a letter that gets sent out to them based on that. So, basically, the written warning is something that they are getting while they are actually in the field. We don’t take the time to come back in and write them a letter. We pull out a job site inspection report and that details what issues they may have on the site and a time frame for them to get this corrected. So we are providing the information in a timely manner. That’s the reason we had the distinction between the Written Warnings and the Notice of Violation.
Douglass Stein: I see Roger Tudor in the audience and I assume that there are some other representatives, Manufacturers Association, Home Builders, other folks too. This is the time for public comment. You’ve been involved in this process somewhat. And, do you think this is reasonable?
Roger Tudor: The protocol? Mr. Chairman, the initial enforcement protocol that we worked very closely with Mr. Payne and his department seems reasonable to us. I’m not certain about this document that you’ve just been in receipt of and what Mr. Sawyer just gave. Some of those documents, as I do agree with Mr. Sawyer that I don’t think that it would impede quality contractors that were out there working in good faith. Those seasoned contractors would not be impacted. However, we want to give a little consideration to this document that Mr. Sawyer gave before you all proceed. I’d like to give my members the opportunity to review these stiffer penalties that you all may impose to this protocol.
Douglass Stein: Thanks, Roger. Are there other public comments?
Ray Childers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Ray Childers, Manufacturers Association.
Douglass Stein: Stand forth and be recognized.
Ray Childers: Ray Childers with the Manufacturers Association. My comments are essentially the same as Roger’s. We have seen the original enforcement protocol. Our members apparently have no major difficulties with that. If they have, they have not communicated them to me. I have just for the first time heard Clyde’s comments and read his comments here and certainly would like the opportunity to at least give those comments further consideration before I go one way or another on those. It does appear that Mr. Sawyer’s comments are a bit more punitive than I personally would like. And I would suggest (and I’ve mentioned this already to Bill) that the majority of contractors are very responsible parties and do try to comply with the regulations as they understand them. I would think that the initial thrust of these control type of ordinances is not to cause anybody any pain but to educate and then to enforce. And that would be what I would suggest we move kind of in that direction. That is to make sure that our folks understand what it is that they are required to do. And with that step, you eliminate ninety- five percent of the work that you might have and then deal with those who have trouble complying once they understand. I don’t personally have trouble enforcing a reasonable regulations on people who have had the time to learn and understand them and choose not. So, I think that’s all I’ve got to say.
Julian Bell: Mr. Chairman, I’m Julian Bell with the Homebuilder Association. I agree with Ray. I agree with Roger. We submitted some written comments and there are a couple of small things. And I guess it has to do with the difference of our business from Ray’s members and Roger’s members. Our sites are small, for the most part. We have land developments – residential developments. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about someone that’s building a house. They are not required to get a permit. They are required to follow the rules. Generally, they are small business men. They are not on site all the time as you would be on one of your commercial sites or one of the residential land developments. And so the tracking mud on the street is a big deal for them, because that can happen without their knowledge by a delivery truck or somebody who they don’t even know is going to be there. And so, when we start combining – the first action is a Notice of Violation – no opportunity to correct it or anything. That concerns us. No doubt, we have to install a correct construction entrance. Sometimes it gets difficult when we’re not on site all the time. We physically can’t be on site all the time. It gets hard to enforce that with all the various people coming to our job sites. The other comment that we had was on the failure to comply with the stormwater plan. For any changes that requires revisions of the plans, we would like to see an exception for minor revisions approved by the staff in the field. Sometimes the plans do not give exact measurements to a certain fence or to a straw bale, or whatever. If it needs to be moved if it doesn’t scale right – you know, that type of stuff. We would hate to see that type of thing require revision of plans, which can get extremely expensive. I concur with Roger and Ray on Mr. Sawyer’s proposed revisions. We just haven’t had time to look at them. We just got them. Thank you.
Douglass Stein: Any other comments here?
Bill McDonald: Yes, I’d like to speak to that, Doug. One of the things that I’ve tried to do as Administrator of Public Works is to is to establish a relationship with the contracting industry. Sometimes it’s been good. Sometimes it’s been not so good. Some of it had to do with, I guess, my learning how to do this and some of it had to do with the resistance in trying to do things that I felt that needed to be done. But, I think that one of the things that we really want to do as best we can, is to develop a kind of a relationship where contractors want to comply. I would rather not have to issue a citation. I would rather contractors want to comply. Recognizing that some are not, we’re going to have to have a way of dealing with that. I’m not speaking for or against what Mr. Sawyer has proposed, but I wanted to say how I see us approaching this and how I see the Department going in the future is that we want to work closer with the contractors and developers so that we have the kind of a relationship that, when they don’t comply, they are embarrassed about it. They want to comply. And I know we’ll never get one hundred percent there, but I hope that we’ll have a better shot at getting a larger percentage of compliance in the future than we have in the past, which has been more of an adversarial type of a relationship. I’d like for you to just keep that in mind as you consider which one of these directions you want to go or somewhere in between. Are there any questions that anybody might have about that?
Roger Tudor: I would like to say that Mr. McDonald has worked extremely well with the construction community. We have not always agreed. But he is a very fair individual. And I consider his comments in high regard. Secondly, we talked about tracking a second ago and we in the commercial side of the industry – labor a lot with utility companies coming onto the job sites. And they may be indeed tracking coming off that job site. And our general contractors have no control over the utility companies. And we have expressed that concern to Mr. Payne. And Mr. Payne sent a letter about two months ago out to all the utility companies expressing their concerns as to the labors that our general contractors have to go under. And I want to thank Mr. Payne publicly for sending that letter out. Tracking is a big item and a large issue that we pay a lot of attention to in a commercial site. But, sometimes, just as Julian (Mr. Bell) said, we’re not always in control of those forces. So, again, Bill, I want to thank you again for your service and what you are doing, Mr. Payne, I appreciate you as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Douglass Stein: Mike
Mike McMahan: Mr. Chairman, before the Board makes a decision, I would like to remind you that civil penalties as a matter of law are not like science where you commit an offense and the judge fines you a thousand dollars or ten thousand dollars or whatever it is. Our Ordinance follows the State Statute which sets up civil penalties, and I want to go over the factors which the Statute says that you’re supposed to consider when you come up with a protocol – well, when you issue a civil penalty which is obviously involved in a protocol. Number one is whether the civil penalty imposed will be a substantial economic deterrent to the illegal activity. I noticed that Mr. Sawyer’s comments with respect to item number one were very directly related to the deterrent aspect of it. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is how much money does it take to make a deterrent? But that’s obviously not getting a penalty is an economic issue almost exclusively. The second issue is damages to the City, including compensation for damage or destruction of public stormwater facilities and also including any penalties, costs and attorneys fees incurred by the City as a result of the illegal activity as well as the expense in enforcing this article, and the cost involved in rectifying any damages. Many of the civil penalties carry as part of the penalty either first or twice – two times – three times the amount of the clean-up cost. So that, obviously, goes to the damage to the City and obviously goes back to the economic deterrent. The third factor is a cause of a discharge violation. Now we really haven’t covered that very much, except to the extent that generally speaking your first and second offenses or one of the giving warnings as opposed to an action penalty itself. There could also be situations where there’s unusual rainfall events or something like that could cause a violation that would have to be taken into account. The fourth factor is the severity of the discharge and the effect upon public stormwater facilities upon the quality and quantity of the receiving waters. I guess that’s pretty much tied up in the previous one. The fifth standard is the effectiveness of the action taken by the violator to cease the violation. And I noticed that some of the ones here or some of the protocols involve the actions of the property owner in attempting to either rectify or prevent the violation. And the next factor, is the technical and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the discharge. I think most of the times you are dealing with the construction sites, you’re going to have the standard procedures to try reduce or eliminate the discharge. And the last factor is the economic benefit gained by a violator. And if some person, intentionally, - if some violator intentionally goes out and just doesn’t do anything because it’s cheaper. Enforcing it is another thing to take into account. It’s not so much a fine. It’s supposed to be the weighing of the economic deterrent and more than a fine. In other words, it’s supposed to be a balancing of the economics of the situation.
Douglass Stein: Does that apply then that in this enforcement protocol that we determine if somebody is deriving a tremendous economic benefit by not complying we could raise the penalty?
Mike McMahan: Up to $5,000.00 a day, yes.
Douglass Stein: Are there other comments?
Ray Adkins: I’ve got one. I think the penalty should be severe enough that it would be a deterrent rather than to be a nuisance type penalty. As Mr. McDonald said, a lot of times people pay the nuisance penalty rather than correct the problem. And I’ve got a question for Mr. Sawyer. What is your definition of a working day?
Clyde Sawyer: A day in which you can do work on the land. You’re not prohibited by cold, by land or by water from doing work. You could have a situation where you say you’ve got seven consecutive days in order to do something. In those seven consecutive days you may cannot work. And we need to define it in terms of working days as opposed to just days to consecutive days.
Douglass Stein: Is that question directed at item 6c on his list?
Ray Adkins: Right. The amendments say a maximum of twenty working days rather than thirty days.
Douglass Stein: Mike, your comments – were your comments directed at the current protocol as written allows the Board to increase fines or are you suggesting that we should have that..
Mike McMahan: Well, the Manager actually levies the fines, based upon these factors, but when it comes to you – I didn’t know you had the authority to increase the fines. You would certainly have authority to mitigate the fine if you felt that the strict enforcement protocol under the circumstances is not appropriate.
Douglass Stein: The one thousand dollars or the five thousand dollars whichever one you put in here, is not per day, it is per incident, is that correct? Or, is it per day? Because the original enforcement protocol had that in there per day which was one of the things that led to the sixty thousand dollar fine which we just agreed should be $3800.00.
Bill Payne: Right. And, in looking at the way the Ordinance itself is written, each day does constitute or can constitute a separate a separate violation. So whether it is implicitly written into the enforcement protocol, or not, it is part of the Ordinance that each day is a separate violation or can be considered a separate violation.
Douglass Stein: There’s leeway left to the Board, in other words, to determine the final amount of penalty, more leeway than – its not just a thousand dollars and that’s what it is.
Bill Payne: Correct. The way we have it worded at this time is that it states that those penalties will be up to those amounts. We certainly recognize that there may be mitigating factors either for our consideration prior to assessing this civil penalty or even, in some cases, a factor that goes the other way. We have a recurring violator who continues to do the same types of things. Especially when we look at item number 1 in the protocol is a contractor specific. The others are project specific or site specific. If we ran into a situation from the administrative standpoint, we found the same contractor three times in six months continue to violate the same things because he felt like he got to start over every time he went to a new site, that certainly is something else that could be considered from our perspective when we levy the penalty and that is something that could be considered. And that’s one of the things we had mentioned a couple of months back whenever we first started these discussions was that we were not able to necessarily encompass every situation. These were just some of the more common situations that we find ourselves dealing with and so there are things that are going to be outside of this protocol that are going to have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, as well.
Douglass Stein: At the same time, we don’t want to write ourselves an enforcement protocol that ends up with us having to find appeals at every meeting.
Bill Payne: I would agree.
Clyde Sawyer: Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting in that first item there is that thousand dollars be a set fee and the five thousand be set fees based on the occurrence, not per day.
Douglass Stein: That’s the way I read what you were saying, but I wasn’t sure on the basis of what Mike was reading us, if that was the way that would be interpreted under the law.
Mike McMahan: That could be done that way.
Douglass Stein: I don’t intend to save all my comments until last, so I’m not going through that process of asking if anybody else has got anything else to say so I can have the last word, but I certainly am sympathetic to what Clyde’s got to say and I think I told the story in the last meeting about contractors taking advantage of regulations like this and intentionally and willfully violating the Ordinance because they know it’s cheaper to do so. I think, as a contractor that does things by the book the best we can, I’m not afraid of big penalties. Penalties that are sufficient to be a deterrent.
(at this point, the tape ran out and there was some difficulty in getting it re-inserted.)
Douglass Stein: I think we’ve got to settle and say, ‘this is where we’ve got to stand’ and, while I certainly think these are valid comments or even additions to the enforcement protocol, I don’t think they are going to make that big of a difference in whether or not our regulations work in the City of Chattanooga. I think what we work out here is clear enough that it can function as a protocol. Properly administered by Bill and his staff, it will get us the right result.
Harry Tate: Mr. Chairman, I guess I also share some of Clyde’s concerns as well, and for some reason I keep envisioning a visit to the site by the staff and at one time when a warning is issued that contractor’s got a bobcat and maybe a chainsaw on the property removing some trees without the proper permit. Then the second visit, if it’s a large property and he’s got an earth mover on the property and still hasn’t obtained a permit. I don’t think five hundred or a thousand dollars penalty is adequate. So, could we say that, maybe, we could have these penalties up to – not necessarily that we impose Clyde’s recommended penalties, but up to those amounts as a deterrent.
Douglass Stein: Bill, what does the staff think about that? (your being the staff)…
Bill Payne: From our perspective, I know I’ve had conversations with both folks at AGC and Homebuilders and Manufacturer’s Association, and I think from our perspective, we do not see that any of these are going to be, as Mr. Tate said, I don’t see that we are necessarily going to always inflict the maximum. There is going to have to be some subjective (a little bit of both) in terms of trying to look at what is the violation, you know, those six or seven points that Mr. McMahan talked about are things that we try to take into account on everything that we do when we get to the point. We’ve issued 8 or 9 civil penalties, to this point and I think that’s something that we’ve tried to take into account with all those, either whether they were before the enforcement protocol, or after. I think that part of what I see the Board’s action on this enforcement protocol being is to establish a record. People ask us from time to time, “Well, okay, you’ve issued this. If I appeal this to the Board and I don’t just go ahead and pay this, what’s the Board going to say? What has the Board done with this on past issues?” Well, there’s not a history. One of the thing that the protocol itself will do is if the Board feels that the penalties of this nature could incur a penalty up to whatever the set amount is, certainly, if we left wording in there for those that said up to a certain amount, I don’t think that would be a problem. It certainly would convey to the people that we deal with this is not considered a small infraction by the members of the Stormwater Regulations Board and, as such, gives us additional clout when we need that for those people who just sometimes are trying to look for a way out to keep from having to do something. So I think, from our perspective, I do not see anything that is in the protocol as us inflicting the maximum penalty in every case or in any case, depending on what the issues are. So, I think raising those limits, we will still exercise what we feel is appropriate judgment in those cases if that leeway is in there.
Milton Jackson: In cases where we do have large sites, it’s been on my mind about failing to install the proper equipment and entranceway and they use that so many times in tracking mud all in the streets. They should know that we’d better do something about this. Because tracking mud in the street and - people continue to run over this mud and pack this mud after a rain and they know what is going to happen. And I believe a stiffer penalty should be there per day, because they know better. If you’re running a business, you know what is happening there on site but you don’t care about it. And each contractor should look this over, because I have called in and make them clean the streets up myself. If they are working on a large site, they – if I was in that business, I would put me a detox station up near the gate if possible where I could wash all the mud off of there. That way, you wouldn’t have all this going on. Our protocol would stand. Our fines would stand, because if the City of Chattanooga doesn’t do something, EPA is going to hit the City of Chattanooga. They’re going to pull it back in our lap. See, if something got to be done, and we’re the Board – we got to get our heads together and do it – not keep bouncing around with it. See, this is what we doing right now. Let’s sit down and get together and say what we are going to do.
Douglass Stein: And what I am hearing is that we have all agreed that this protocol is reasonable and, for the most part, this is a good tool to accomplish that end. And what we’re talking about right now is if the civil penalty should be raised and whether or not we ought to combine the first Notice of Violation with the warning. And so we are talking about a very small part of the enforcement protocol.
Bill McDonald: I think it’s important that the step that we have taken is that we do have buy-in from the AGC, the Manufacturers and the Homebuilders. And I think that goes a long way towards getting compliance. And, I think that a severe penalty tends to erode that kind of cooperation. And I believe that we have made a significant step in getting cooperation from these three entities and I would suggest that we go ahead with what we have worked out with them. And, if it doesn’t work, then lets come back and do something different. But I think that it’s important that we have that cooperation and I believe that we will get a better rate of compliance and that they will help us get that compliance. And I think that goes a long way and is a lot more important to us than trying to enforce every one of those instances out there. It’s a lot more efficient to have them want to comply. And I would hope with the cooperation we’ve got that that will be the attitude that AGC and the Homebuilders and the Manufacturers will all take, rather than an adversarial kind of a relationship.
Douglass Stein: That’s my point. I think that we’ve arrived at this in a joint effort and for us to amend and amend and amend can be a little bit of a betrayal of faith on our part. If this doesn’t work, then we can change it. Are there any other comments?
Jim Hoff: The only thing I want to add here, and I appreciate everything that everybody said and I do like particularly what Mr. McDonald said. Everybody has had an input in this enforcement protocol as it’s written right now and I believe it is in the best interest of this Board to accept this enforcement protocol as it is and not worry so much about the monetary penalty, but work more towards enforcement and doing the right thing and working together. That’s what I see in the protocol we have now and that’s what I like about it.
Douglass Stein: And very much is going to depend on how the staff enforces the protocol.
Bill Payne: Yes. And we do recognize that and it is not a responsibility we take lightly.
Douglass Stein: Any other comments?
I’ll entertain a motion that we adopt the enforcement protocol as is if there is no further discussion. Or, I’ll entertain a motion that we amend the protocol before we adopt it.
Clyde Sawyer: I would make that motion.
Harry Tate: I’ll second it, Mr. Chairman.
Douglass Stein: Those amendments would consist of Clyde’s amendments to each one? One through nine? Some of which are no comment.
Harry Tate: I do want to clarify that my second to the motion only dealt with increasing (1 and 2) where they increase the penalty up to those maximum amounts which will give the staff more leeway in issuing penalties.
Douglass Stein: You made the first motion.
Clyde Sawyer: I made the motion we amend it to what I have specified.
Douglass Stein: Okay.
Clyde Sawyer: I’m saying that I think there’s work still to be done and we’re not there yet. You’re saying ‘Let’s take what we’ve got and go with it and amend it later’.
Douglass Stein: Right.
Clyde Sawyer: It’s up to the Board to decide which way they want to go.
Douglass Stein: So I guess we would then not adopt the enforcement protocol under your motion. We would be waiting to amend it?
Clyde Sawyer: You’ve got no motion to adopt the protocol. You did get a motion to amend it.
Douglass Stein: Right.
Clyde Sawyer: And a second.
Douglass Stein: And I don’t know what the amendment would be.
Clyde Sawyer: No, we haven’t come up with that yet.
Douglass Stein: Well, then we have a motion and a second to amend the protocol. All in favor?
(ayes heard on tape)
Douglass Stein: Oppose?
(nays were heard on tape)
Douglass Stein: The ayes went to - the ayes have it. The Board has moved to amend the protocol and I suspect what that means is that we’ll function with the old protocol and that we’ve got another meeting where the amendments will be circulated to the Board between now and the next meeting.
Bill Payne: At this point, I guess if there are any other comments that the Board or anyone else would wish to make to the staff, so that we could compile them. If we can have those within a week from today it will give us a week to get those all incorporated into another version so that we can circulate those two weeks prior to the meeting so I would ask that any additional comments from anyone present be submitted to our office by the end of the business day next Monday.
Ray Adkins: Could we have Mr. Tate restate what his concerns were?
Harry Tate: Really, they were something similar to Clyde’s and it’s just that I don’t think – and as Mike has said – and I think it’s been said several times – one case don’t fit all. And, just having one penalty, it may be severe in some cases, but then, again, if someone that can afford to bring an earth mover and build a subdivision, a $5,000 penalty is really not that great of a deterrent. So, what I was just recommending is that we, at least, give the staff more leeway in imposing those penalties based on infractions.
Douglass Stein: My comment about that would be: I’ve got two things to say about it. One is if a contractor is in violation, and it’s Stein Construction Company, which is one of the larger earth moving contractors in town, may be in violation of this Ordinance move onto a 50 acre site and clear off and I don’t have any silt fence up and it’s raining on my site and washing mud across 57 acres, then I can be fined five thousand dollars a day or a thousand dollars a day. And a thousand dollars a day under this current protocol, is significant to trying to get me to do something about it. And five thousand dollars on a fifty acre site might not be much of a deterrent. But, for me to leave it that way for a long period of time is going to be a deterrent. If it’s calendar days which is what this has, rather than working days, and it’s raining like it sometimes rains around here in January and I’ve left my site that way, and I can’t get out there and do anything about it in January and I’m going to be thirty days before I can get on the site, my fine ends up being thirty thousand dollars, I think there’s a lot of leeway. Second is if you give (pardon me guys from the bureaucracy) if you give a bureaucracy a lot of leeway (and there’s no evidence of this and I’m not suggesting this happens) it’s just what happens in bureaucracies since Rome. If you give them a lot of leeway in assessing a penalty, then you’re inviting corruption. I prefer to see penalties, civil penalties that are determined by bureaucracies being set and this one’s not set. It’s already loose enough – too loose for my taste, frankly. But I think we’ve got to have some room here, because this is new territory. So, that’s why I propose that we accept the protocol as presented rather than amending it again. I’m not sure that the amendment Clyde gave is going to make a significant difference, but it does send a message, in my opinion, to people that we’ve been working with – AGC and CMA and the Homebuilders – that this is a process with quite a bit of lumps? and we still don’t have a handle on it. So, when we’re proposing the amendment, I would suggest that we get them pretty specific.
Harry Tate: Mr. Chairman, I would be agreeable to having a called meeting if we need to move it along.
Douglass Stein: That’s fine. We want to address this specifically. Right now, other than Clyde’s very coherent specific comments, but these are not offered as the amendments, but to change this in some way not clear to me what we would be doing, so, before we schedule a meeting, I think those that would amend it need to present something that is clear enough that we can vote on rather than having a meeting where we don’t really know what we are talking about.
Discussion as to when meetings are held: second Monday (13th)
Mike McMahan: Mr. Chairman. Can I offer a comment? I know that in some environmental civil penalty cases, they have, for like of a better – I think sometimes they use the word “major violation” in other words, they have a standard set of penalties that apply to certain things, but for major violations – for example – we’ll use your example- if a contractor would go in and disturb fifty acres, well, obviously, that is a humongous violation, without getting a permit, maybe what Mr. Sawyer is saying was that for major violations, we ought to up the ante rather than for some homebuilder who may go out and without too much mean thoughts, start work without a permit some weekend or something like that, do we want to draft something for major violations which ups the ante a little bit for whatever that definition might need to be – a large site – something like that?
Douglass Stein: What’s the definition going to be?
Mike McMahan: I don’t know. We could use - I think Bill has more feeling for what is likely to cause an environmental harm if somebody acts without …
Bill Payne: I would say in terms of the site size – you’re probably looking at something in the 5 to 10 acres somewhere in that threshold, somewhere in that range we consider that a major site with larger implications. But that’s certainly something we can think about. We’ve got a matrix for assigning inspections – it’s a high risk or a medium risk. I don’t have those numbers – we could incorporate something like have a …set up to establish a high risk - how it falls into a category – something like that. Sorry Bill, you were not at the mic and I could not hear what you were saying……..
Douglass Stein: What we – why don’t I suggest this: The Board would like to see a little more work done on that fourth protocol. You’ve heard what their comments are. December 13th, I think, is probably as quickly - you can take comments. You’d have something out that we’d have a copy of probably a week to ten days minimum before we can meet. So each Board member can review and the Board meet with a little more comfort on both of them. It would have to be passed again – I would think – to show good faith to the AGC and CMA and Homebuilders who are here listening to this conversation and, I hope, understand a little bit about what’s going on. You know, I think you need a month if you’re going to …
Bill Payne: And that was the reason for my comment a moment ago – that any comments anyone wanted to make for any additional revisions, if we could have those by the end of the day next Monday – give everybody a week to get those in. That would give us a week to get those incorporated into another document that tries to balance all of those things as best we can along with copies of what – exactly what – amendments they were requesting. And then we can get those out a week after - two weeks from today - which will essentially get it out two weeks prior to the meeting so that it should be at everyone’s – we would also send copies to the agencies that are represented here today as well as Board members.
Douglass Stein: The way that we’ve been going through this process, I would think we would keep them informed as well as the Board members so they can make comments.
Milton Jackson: Mr. Chairman, if we could – I’m just sitting here debating with myself – on the major violation we could go in steps as a major would be chemical that a contamination that’s on property that they’re tracking the road – we can use that for a major violation and set a price on that. Because they know they’re not supposed to do that. And on the general area you can set a price on just mud they’re hauling out that’s not contaminated. So we’ll be covering ground if we go with it that way. Because there are areas that we do test for contaminants. And, without the contractor, he should know after he tested the property out, he should know. Like the EPA; what we did with them, we tested all property and we put up a detox station where we detoxed the trucks and wouldn’t haul any mud on the trucks at all. Then we’d get it over to an area, we’d solidify it. So if we put these in different categories, then I think we’ll be making some headways that way.
Jim Hoff: Mr. Payne, I’d just like to make one comment here. Doesn’t the State of Tennessee, TDEC, use five acres as their cut-off depending on land disturbing activities?
Bill Payne: They’ve lowered that for Land Disturbing Permits down to only one acre from five. Currently, you’re required to have a State permit for any site one acre or more.
Jim Hoff: One acre now? If you look at chemicals and things like that, isn’t that already covered in the reportable quantities that are reviewed by the State and are going to be required anyway and not something we need to get involved with in this protocol specifically?
Bill Payne: I believe that’s correct. Those are already covered underneath the existing permits that the State has issued to those industries. The only exceptions is are people in transportation industries passing through town, so to speak, actions on highways.
Jim Hoff: I guess, along those lines, we’re still holding us up on this protocol written as is - is monetary values and penalties. Is that right? Or I’m still..
Douglass Stein: Yes, that sounds right. I’m not sure that the Stormwater Board can venture into the nature of contamination. That’s not our – other than sediment like run-off from a site. Somebody drops a 5 gallon drum of hyaline from their truck on their way out. That’s our business…
Bill Payne: Actually, underneath this protocol, that would be considered an illicit discharge and it would be a non-residential discharge and as such would be subject to all of the ordinary requirements.
Douglass Stein: But there are other laws that also apply…
Bill Payne: Right, there are, but there may be State or Federal regulations that they have to deal with as well, but they also would be in violation of the City Stormwater Ordinance for allowing that non-stormwater discharge.
Mr. McDonald: We are the ones that enforce that.
Bill Payne: Right. Most of the time whenever things like that happen, TDEC’s first response, the majority of the time, is to contact and request that we go out and do an inspection. And whenever they get one in our City limits, regardless of whether it’s construction or non-construction, they pass those along to us for our enforcement. And they only get involved if it’s a large enough problem or they feel that they need to be involved. Otherwise, they refer those to us.
Douglass Stein: So, our timetable, again, for receiving comments for proposed amendments is a week from today.
Bill Payne: Yes, sir, to have those stamped and received in our office with Carolyn Fisher or someone else in our office by the end of the day next Monday. And we will get those incorporated out…
Douglass Stein: Comments made in this meeting..
Bill Payne: We’ll be able to take all the comments from today’s meeting. We’ll go ahead and get the minutes transcribed. And then, when we send out a revised protocol in two weeks, we’ll also send out at that point and time, obviously, the minutes at that point, will be available, and we’ll also be able to – any specific things that people may submit that – especially if two things are in conflict with each other, I don’t know whether they will be or not, but if that were the case we would also send the specific written comments that we have received as well as the revised version of the enforcement protocol. And we would send all that out on the 22nd.
Douglass Stein: And Roger, Ray, Julian, Monday is the deadline for the protocol. Any other discussion about that? It will come up. It will be next month. We will vote on it.
Roger Tudor: (The following is a paraphrase of what Mr. Tudor said. He did not come to the microphone and his voice did not pick up well enough to follow for transcription).
Asked Chairman if the meeting could be recessed so that maybe this could be talked about in an informal setting. Referred to the protocol as purely a moneymaking process for the City. He said that he is not clearly understanding how the size of construction sites and penalties for violations on them work. He said that if we could just sit down at a table in an informal fashion and hear about the different issues. He is very comfortable with all his AGC contractors as performing their duties and that Bill Payne sees them every day. He thinks this is a great opportunity for the City to look at those renegades and using the educational process to go out and tell these contractors what they are doing wrong and it is a great opportunity to focus in on those folks. And that is what he would really like to see, if we have the opportunity to sit down and discuss things in an informal fashion. As for his comments, he does not know what he can come back and tell the Board. He wants to know what more is it going to do if you raise the penalty to $5,000 or even $25,000? He feels that the real issue is to improve water quality. He believes the real objective is to stop the tracking. He said that what if someone working for Bill Payne said “well I need to raise some revenue this month. I could write a $4500 and it would never come before the Board and the buck stops over there if he understands what Mike McMahan said. And he once again said that we should sit down and see what the real objective is.
Douglass Stein: You talking about doing that right now?
Roger Tudor: (Still not at a microphone) Did not think we could do that right now and that we need a better understanding. And wants to take everything and digest it.
Douglass Stein: But that’s not the amendment. The most that has been passed by the board is just simply to amend the protocol. And all the hesitation – the rest of it has just been discussion about what parts of the protocol there’s some discomfort with.
Roger Tudor: But the protocol that is being followed right now was the one we had before.
Bill Payne: It is actually the previous version. The one that was handed out today is revised. The one that the Board passed at the August meeting which is the one initially comments were made on. But the one currently is the one…
Douglass Stein: Which would still allow for $69,000 fines.
Bill Payne: No. That particular number was based on a penalty that was assessed prior to the adoption of the enforcement protocol even prior to our writing that. I think if you want to compare apples to apples, I think when we looked at it would make that down to $23,000 if you just took it.
Douglass Stein: The existing protocol?
Bill Payne: That’s right. The existing protocol. It would make the $61,000 down to about 23,000.
Douglass Stein: Well, I’m not opposed to meeting formally or informally with anybody, but right now, I’m not sure that we’ve got anything to discuss. I’m not sure what the amendments are. So, we are functioning under the August protocol and we are encouraging those that would amend this in any way and those that would say ‘I think we’ve got it right and we need to leave it that way’ to get those comments to the staff by next Monday and then we’ll have – we can probably have some informal discussions between – then once they have produced an amended protocol. But I don’t know what we’d be talking about right now other than more of what we have already talked about out here formally just to be talking about.
Roger Tudor: (paraphrased - not at microphone again) He did not understand and was just searching for understanding.
Douglass Stein: Well, it will be something. It will either be this with bigger fangs in it or it will this and what we are doing right now has got bigger fangs in it than this, is that right?
Bill Payne: I’m sorry.
Douglass Stein: What we’re doing right now in the August protocol is stricter.
Bill Payne: Only in one instance and that’s the instance where soil stabilization in this current protocol is based on $25.00 per acre per day. The August protocol is $250.00 flat per site per day for failure to do soil stabilization. So, that’s really the only significant change. The others are some changes in who gets notified in what circumstances.
Mike McMahan: Doug, Mr. Tudor’s point – every meeting in this Board has to be advertised. Every meeting of the committee has to be advertised. From what I’m hearing, though, there were two or three from that side – say three from them, three from you and some staff member probably could hammer it out before the next Board meeting if you wanted to set up a committee to have a more informal meeting. We still have to advertise it, but it could be a working session or at the table, as opposed to a formal meeting like we’re sitting here today, if you wanted to do it through a committee process.
Douglass Stein: We still essentially have the same deadline, same schedule to get written comments and then the following Monday, perhaps we’ll have our committee meeting to talk about these things.
Mike McMahan: Right.
Douglass Stein: At which time, Bill would bring the protocol and the comments and maybe a couple of what those changes would be, what it would look like. We could discuss it over a table. That’s fine with me. I think the three representatives of the Contractors, Manufacturers Associations should be included. And Bill’s staff should have some folks there, whoever it is necessary to the discussion. We’ll leave that to you.
Bill Payne: Yes, Sir.
Douglass Stein: And this meeting will take place two Mondays from now. That is November 22nd. I think Clyde, obviously, I’m hoping you can participate?
Clyde Sawyer: I would hope so, yes.
Douglass Stein: That’s Monday. I’m assuming we are going to go ahead and schedule right now. Monday, the 22nd. I could participate. Maybe the whole Board wants to.
Milton Jackson: I’m going to be here.
Douglass Stein: You’re going to be here?
Cissy May: The Monday before Thanksgiving, people will have Thanksgiving plans. That would be the only –
Douglass Stein: It’s a difficult Monday, but it is the only one that works with the schedule we’ve got.
Milton Jackson: What about the 15th?
Douglass Stein: Then we will not have time to take in the comments and then write them. That’s a week from today.
Bill Payne: Certainly we could either revise it so that we have the comments back by the end of the day Friday which shortens the time a little bit. The other possibility is making sure that we have the comments. It may be something where we don’t necessarily have another formalized drafted print out, but we may have some notes on the impacts those comments would be if you want to do it next Monday.
Ray Adkins: What is the time limit for a meeting like that? Ten days?
Mike McMahan: It’s reasonable. We like to make sure that we have at least forty eight hours to seventy two hours …
Bill Payne: At this point, we could get an announcement ready tomorrow. Generally, they can get those out in three days. We could have something in the paper as early as Friday or Saturday. So, I don’t think the announcement for a meeting next week is a problem.
Douglass Stein: How about we do it on next Thursday which is the 18th. Does that work for you, Bill? Let’s just have the whole Board there – all that can come. And, is three o’clock a good time for you?
Cissy May: I’ll probably be a little late. I’ll try.
Douglass Stein: 3:30 – is that all right with everybody?
Cissy May: 3:30 would be good.
Douglass Stein: Okay, 3:30 and where can we meet?
Bill Payne: I would say we will find a conference room upstairs that is more informal and just get everybody around the same table.
Roger Tudor: Mr. Chairman, I’ll be happy to offer my facility.
Douglass Stein: I think this is so easy for everybody not having to give directions.
Bill McDonald: We can have a conference room that will accommodate everybody around the table.
Douglass Stein: It would be on the second floor. Okay, so we’re going to have a publicly advertised meeting at which time we will discuss the amendments to the protocol on the second floor of this building on Thursday, November 18th at 3:30. We still will require written comments in to the staff by the Monday preceding which would be the
Bill Payne: 15th
Douglass Stein: 15th. And I’m sure they would like to have them by Friday this week.
Bill Payne: As early as they can get them to us.
Douglass Stein: Any more discussion about it? Are there any other people here to address the Board on something that is not on the agenda? (speaking to Bill Payne) You’re on the agenda.
Bill Payne: Well, I’m on the agenda but this item is not. I just wanted to let everybody know one of the things that has happened in the last month since the last meeting was on October 22nd was World Water Monitoring Day and just wanted to express thanks to Mr. Jackson for being able to come out and support that event for us. We had about a hundred students and people just in general that came through and we had a couple of hours here and so anyway, it was a very good day. I just wanted to express our thanks to Mr. Jackson for attending.
Douglass Stein: What did you find out?
Bill Payne: Well, it wasn’t so much what we found out, it was more of what we were able to pass on to people. We had some students from the Senter School which came over. We had some videos that we showed them about pollution. We also had some displays and standees up where we were able to talk to people about the different things that we do in Stormwater Management.
Douglass Stein: That’s part of our education.
Bill Payne: Kimberly did a fantastic job getting things set up so I’d like to thank her as well.
Douglass Stein: Any other non-agenda matters? I’ll entertain a motion for adjournment.
Milton Jackson: I’ll move.
Douglass Stein: Second? (a second was heard on tape) All in favor? (aye’s were heard on tape). I’ll see you Thursday, the 18th.