A motion was made to rescind the original motion requiring engineer services and studies. With a second and unanimous votes the motion was approved but the citizens had more to say.
“From listening to you all, I'd say you don't know any more than I do having lived out there 50 years. How do you decide when you require an engineer? You're opening yourself for a bad situation by picking and choosing,” said one flood plain resident, who lives on a different creek from the Ball family.
“Let's say all this is over and we've resolved everything and finished the projects. Then let's say someone like, I don't know, Ron Coats, drives by and sees the road is flooded and files a complaint. Do we have to get an engineer and start all over?” asked another citizen.
Sisemore said the original motion was discussed prior to the meeting.
“So you didn't discuss it as a board, you came up with it on your own,” the citizen said, to which Sisemore said no, the members did discuss it as a board. “You'll have to pick one or the other.”
Another citizen pointed out Bates was issued a permit with very little discussion, and it appears Ball's situation was the same but was being treated much differently.
Several flood plain residents asked if just anyone can file a complaint and whether consideration would be given to where the individual lives or whether a bias could exist.
The board made and approved a motion to have a planning meeting to consider re-wording the ordinance to avoid future problems.