fences, buildings, everything right up onto the ditch line where the only way that we can mow it is with a weed eater and walking through down the middle of the ditch because there's no access to the ditch. We mowed it two years ago. It's not a drainage issue. It's an aesthetics issue to me. There are some issues with the bank eroding, but I think that comes if you mow it every year, you lose a little bit of the bank. Mr. Hamilton asked was the original routing with the regulated drain abandoned when the regulated drain was moved? So, we have parallel paths, regulated drains. Mr. Borchers, Correct. And that's an issue with the DNR when they did their LiDAR to put in Countryside Estates. There's two paths of that ditch and their models won't do two paths. But yes, we have two issues. Mr. Brand stated what Mr. Borchers just said is really important. DNR is using LiDAR and they're not putting boots on the ground in the field to go actually assess something. So, they prevented countryside estates from being expanded by another 45 units and it never floods. Mr. Borchers stated they walked that back though. I think out of the 45 they now are only going to lose two units which is great. Mr. Brooke stated I know the building commissioners also had the same problem with the DNR on that same property. It's because of the DNR's action by just sitting in Indianapolis and looking at maps and making a decision. Mr. Brand stated does everybody agree that we need to put together some sort of a procedure or memoranda of understanding and delineate these things. Mr. Hamilton stated I think address sanitary district, storm water board the drainage board incorporated areas, unincorporated areas. Mrs. Struble stated I made a note too. When we do these, they can also be posted on the websites of the board so the public can look and see who do I go to.

MEMORANDOM:

Mr. Brooke stated we sent out a memo on the process for changing the storm water fee. That was a question that occurred at the last meeting. We gave a memo to the storm water. Commissioner Brand stated the general steps would be a financial review and rate analysis. Basically, evaluate the storm water program funding needs, including operations, maintenance, capital improvements, or regulatory compliance obligations, develop a proposed rate adjustment supported by financial analysis. That’d be step one. The storm water board would need to review the proposed rate adjustments and determine whether to recommend modification of storm water utility rates. We'd have to have a public hearing per Indiana Code. Conduct a public hearing and allow public comment regarding the proposed fee increase. Then it would go back to the county council. Obtain approval from that body and for the implementation of the user fees and related revenue measures. Then it would require action by the board of commissioners present the fee adjustment to the board of commissioners for executive consideration. Then adoption of the revised rates commissioners approved the revised storm water utility fees through adoption of an ordinance. So, we'd have to put together an ordinance or a resolution. I'm not sure what determines whether we go one way or the other. And then get the updated rate schedule and the effective date or dates if it's a phased approach. Then implementation. County administrative staff would implement it. The approved rates through the storm water utility billing system pretty much. So, do we want then to authorize kick off a financial review and rate analysis? We would need to put together a request for proposals to hire somebody to do that. Commissioner Riggin, I think it'd be wise. Commissioner Brand stated I'll take the lead and work with legal to put together a request for proposals for financial review and rate analysis. Mr. Borchers moved for approval. Motion seconded by Commissioner Riggin. Motion passed 3-0.