STORMWATER REGULATIONS BOARD
MEETING
MARCH 14, 2005
MINUTES
Attendees:
Jim Moegling, Chairman
Douglass Stein, Vice Chairman
Milton Jackson, Environmental Representative
Ray Adkins, Secretary, Neighborhood Representative
Ken DeFoor, Development Representative
Jim Hoff, Industrial Representative
Clyde Sawyer, At-Large Representative
Mary (Cissy) May, Educational Representative
Harry Tate, At-Large Representative
Michael McMahan, City Attorney
Ann Shaffer, City Attorney
William C. McDonald, Administrator of Public Works
William C. Payne, Assistant City Engineer
Mounir Minkara, Water Quality Manager
Steve McKinley, FMSM
Kim McClurkin, Education and Public Relations
Nelson Mackey for Magnolia Estates
Ron Duke for Magnolia Estates
Jennifer Innes, TDEC
Jason Payne, City of Chattanooga Inspector
Heather Ritchie, Soil Engineering Specialist
Carolyn Fisher, Stormwater Secretary
I. Call to Order.
Jim Moegling, Chairman
II. Minute Approval.
Jim Moegling: Okay, it is just past 3:00 o’clock, so we will call the meeting to order. First orders of business that we have are the minutes from December 13th and January 3rd and somebody wants to make a motion to accept the minutes as written? Or does anybody have any corrections?
Cissy May: I move that we accept the minutes.
Jim Moegling: We have a motion to accept the minutes. Do I have a second?
Ken DeFoor: Second.
Jim Moegling: Everybody in favor, say aye. (Aye’s were heard on tape) Everybody opposed? (No opposed were heard on tape). I think that means they passed. Wait a minute I have got the wrong agenda. We had already approved part of those meetings.
The next order of business is the problem we have on Midland Pike. I want to remind everybody that is not on the Board to please sign in so we know who was here. Thank you, Bill. And, who is it that would be representing the developer or requesting this release from the fine?
Nelson Mackey: He is not here yet.
Jim Moegling: Okay.
Bill Payne: Also, Mr. Moegling, just remind people when they speak to stand at one of the microphones so we can hear their comments.
Jim Moegling: Yes, I wanted to do that and also, when we get into this, we will do this again. When you say, Mr. Duke?
Nelson Mackey: He is about five or six minutes away.
Jim Moegling: Okay. This will be a formal hearing. And it will be recorded testimony. So, not only do we want the mic, but we will swear people in, just to let you know that is the way this is to operate. Okay? And we have got my support here to keep me out of trouble with the City Attorney. Well, if we want to wait on that, why don’t we go on with the things that you wanted to review, Bill.
Bill Payne: Alright.
Jim Moegling: And we can take a break when you reach a point of break if Mr. Duke gets here.
Bill Payne: Alright, that is fine.
III. Presentation.
Bill Payne: If you look at your Agenda next, we actually had some information. It is item number 4 on your agenda, Approximate Floodplain Pilot Study. We wanted to review some information with the Board. As you recall, at the January meeting we presented some information on a detailed floodplain analysis that we had done over in the Forest Plaza area. And, because we were concerned about the types of problems that issue presented to us as a staff and you as a Board, we were concerned about that. So we started to look at this being a long and involved process. So, what other alternatives are there out there that the City could utilize to try to protect people who are in that situation.
By way of refreshing your memory on that, what we were talking about were areas where there had not previously been any modeling or any establishment of a floodplain in an area. And we had developers that went in and built adjacent to those creeks and those streams in those areas and, without realizing the fact that people were actually purchasing properties in a floodplain. So, we sat down and we looked at some areas and said let’s look at some areas of new development to see whether or not this is an on-going problem that the City is experiencing to try to figure out some ways to identify those areas. So we looked at some areas in the Ryall Springs Branch that drains into Mackey Branch and ultimately into South Chickamauga Creek. We looked at some analysis of ways called an approximate method of modeling and applications that we could utilize for that.
The area that you see here on the screen that is surrounded in red roughly represents our study area. Down at the bottom, you can see this gray area represents what is currently recognized by FEMA as being the floodplain in that area. Down at the very bottom of your screen, this arching section in blue represents Ryall Springs Branch. And that is the section that has actually been modeled. Everything else that you see all the way even up into the study area where you do see some gray is actually backwater flooding from Ryall Springs Branch. So, the section you see inside the red is not an area that has received any type of modeling to this point from FEMA. So it is not recognized as being on FEMA’s maps. So we said lets take a look at these studies and, obviously, we wanted to be sure that anything that we do is in conjunction with FEMA standards and so we have used standard FEMA models. Actually, the same types of models that were used in the Forest Plaza study. But, we have used them to a different degree of accuracy. We are going to talk about that a little more as we go through. The hydrology which is the HEC HMS portion of this, determines how much run-off is coming to those areas; we followed the exact/same process that we did for the detailed studies in Forest Plaza.
We looked at two different types of events. One was a 100-year floodplain based on existing conditions that are out there today. Then we also said this is a developing area. What is going to happen as these areas continue to develop and if their zoning stays the same, what is going to be the potential future floodplain that could occur at some point once all these areas get completely developed? So we have actually looked at both of those as part of this study. We have taken all of our channel information for the drainage channels that are through this area and the streams in this area are based on the two-foot contour data. We did not send surveyors out to actually get actual cross sections. It is a very, I guess approximate is a good word – that is the type of study that this is – so we got an approximate channel size and cross section. However, what we did have, even though we did not have actual elevations, we did include what the City had found as part of our As-Found or our Inventory project which had already been through this area where we were able to determine pipe sizes and the materials of those pipes in order to be able to add those in so that the model could actually look at is there a 36” pipe under this road or is there a 15” pipe underneath the road. That way, we were much more able to closely predict. We didn’t have the actual slopes; again, it is back to an approximate type of relationship.
And then the final area of difference between this and Forest Plaza was that in Forest Plaza we sent out detailed questionnaires. We got people who had lived in the area for many years to provide us with their input on how often they experienced flood levels, how high those got and we were able to correlate those back and calibrate the model. We did not go to that level of effort in this particular model. We just took the raw numbers that we got for runoff and we applied them into the program in order to determine what is there. But we did not calibrate it against anything that we knew.
I mentioned that we took existing conditions and we took future conditions. The map that you see on your left represents the existing conditions. Green is more undeveloped and red is more developed where it is almost an impervious situation. So you can tell by the higher concentrations of green what the relative level of development is within the study area. On the right hand side is if we took the zoning that currently applies to those properties and we said okay lets develop those out in a manner that is consistent with what we are seeing in the area and what would that mean in terms of impervious areas that you could look at and you can see how much that changes, especially in these areas right along the creeks you can see this brown area and red that runs up each side. That is obviously indicative of where there could be some higher growth in those areas. So what were the results that we got whenever we looked at these?
The two pictures that you see, the one on the left represents the study area with contours. The picture on the right represents just an aerial photograph that was taken back in 2001 to represent those undeveloped areas. You can see by looking at those, the blue that you see that runs adjacent to the creek in both of these pictures represents the floodplain based on the existing data. The red that you see almost makes it look like there is a purple outline on the screen. That represents a fully developed or future floodplain that is out there. In this particular scenario, because of how steep this area is, that fully developed floodplain does not get much wider than what we currently have. But it is there to indicate that there are many different factors. How much development continues to occur as well as the topography of that area is going to greatly influence how wide that floodplain could get in the future. So it is to give you an idea that even in something as narrow as this, there is some movement of that. And the water gets deeper but it doesn’t necessarily directly translate to a wider area of a floodplain. But we certainly do get increased amounts of water that has to come down. And it is something that has to be looked at. We run into this type of scenario quite often on areas that have already been modeled and as development continues to occur and those models get updated with the new data, then suddenly we have these people who previously were not in the floodplain who then become part of the floodplain or part of the floodway. And so that is really a big indicator of areas that we need to watch. Not just for today, but also for the future as well.
The slide that you see here is an example of an area where there already are, and potentially can continue to be, some real problems. You can see this blue line running through here represents the stream channel and again the blue that you see represents the 100-year floodplain again – this approximate floodplain that we have developed. The street that you see in here comes around and this is the center line of the street shown in black. And these red lines are actually the property lines. And what we have continued to see in this area even before we had this analysis done, was these lots even though they don’t currently show up with buildings and other structures on them, that road has been developed through there – again this aerial photograph you see in the background was from 2001. Since 2001, that area has been developed so it is something where we have seen these houses get built in these areas. They are already starting to call us to say “This creek gets out of its banks. It surrounds my house or it gets underneath my house. We want the City to come do something about that. Come fix this.”
I think what is important to see on this is that this is an area where if this information had been known both to the City and the developer, whenever they got ready to develop that there were changes that could have been made to the layout of the subdivision to try to avoid that. Because I don’t think that anybody would have willingly or knowingly developed this in order to sell people properties and houses, but starting here in the corner all of these lots have already been developed. So there are already houses sitting on those. And so you can see why we are getting these phone calls, because we have houses on even in two cases we have entire parcels that are almost completely within the floodplain. So, those are obviously areas that by going through this process, we can identify these hopefully to protect other people in the future and protect developers as well, so that they do not find themselves in similar situations.
So, just to summarize what we have looked at in this; the accuracy that we have done is very close to what was done in Forest Plaza. We did not have the calibration data. We do not have some of the detailed survey information to be able to correlate it, but the runoff numbers are very accurate. The 2-foot contour data is actually pretty good. So we are actually able to get some pretty good information from that. We are able to utilize our current GIS contours and utilize our existing information from our inventory or from the As-Found either one. We do have less opportunity to calibrate because we are not going to the same level of effort. But the information that we do develop on this can be submitted directly to FEMA and just by way of comparison, in the Forest Plaza or Forest Highlands area, we were actually able to establish a risk of a zone AE and actually establish base flood elevations for how high the water would get so that those people would be aware. A study of this magnitude would be recognized by FEMA as a zone A or an approximate flood hazard they would not establish a base flood elevation associated with that. But it would provide people an opportunity to know that, yes; there is some risk of flooding. They would also have an opportunity to purchase flood insurance to go with that so it would provide a level of recognition back to the ultimate property owners or homeowners who are going to own a lot of these places.
And all of this information can be developed at a cost-savings that we put on the screen up to 65% over detailed study and that’s going to vary. It could be even more savings than that over a detailed study, depending on exactly the shape and size of the study area how much runoff is gemerated. So we believe that there is a significant amount of savings to be able to look at that and identify some of these risk areas as we go. So, with that, I will be glad to answer any questions that we have on that. And see what information we can provide to the Board. One of the things that we would like to have from the Board, if the Board is in agreement and sees that this is beneficial, is for the Board to actually adopt this almost as a resolution that there is a feeling or a need to do other similar types of studies of this magnitude in other places where there has not been modeling done.
Jim Moegling: Any questions?
Jim Moegling: I do have one. Mike go ahead if you. I’m sorry, Bill.
Bill McDonald: Why don’t you go ahead and ask your question. I just wanted to speak a little bit to what Bill has said.
Jim Moegling: The thing that I see right off is it seems like it is beneficial. What do you put in place now? For instance in those areas that now you have some confidence that there is a problem, does the City do something now to either disseminate that information or put some restrictions on That land? What comes out of the study right now?
Bill Payne: Basically, the information that we have can be submitted to FEMA and can be utilized that way. It can also be utilized internally for us to be able to talk with developers as they come through and they are preparing their plans in the early stages to be able to talk to them about this is an area where we have a known or potential problem that needs to be looked at and this needs to be incorporated into your design to find a smart way to be able to achieve the development without increasing the risk of adding more properties in the flood zone. And that is one of the immediate beneficial uses and then ultimately submitting information to FEMA has its own benefits as well.
Jim Moegling: This won’t be approved by FEMA until perhaps you do a more detailed or something such as that? What does that do for instance with the flood insurance for those people again, right now? Is that qualified?
Bill Payne: Actually, this study that has been done is acceptable to FEMA in its current form. It is what they call an Approximate Study. That is the reason why there would not be a floodway established along that center line and there would not be a base flood elevation established to regulate finished floor elevations. But there would be – the maps could be amended and re-issued to show these areas to say yes, there is a risk and hazard of flooding in this area, but the exact limits and depths and where the floodway is for that high velocity zone along the creek would not be known without a detailed study. So it provides the homeowners the benefit of being able to do that. And they can buy flood insurance based on this.
Jim Moegling: It qualifies for flood insurance?
Bill Payne: Yes.
Jim Moegling: Alright. Thank you, Bill.
Bill McDonald: What brought us to this point is the problem that we found last year in Forest Plaza. Just to go a little bit more into detail in that and our thinking behind this. We modeled Forest Plaza we had a group of citizens that came to Council and bitterly complained that their area flooded and we were not doing anything about it. There had been a lot of work done on that channel out there, but none of it solved the problem of the flooding out there. It still continued to flood. So, rather than go out and say, “We’re going to fix this culvert here or we’re going to make some improvements here”, is that I had Bill to contract with the consultants there to model that entire area to actually see what is happening and what it would take to solve that problem. And that is when we found out that all these homes were built unknowing to the homeowners or unknowing to the developers when they developed it, actually built the houses in the floodplain and in the floodway. So, there is very little that we could do or really nothing we could do to solve these people’s flooding. Because you just can’t. The only thing you can do is pick those houses up and move them. And we will probably be looking at some type of a grant to be able to do at least some of that some time in the future, hopefully this next year. But we were thinking, How many others? We know we have development going on in other areas and we already flooding in a lot of other areas. And our concern was what is happening at these other areas where we don’t have any kind of floodplain mapping? What is happening on that? And we know we had this particular area – that subdivision along that channel just completed within the last two years. We have already had people calling and saying “Why is my house flooding? City come out and fix this flooding problem.” So we selected this area as another area to look at in an area where you have new development and you also opportunity for further development in that area, to look at it and look at it in an approximate way and not spend the kind of money we spent out at Forest Plaza, but yet be able to look at a fairly good-sized area and make some prediction as to what the floodplain area is. And what we found was that, yes, we have exactly the same thing happening out in East Brainerd out there that happened in 1960 and 1970’s in Forest Plaza.
So, as a City, what is our obligation to see that this kind of thing does not continue to happen to the best of our ability? Some things will always happen, but to the best of our ability, what can we do to protect the homeowner in this case? Now, this is not something that is going to be quickly embraced by the developers, because it is going to limit some of the area which they probably own that they will not be able to develop in, or will have to modify what would normally be the most economical way of going about this. Our thought is that first we wanted you to understand what the problem is and if you are in agreement that we do have a problem and that we do need to be moving on this, that is the first thing we would like to know is how you feel about this.
Give us some input as to what you as representing the community, both the development and the residents how you feel about it and secondly how we go about doing this. Now, our initial thoughts are that, of course, we want to keep Council apprised of this because this is going to be one of those contentious issues, I am sure. The second one would be after we have informed Council of what our plans are, is to go to the development community and try to work through this in a way that will be acceptable or at least they understand why we are having to do this and then try to work out an ordinance of some kind and a procedure to work through this. It will be, in our opinion, fair to a homeowner when they are buying a house in these locations along these streams and recognize that they are in the floodplain and are going to flood. So, I just wanted to give you a little more background on that. And I’ll be glad to answer questions or Bill.
Jim Moegling: Bill, before you go away, I guess it comes back to the same question for me. What I heard you say: based on this study, the City is going to begin to enforce that as the norm, as a guideline then?
Bill McDonald: Well, I think what we want to begin first is we want to begin working with the development community on how we go about doing this. It is not going to be an easy solution to it. So, we want to begin working on it, take this as an example, begin working on that, and then possibly lead to an ordinance that tells us what we need to do in this situation, how we need to approach it. And we don’t have all the answers of how is the best way we ought to approach it. We still want to work through that. So we don’t have a definite ordinance or anything set out as to how we should approach that.
Jim Moegling: Okay.
Milton Jackson: Well, one that I’m thinking as you are talking, the realtor could put in the deeds that they are in a floodplain area if they’re not doing that already.
Bill McDonald: Well, in this case they would not be doing it because they don’t know that, because nobody knows where it is right now. And we only know this because we happened to choose this area and do a modeling of that area. So there are a lot of streams out there and our concern is there are a lot of streams out there just like this one that have not been modeled and won’t be modeled in detail like we did Forest Plaza for many years to come. But if we start working on this now we can begin to get the approximate location of the floodplain on these in several years. We can’t do it all in one year. It will take several years to do it. But it will be much quicker than waiting for a detailed modeling of all the area.
Milton Jackson: Well, as I said month before last, I was looking at Texas, I was in Houston. I’m looking at the bayou that they had. They built in areas and they held a lot of water. An area that we can build one, well, let’s put one of those out there and that will help eliminate a lot of it. We have the flood zone. We have the wetland and the wetland takes a lot of water. But to develop a wetland, well some developer is going to want to go in there and develop this wetland and without knowing until he comes down to get papers and see that, yes, this is a wetland, but unknowingly, he didn’t know that as you was saying a few minutes ago.
Bill McDonald: Exactly.
Douglass Stein: I’m surprised to learn that in the course of doing the stormwater runoff engineering that is required to get a subdivision plat in the City of Chattanooga that something like this doesn’t show up. I’ve been involved in several subdivisions as a contractor and a few as a developer, not very many. But in every instance that I can think of where there is a stream running through the project, in the course of engineering the runoff and the retention for that, it was discovered or known somehow that there was a potential flooding problem and that was addressed in the engineering of the subdivision. So, I’m a little bit surprised to learn that we’ve got areas like this in the City that we don’t know where somebody can build a subdivision within the last ten years and have home sites, complete home sites built in a floodplain. My understanding as a developer prior to this has been that that’s FEMA’s responsibility to publish these maps and that in the course of engineering that, you know if you’re in a Flood zone. It’s hard to buy a piece of property…..? I understand that this is something that is not FEMA’s flood zone that floods. Is that right?
Bill McDonald: That’s correct.
Douglass Stein: So I think there is probably not all that many places in the City of Chattanooga where this is the case. Is that not true?
Bill McDonald: I think that there are a lot of them. Because, FEMA as I understand it, primarily on the Tennessee River and maybe the North Chick and South Chick and major tributaries, they did modeling and back up in some of the smaller streams for the backwater, but did not take into account what would be coming down from upstream on that. And a lot of the smaller tributaries as this one is (Ryall Springs) has not been modeled. And we do have a lot of them that are not modeled.
Douglass Stein: But just take for example Friars Branch out there at Shallowford and that area there has been pretty extensively modeled for headwater and backwater flooding.
Bill Payne: Correct. Friars Branch has been.
Bill McDonald: Well, okay. But that part that goes up through Hamilton Place has never been modeled.
Douglass Stein: Is that right?
Bill Payne: Right.
Douglass Stein: Black Creek that runs through the golf course has been pretty extensively modeled.
Bill Payne: But only so far up. The majority of Cummings Cove has not had detailed models that establishes floodplain.
Douglass Stein: Well, the first thing that I’m thinking about, when that was being done, and I was the owner of the golf course and contractor for some part, the very first part of the subdivision, and subsequently had not had an interest in residential development, where that stream went through the property that is on the golf course, the flood waters were extensively engineered, whether or not that was modeled for headwater or backwater floods.
Bill Payne: We are not saying that there are not places that don’t look at it. But what we are saying is there are subdivisions and developments that occur where it does not get looked at. This particular example that we have looked at is one that occurred in phases. And so, the detention and stormwater modeling that they did, they did each phase and they looked at the discharge to that stream. And they did not necessarily look at what were the impacts that the stream itself would have on development. And so that’s the area, one of the areas that we have to improve on.
Douglass Stein: My next question is as a taxpayer. Is this the City’s responsibility? Or, is it the Federal Government’s responsibility?
Bill McDonald: Well, FEMA does the mapping. And, correct me if I am wrong on this. But FEMA only does it (the last time they did it, they did in ’99 or 2000?)
Bill Payne: Well, there were new maps issued in 2002, but the previous actual modeling was done was issued in ’98.
Bill McDonald: So it takes them about ten years to get the current mapping out.
Bill Payne: FEMA does modeling based on priorities and areas of known hazards that occur that the City gives to them then eventually it comes down to resources. They look at it and say “We have so many dollars we can use for this. You need to tell us where your highest priority areas are.” And areas like what we’re talking about now that are undeveloped don’t get the attention that they need until it is too late. That’s exactly what Forest Plaza is a prime example. It is an area that wasn’t going to be looked at by FEMA because it didn’t have large enough channels. But then when it finally got so bad that everybody got to complaining about problems, it is too late for the maps to have done any good to have kept people out of the area as a known risk. That is what we are trying to accomplish with the approximate floodplain study.
Steve McKinley: And FEMA is moving away from them doing this and trying to move these programs into the communities and say, ‘it’s your job to manage floodplains’.
Douglass Stein: And then my next question is this: We’ve got a budget that was sent out for this update (4.9 million dollars or 4.7 million dollars, whatever it is). This is not in there, right? I mean because our notice of violation has to do with the sedimentation and effluent coming into the Tennessee River.
Bill Payne: Well, there are also some sections on floodplain management that are in the Permit as well in terms of flood management projects, something like we are talking about now would actually be considered a capital project that would be done outside of the budget information..
Bill McDonald: To answer your question, though, is that, yes, we don’t have the money to do this right now. What we would have to do is to do it in smaller steps. This one cost us what? About $9,000? So, we could do this in smaller steps and hopefully, once we get beyond some of this NPDES Permit requirements we have that we’re spending so much money on now is that we would then have some money to be able to do some larger chunks. But, we need to start doing it. To get it is going to take some time just to get a program into place as to what we are going to do and how we’re going to do it.
Douglass Stein: It would be pretty simple to identify those areas, wouldn’t it? I mean you know where the blue lines are and you just..
Bill Payne: That was a point I was going to make. Once we got this information back, we used the GIS to actually look at what was the total number of miles of stream center line that were located in the City. Then we said how many of those are already reside within a floodway or a floodplain? And I think it was somewhere around a hundred miles or so that have been modeled inside the City and another two hundred miles that are outside the City that may need to be modeled. Exactly how far up into the watershed you would need to go is still a question to be answered. But, you could safely say that in terms of length, we are probably half-way from where we really ought to be.
Douglass Stein: Right. And then in the meantime, you just send a notice to Fred Brunker to pay special attention to any subdivisions that are developed in this area and watch the engineering of their stormwater runoff.
Bill McDonald: Well, if you don’t know where the floodplain is, though, he doesn’t know what to look for. Is he going to look for how far from the centerline of that stream is to look? And that is what we need this information for is to be able to have an approximate location of that floodplain so we will know how far from that stream we need to be looking.
Douglass Stein: Right. But, at the very least, I mean tomorrow, you could tell a developer that is developing a subdivision in a place like that you could say, ‘you need to know that you are in a potentially sensitive area’. Somebody knew at Cummings Cove and Black Creek that that creek could be a problem. And it was dry as a bone when we started out there. But, when it rains, it gets through there in a hurry. And we accommodated that. And it has not been a problem.
Ken DeFoor: Well, since I’m getting older and can’t see very well, was that Brandermill Subdivision?
Bill Payne: It was on the north end, yes.
Ken DeFoor: And that is happening in that subdivision?
Bill Payne: Yes.
Ken DeFoor: Well, that whole area has been a, well, that’s another discussion.
Clyde Sawyer: One of the things we ought to think about is the possibility of setting some standards for developers when they go into a place that has that potential that they delineate the floodplain themselves for the City rather than expecting the City to delineate it for them.
Bill Payne: One of the things that we had talked about internally was that if we had this information we could use that for the developer to use as a guide. And, if they disagreed with the information that was on there, they could then provide a detail study back to us which could change those limits.
Clyde Sawyer: What I’m thinking now, though, is how long will it take us, the City, to go around and get all these places and model them. And in that time, probably more development will occur. We need immediate guidelines.
Jim Moegling: The question comes to mind; what is the responsibility of the developer? Let’s say houses were built in that plain. They didn’t know it. The people didn’t know it. What are the responsibilities now?
Bill McDonald: I don’t know. Mike?
Mike McMahan: They certainly could get sued. I don’t know how it would come out.
Ken DeFoor: If they were issued a building permit.
Douglass Stein: Yes. You would argue over what is the difference between responsibility and liability.
Bill Payne: That is true.
Jim Hoff: Just one quick comment: Does the Corps of Engineers and TVA not have any additional information that can be made available to help with a more reasonable time frame?
Bill Payne: Well, the information that we have that all of the existing models that we have that were done by TVA, TVA actually got out of the modeling business in 1994 so we can’t get any more information from them. And the Corps of Engineers does it if you can get Congressional approval and Congressional funding to pay for it. And so that is the main issue. trying to squeeze more money out of the Stormwater budget as we talked about last week. We would typically try to reserve the Corps of Engineers for large projects where we are trying to establish flood control systems or flood warning systems or something else on a watershed basis rather than on a local basis, just because of the complexity of trying to get their assistance.
Jim Hoff: I would just think that they would have some general, good overall information that could be used that is probably existing. I guess I’m wrong.
Bill Payne: And, any of that information that is available gets used and gets incorporated into the type of things that we’re talking about. A lot of it has to do with what do they have and how close is it in terms of where this is. We don’t necessarily have anything from them that we can use in place of doing this for ourselves.
Jim Hoff: I guess it surprises me that we have so much in the City that it seems like we don’t know about because some property in north Hamilton and Bradley County that I’m aware of for another reason that it is marked really well with wetlands and 100-year floodplains. It just surprised me how well the plat was marked by this engineering firm.
Steve McKinley: Two of the things that you have that made this a lot less expensive to do is first of all the very good GIS system that you have that allows us to be able to still get the geometry of the cross-section, the lay of the land and put it into the model without going to the field and getting the cross-sections. I know there’s a difference in accuracy, but not a great deal. The second thing is the As-Found program that you guys are doing. That gave us the other piece that we need, the culverts and the bridges and all of the structural, if you will, pieces and we were able to put those in from the As-Found program. That is what helps reduce a lot of these costs. So that is a very good thing that we are moving in that direction.
Jim Moegling: Just thinking, as you were going through here, it seems like the very first thing to do, what I hear people talking about, is identify those potential areas and get that out to the developers. You know, hey, we don’t know, but there is a potential problem. The second, then, perhaps, is to do this quick analysis and, as it becomes necessary, or time and money is available, do the detail analysis. Is that in a nutshell what you are talking about?
Steve McKinley: Well, another way to look it as we talked about it is; there are two things that come out of the approximate study: For those people already in the floodplain, it is enough to say, ‘You really ought to think about buying flood insurance even if you are borderline on it, you really ought to be thinking about it’. The second thing it does is it marks a border that says to the developer, ‘You really should not go beyond this. You are getting into a flood-hazard zone.’ If he comes back and says, ‘Yeah, but I’m going to develop further down into that floodplain, which the rules do allow’. Then, at that point, say, ‘Fine. Then you need to do the detail work that it is going to take to put a floodway in place. The exact floodplain, do the field cross sections, measure every one of the structures and then you come back and we will review that particular study.’ And really, at that point, the City does have to invest in that more costly step.
Jim Moegling: Is that something you can do now, or is that what you would present to the City Council as a project?
Bill McDonald: That is not something that we do now.
Jim Moegling: I mean could do now?
Bill McDonald: But we think, yeah, that’s probably a direction in which we want to move. One of the difficulties in this if you’ve got a developer – and I’ll use this one for example, is that the area in which was developed there, (can we put that map back up there? The one that showed the lots) Yes. Is that the developer that did this is a fairly small area in there and he’s not going to want to go and get all the information that you’ve got to go upstream and downstream from his property nor does he want to go survey across on the other side to get a developer to do that. So, it is not going to be something that a developer is going to say, ‘I’m happy to go do that’.
Douglass Stein: You post a public notice from the City that says that these lots are in a potentially flood-prone zone, then he has some incentive. He’ll either not sell the lots because people will be warned, or he’ll figure out whether it is worth it to him or not.
Jim Moegling: Like a perk test.
Jim Moegling: Another thing comes to mind right now. It seems like we should be telling these people that built there that they would best get some flood insurance.
Bill McDonald: Yes. We do need to.
Douglass Stein: I think that is the City’s responsibility. If you know that, you need to tell them.
Bill McDonald: Yes.
Douglass Stein: There is a house here (pointing to the map).
Bill McDonald: There are several houses in there.
Douglass Stein: But I was just picking that lot because it is a home that is in the floodplain.
Bill McDonald: You know about it. That’s your house?
Douglass Stein: No. I don’t know about it like Ken does, but that lot is a hundred percent in the floodway.
Ken DeFoor: I just really believe that - I’ll just say this and I’ll back away- this is bigger than some homebuilders want to handle. And I think the City is going to have to step up with some muscle, not only dictate some things but spend some money here. I mean, I grew up in the homebuilder community and they are going to have to have some direction. The City is going to have to spend some money so they can have some direction.
Mike McMahan: Do we have any fly-over maps or anything that would show some very high water conditions without going to the trouble that you could use as a guide or a rough guide to say where it is flooding?
Bill Payne: I think most of the information that we have from aerial information from past flood events is centered around current areas of intense development. And so when one of those have occurred we have not sent anybody out and say ‘go out here where there is nothing and take some pictures for us’. Everybody at that moment in a crisis mode is driven towards ‘we need to evaluate what is currently developed that is being flooded.’ So I don’t think that we have that much.
Mike McMahan: That is what I’m suggesting. If you had any information whatsoever be it accurate, not accurate as long as it is reasonably accurate as to where it would flood, then you could adopt a regulation saying ‘thou shalt not build here without doing a study.’ If you had any information at all that would sustain the rough outline of the flood area, whether it be through aerial photographs or whatever.
Ken DeFoor: I read some statistics a few years ago that the average guy sixty years old today, his main retirement is his house, they have less than $10,000 in the bank. The average guy turns sixty in America today has less than $10,000. All he has is his home and whatever he has got as a pension. And I hope that some of these poor people here…I hope they’re affluent.
Jim Moegling: Okay, any more discussion? Then I would like somebody, if they can put something together as a motion. What I have heard Bill and Bill say is an approach for how to do starting from initial information, preliminary investigation followed by detailed investigation at some point……(tape ran out)
Jim Moegling: I would like to see, like we were saying, what potential even before you do the study. If you are out there identifying those potential areas, that is positive. The next step is the quick study. How quickly can that be used for information and for what regulation is necessary to put restrictions on building there and how quickly can that be adopted as the way City Council would want to do.
Bill McDonald: Would it be possible for Mike and Bill to work up something and send it out and get some feedback so we could go ahead and begin to go to work on this. We would like to begin right away.
Mike McMahan: You’ve got e-mail addresses. We can send out emails out and get comments back from anybody that would care to comment and we could make a better product before Council and we could also start getting to work on implementing what appears to be the solution.
Jim Moegling: Sounds like a good approach.
Ray Adkins: I’ve got one question: What input will you use to initiate the study. Is that from various communities or builders or what?
Bill Payne: We have already taken input just from our own internal staff of areas that they know about and we are getting those compiled to get that information onto a map. And then, based on that along with known hazard areas looking at contours and topographic information, I think our main thrust is in some cases we know we are looking at undeveloped areas so there is not necessarily going to be a lot of community knowledge about this place floods or whether people owning the property or living in the area for some period of time may know about past flooding in an area. But if it is undeveloped we are going to have to count on looking at it from an engineering judgement perspective to try to identify those areas to begin with. But, certainly any information that has not been modeled that is in a developed area, we are going to compile whatever calls and history we may have on that site as well.
Jim Moegling: Okay. I think we would like to see that at the next meeting and what you have in mind. And it sounds like a good approach.
Jim Moegling: Alright, let’s get back to the first agenda item. I think I saw Mr. Duke come in. Is that correct? Just a couple of notes: If you would, please sign in so we know you are here. We know you are here, but, officially you are here and if you will use the microphone so we can get the minutes. The other thing, just to tell you: This is an official hearing so you are going to be sworn in as a testimony so you know where you stand. It is a formal hearing in other words.
The testimony of the hearing is verbatim and has not been edited in any way.
Mike McMahan: I think it would be more useful for everybody concerned if the department submitted at least a brief outline to the Board why they have issued the civil penalty and then allow the gentleman, I’m sorry; I didn’t catch your name, sir.
Ron Duke: Ron Duke.
Mike McMahan: Ron Duke?
Ron Duke: Yes, sir.
Mike McMahan: And then allow Mr. Duke to respond to the situation so that we could put everything into context. I think Ms. Shaffer from my office has done some work on this. Are you going to organize it, Ann, or who is going to present it?
Ann Shaffer: ?
Mike McMahan: Mo is going to present it.
Mike McMahan: Mr. Duke, have a seat and Mr. Minkara will provide the Board a brief outline. Would Mr. Duke and Mr. Minkara stand to be sworn, please?
Mike McMahan: Do you and each of you swear that the testimony which you give in the case now shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mounir Minkara: Yes, sir.
Ron Duke: Yes
Mounir Minkara: Thank you.
Mounir Minkara: Okay, this site is on Midland Pike and this is an appeal by Mr. Duke for the civil penalty that was issued to him according to the Compliance Order. And we have provided you with a slide presentation which I am going to go over today. And we have provided you in the same package all the correspondences that were sent from this office and from the State of Tennessee to Mr. Duke and I think Mr. Brown which also include here the compliance order which is the main document that I like everybody to have maybe in front of. Okay, it is halfway in this package, the Compliance Order its half way in this package.
Jim Hoff: Is the Compliance Order dated February the 8th?
Mounir Minkara: It is dated January 25.
Mike McMahan: The Compliance Order dated January 25 shall be marked as Exhibit 1 and submitted to the clerk for the record.
Mounir Minkara: Okay. Like I said, this site is located on Midland Pike and, as we can see from the aerial photographs that were taken many years back before the site was developed and south right south in the corner of the site is where the wetland is located is about one quarter, one third of an acre wetland. As you can see right at the bottom of the slide where really at the corner there is a wetland. Do you have a pointer? Okay, use the mouse? Yes, sir. It is right there. This is the wetland. This is the discharge that is going to. And right above the wetland there is a pond, a detention pond, a sediment pond. Supposed to be a sediment pond which is malfunctioning and all this area now has been developed and the permit was issued October, 2002. And this is some slide showing
Mike McMahan: The second slide in your presentation. Is that right?
Mounir Minkara: Yes, sir.
Mike McMahan: Alright. Please identify which slide you are speaking from for the record, please.
Mounir Minkara: Okay. This is the third slide, Sir. This photo taken on February 14 and this show you to the left half of the slide as the outlet of the sediment pond and the right half of the slide show you shows the receiving wetland, part of the receiving wetland, the inlet to the wetland. The next slide, slide number 4 show you other potential problems at the site as you can see the slopes of the pond on the left side of the slide showing you where there is no kind of stabilization along the slopes and all this sediments is going through the pond and then going to the wetland. The right side of the slide show you an unprotected inlet. There is no types of protection at all. The next slide, slide number 5, we going to start with the history of the violations. And if you have any questions, you can stop me at any time. Back in October, like I said, the permit was issued and the permit is a Land Disturbance Permit number 290033. Before the permit was issued, the State has issued a permit for the site. And we have at least three of our inspectors been at the site. Mr. Jason Payne is a construction inspector that work with Engineering have been on the site since 2002 and we have a Jenna Sells from Stormwater division. She started going at the site when she was hired about ten month ago. Personally I have never been at the site, so, and we have representative from the State that’s been at the site who is here with us, Jennifer Innes. If you have questions, I am sure she can answer.
Mike McMahan: Jennifer what?
Mounir Minkara: Jennifer Innes. Jennifer, would you please?
Mounir Minkara: Okay, so all these dates shows where an inspections took place and there is more inspection that we can have on the slide so we showing most of the inspections. And, in a lot of cases, most cases, an inspection resulted in even verbal warning or written warning to protect the wetland from sediment discharge and to stabilize the site. Okay, the next slide is 6. September 19, 2003, the first NOV was issued on in September ’03 the first NOV was issued by the City and it was issued to Mr. Duke requiring that he stabilize the site and prevent sediment to enter the wetland. Okay, after the NOV was issued, we had a follow-up inspection and the inspection is documented improper response to our NOV. In addition to improper maintenance or not really any maintenance of any of the BMPS, the Best Management Practices, which includes the silt fence and they were warned that an enforcement action might be on the way. This is back in October, ’03. Additional inspections were followed. Slide number 7, the NOV was given to Mr. Duke and the first NOV. The second NOV was issued on September 19, ’04 and pretty much the same requirement. The site need to be stabilized and the BMPs need to be maintained and additional BMPs need to be installed. And then the site need to be monitored on a regular basis. Now, the next one is, believe, slide number 8. And the deadline for the NOV to come into compliance with the City Ordinances and with their approved plans was given October 21, 2004. An inspector went on site on this date and found no correction action. Slide number 9 started TDEC got involved and TDEC have paid a visit to the site and issued an NOV on October 27, ’04, last October. And this are some of the points that TDEC found to be relevant to their permit. They saw obvious discharging to the wetland, sediments wetland and silt fence are not properly maintained and majority of the site is unstable and there is evidence that the site has been unattended and not maintained and as I will be showing you in the next slides, there’s gullies that have formed, started to form and were formed. I think that this letter, the NOV from the State was unclaimed by Mr. Duke and it was the State have re-sent it on December 7, ’05.
Mike McMahan: Now, which document are you talking about now?
Mounir Minkara: Which slide?
Mike McMahan: No, which letter was it?
Mounir Minkara: Okay, the letter is, it’s the State letter. If you go back to your other handout, the State letter is on the third page.
Mike McMahan: What’s the date of it?
Mounir Minkara: No, sir. Let me see. Is it February? No, February 15 is the request for the, no it’s further down, further down. I believe its past, it’s before, it’s before the Compliance Order, so it’s going to be beyond the Compliance Order. Its two pages from the Compliance Order.
Mike McMahan: The date of the letter, though. That will help.
Mounir Minkara: The date of the letter is October 27, ’04.
Mike McMahan: Okay.
Mounir Minkara: And it’s was given to you in this package and unclaim was December 7. The unclaim was re-sent on December 7. That’s back here. Okay, slide number 9, I believe is showing you some pictures that were taken at this. Number 10. Next slide is number 10. And showing you the left side is the pond, you know, see all the sediments build up and it’s going over the outlet structure, you know the pipe. So this is a buildup of sediments here. And here showing you, you know, discharge of the sediment into the wetland. And, actually, the pond have big issues. It’s building up sediments and outlet of the pond is not properly, you know, installed and designer installed. There should be like a stand pipe.
Jim Moegling: Excuse me.
Mounir Minkara: Yes, sir.
Jim Moegling: The white pipe is that filled up with sediment on the upstream side and it’s going over the top of that pipe?
Mounir Minkara: Okay. Jason, this is the uh. Are you saying this is the outlet of the pond?
Jim Moegling: The pond is to the lower, right?
Douglass Stein: The inlet to the pipe which is the outlet for the pond is covered up.
Mounir Minkara: Is that correct?
Jason Payne: That’s what it looks like. I didn’t take those pictures, but I believe.
Mounir Minkara: That’s correct? It’s correct. Yes, Heather Ritchie has been at the site today and she is confirming that that’s correct.
Jim Moegling: Okay.
Mounir Minkara: Okay. Okay, the next slide showing you the wetland number 11 showing you the wetland, showing you the buildup of sediments in the wetland and we have estimated there’s at least 5 inches, an average 5 inches of sediments in the wetland. Okay, the next slide is number 12 and we are there are sediments built up and it’s empowering the silt fence. It’s covering the silt fence. This show you the magnitude of the sediments build-up. Okay, this is number 13 showing you the gullies at the slopes and giving you a good picture of the entrance to the site, you know, and showing you, you know, the unstable conditions of the site. Number 14 showing is giving you an example of an inlet, you know where the protection have failed and there’s have been no maintenance at all of the structure inlet structure. And this picture was taken February 18 ’05, last month. Okay, is it number 17 now? Or 16? 15? Okay, slide 15 is summarizing the Compliance Order. That was send on January 25, ’05. And I’m not sure if already had the chance to read it. It’s mainly requesting that they immediately maintain all erosion controls and stabilize the site and we’ve given them, I think, to February. Okay, the next slide, yes February 7 to stabilize it. Slide 16. And we issue a hundred dollar base on the enforcement protocol. This is. Yes this is showing the hundred dollar here that was issued. This is slide 15 and let me grab my enforcement protocol. And this is failure to install, maintain or use proper structural erosion sediment control. And this is the third offence. Issuing a civil penalty up to a hundred dollar per discharge per point per day. And started date was the date failure to respond to the second NOV. Okay, slide number 16 is, you know, just summarizing what the Compliance Order required, you know, the inspections, and if the site is if there is no activity at the site, the site should be permanently stabilized with vegetative cover. There is no more any construction activity. And we given them to February 7 again to, you know, to come up with, you know, to either stabilize it. Okay, next slide is number 17. We had a Compliance Review Meeting on February 9 and we explained to them what the Compliance Order means and what actions why we took this actions and reminding them of, you know what they are required to do. And Mr. Duke was present at this meeting. Okay, the next slide.
Jim Moegling: Excuse me. You said, did you say Mr. Duke was or was not at the meeting?
Mounir Minkara: Was. He was, he was present at the Compliance Review Meeting. Okay, next slide 18? Number 18, February 18 myself conducted the site inspection and noticed some, you know, some new silt fences but they are, you know, they’re still not enough, you know, they’ve installed some silt fencing hay bales in some areas, but there are still lot of exposed dirt and poorly maintained structures. Slide number 19. That inspection was conducted on March 7 and we can see that the slopes still unstable. March 9 there was a joint-inspection. This is slide number 20. A joint-inspection with TDEC and we can still see that there’s haven’t been any maintenance done on, you know, at this BMPs. Next slide, that’s 21. March, some more inspection pictures of March 9 showing you the, you know the overpowered silt fences by the load of silt and there’s mainly not enough BMPs onsite to handle all this, you know, exposed run-off.
Jim Moegling: Your caption there. Is that has been or has not been?
Mounir Minkara: I’m sorry. It’s a mistake here. That inlet protection and silt fence has been overpowered.
Jim Moegling: Okay.
Mounir Minkara: I had previously has not been maintained and I have changed it. But it has
Mike McMahan; So there was not? Is that correct in that?
Mounir Minkara: Yes, we need to change the slide. Okay, the next slide we’re going to show you the wet – 22 or we are – okay, we are here. Okay, this is more photos of the March 9. This is 22, which is this one showing you the new BMPs that were installed by Mr. Duke and this is the hay bales on your left and the new silt fence on the right, but this are really not enough, you know, to stabilize the site and to handle all this run-off. And, besides, they haven’t been maintained since they were installed. This is pictures taken on March 9 when we had the joint inspection with TDEC. The next slide, number 23 showing you run-off into the wetland. Can hardly see the wetland. It’s really a mud hole. And the last slide for today is number 24 showing you what the sedation looks today. And I’ll be glad to take any questions.
Mike McMahan: Questions from the Board.
Mike McMahan: Mr. Duke, you have the opportunity at this time to as Mr. Minkara any questions that you would like to ask. Would you like to ask him any questions?
Ron Duke: No, sir. I did want to make some statements.
Mike McMahan: Okay. Would you go ahead and take the microphone, then. You’re Mr. Duke and you’re going to offer some testimony. Is that correct?
Ron Duke: Yes, sir. One is that we did not know. When I say ‘we’, I’m a representative for Mr. Lou Brown who is a trustee of the Trust. How I came into play in on this was they was buying houses from me and I was kind of the point guy, the go-between between the contractors and Mr. Brown.
Mike McMahan: You’re not the land owner?
Ron Duke: No, sir, I’m not.
Mike McMahan: Is Mr. Brown or the Trust is actually the land owner?
Ron Duke: The Trust is actually the land owner. That is correct.
Mike McMahan: Is there a what kind of trust is it?
Ron Duke: I don’t know, sir.
Mike McMahan: You don’t know.
Ron Duke: I don’t have any idea. But it is a trust and Mr. Brown is a trustee of that Trust. So, I’m not sure of the legal…
Mike McMahan: Has he, Mr. Brown, been actively involved in the development of the, I guess it’s the subdivision, right?
Ron Duke: Yes, sir.
Mike McMahan: He has been?
Ron Duke: He has been up to the point that they went ahead and stopped for whatever reason and then they was going to come back at a later time and finish the subdivision up.
Mike McMahan: So it’s a subdivision where no houses are, it’s a residential subdivision?
Ron Duke: It’s a residential subdivision. There’s four houses in there at this point.
Mike McMahan: And..
Ron Duke: And it’s scheduled to have twenty-five.
Mike McMahan: Twenty-five houses.
Ron Duke: Yes, sir.
Mike McMahan: And so, for the time being, the subdivision is just stopped? It’s not in further development?
Ron Duke: That’s correct.
Mike McMahan: That they’ve done all this grading and created a sediment pond but they haven’t stabilized the soil with grass or something like that?
Ron Duke: Well, we have a contract when we go back in. The problem is that it was not that I did not pick up a certified letter as we was never notified that the City had been and also the State had been mailing it to the wrong address, even though it was correct on their paperwork. I’ve, and one of the slides showed that I was the one that signed for the Land Disturbing Permit, which is incorrect. I’ve never signed for any Land Disturbing Permit. A gentleman named Harlan Middlebrooks of Middlebrooks Dozer and Construction is the one that signed for that. So, I was, I did not know anything about this until the first part of February.
Mike McMahan: Okay. So, that’s an important point. Can you clarify the best you can when you first learned about these notices had been sent out to try…
Ron Duke: The first part of February was when it was faxed to me. I called Ms. Sells and she kind of acted, in fact she told me she was shocked that she heard from me, that they figured they was going to have to legal proceedings against the Trust and I said, ‘No, we’ll get it fixed, we just didn’t know that there was an issue there. And so we got in touch with Mr. Brown. I’ve got a contract for Mr. Middlebrooks to go ahead and do the work. We’ve been waiting, we’ve went ahead and put the, he went out, put the straw and the silt fence and all back up. The pond was constructed correctly and passed by the inspectors. In fact, Mr. Payne suggested we go inches, or two feet deeper than it was and we did that. And so it was passed and they inspected it and all that passed and it was fine. No engineering or anything else had an inlet, a pipe they was talking about sticking out that they want us to put in now. And that was not in the original drawings. But it was passed and it was done properly. There is issues with the hill when they stopped the construction for the roads being cut in. All the water coming in and it went into the inlets like the pictures show. We don’t have any, you know, I’m not downing that at all, but, I was notified the first part of February. I called Ms. Sells. Then I think it was February the 7th I met with them. We’ve been waiting to go ahead and get some decent weather for us to go in. I also talked to Ms. Sells, I tried to get in touch with Ms. Innes one times and then Ms. Sells said she was going to e-mail her to get permission, if you notice in the pond, there’s a lot of standing water. And what the contractor wanted to do was to go ahead, run that water, pump it out so we can dig the sediment out and run the water over into the wetland through a filter so it’d be clean water that’s going over into it. And then we was going to go ahead and take that out, take the sediment and put it back on the property and use the dozer work to go ahead and put everything, spread it back out and seed and straw it.
Mike McMahan: You indicated that at some point you hired a dozer contractor to do the straw bales and the silt fencing and the other..
Ron Duke: Yes, sir.
Mike McMahan: When was this person hired?
Ron Duke: I’ve got a breakdown that I sent to Ms. Sells. Exactly the time period starting with February 9th when we met with them. If you’d like to have a copy of this.
Mike McMahan: If you would, submit a copy, we’ll, pass it around. We’ll mark that as Exhibit 3. And, by the way, for the purpose of the record, the slide presentation which, from my recollection contained 24 slides would be Exhibit number 2. Pass that around to the Board members.
While they are looking at that, though, can you just briefly explain what is contained in the letter you just handed to the Board, Exhibit 3?
Ron Duke: It was a breakdown, starting from the day that we met to go over what was what needed to be done and the problems that we had. Also, as to why we were never we never received any letters. The address is supposed to be for Tucker, Georgia, and for some reason, all the letters being sent to Norcross, Georgia. How we found out about it was that the Sears, Sears and Roebuck, one of the certified letters went to them and they forwarded on over to us cause they knew Mr. Brown. And, how that happened, I don’t have any ideal, but they forwarded it on over to him. That’s how he found out about it and then he faxed the letter to me. And then I called Ms. Sells at the City.
Mike McMahan: And so, as I even as I understand your testimony, at least as of about the first of February you knew that there was violations. At some point you hired a contractor to try to correct the violations, right?
Ron Duke: That’s correct.
Mike McMahan: And how far along does that contractor today in addressing, as far as you’re concerned, addressing..
Ron Duke: Everything would have been already done if we could have got permission. And I wanted something in writing for us to be able to pump that water out into the wetland through a filter. Because we didn’t want to bring a dozer. A lot of, most of the time, because of the rain, they couldn’t get the heavy equipment and the dozer and the track hoe and all they needed to go in there without really messing up the site. So they waited for it to try to dry out some which I told Ms. Sells this also. So, if we can get permission to go ahead and pump that water out, and they can go ahead and get started now.
Mike McMahan: Go ahead. I didn’t mean to interrupt you.
Ron Duke: That’s ok.
Mike McMahan: Whatever else you’d like to tell them about it. I was just trying to get some clarity to your statement. Tell them whatever else you’d like to tell them about this.
Ron Duke: Well, just the main thing, it’s been a communication problem, I believe on this site. I’m being singled out as being in charge of the project. I wasn’t in charge of the project. I was just, I sell the True Modular, the pre-manufactured homes and that was what was going in there. And, because I’m in this area, I was asked to go ahead and kind of be the go-between and sell the contracts out. I don’t know how they got, or the City got me as signing off on the Disturbance Permit, but when they was trying to get in touch with me or sending letters to Lou Brown sending it to the wrong address. When they checked the permit, the permit had the proper address. So I don’t know where the communication got lost there.
Mike McMahan: Do we have a copy of that permit for the record, please?
Bill Payne: We’ll have to have a copy made.
Mike McMahan: Would you go do that and bring one back in here for us, please? They’ll bring a copy of the permit.
Ron Duke: That’s fine. And we don’t Mr. Brown is not trying to shirk and say we won’t get it done. It’s just that we didn’t know.
Mike McMahan: The contract you have with the and I’ve forgotten the name of the dozer company.
Ron Duke: Middlebrooks.
Mike McMahan: Middlebrooks?
Ron Duke