Get Adobe Flash player

 

September 3, 2002 Tape #017

 

 

The White County Drainage Board convened at 10:30 A. M. in the Commissioners’ Room of the White County Building, Monticello, Indiana with Board Members Ronald A. Schmierer, O. D. “Bud” Ferguson and John C. Heimlich, Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Dennis W. Sterrett, Engineer David Finley and Secretary Romana Kiser in attendance.

 

Also attending were landowners Robert L. Mitchell, Carolyn J. Mitchell, Martha Y. Moss, Lin Bridge, Willadean Delaney, Mark Hines, Verne Wilson, Leta Tam, Pauline Andrews, Marlin Hunt, Steve Rosentreter, Patricia Tolley, David A. Tolley, Kenneth Stilwell, Becky Schultz, Mike McLeland, Wayne Hunt, Becky Hunt, Paul Bridge, Kay Bridge, Brenda Cochran, Robert Cochran, Mike Ezra, Mark Heiny, Chris Heiny, Larry Downey, Tim Hall, Kevin Cotner, Ralph Hall, Joanne Hall, Monty Moss, Alice Hare, Muriel Arnold, Joe Hines, and Charlie Mellon. Thirty-four landowners that signed the register were there to attend the Reconstruction Hearing on the Carter-Hines Drain.

 

Chairman Schmierer opened the Reconstruction Hearing on the Carter-Hines Drain, Branch 1, Branch 1 of 1 and Moss and Delaney Branch. He explained that Surveyor Sterrett found the petition where the drain was cleaned in 1961, and in 1961 when it was cleaned the Branch 1 and Branch 1 of 1 paid for the branches and everybody paid on the main. So, the branches were separated in 1961 when it was cleaned.

 

Surveyor Sterrett had a handout of revised estimated assessments for those landowners that are on the branches to be cleaned.

 

Mark Heiny asked what portion of the ditch was cleaned in 1961. Chairman Schmierer said that all the branches were cleaned, Branch 2 and 3 and 1 and Br. 1 of 1 and the Main. Mark Heiny asked how far south on the Main. The answer was that it was cleaned clear down, the whole thing was cleaned.

 

Chairman Schmierer stated that breaking the branches out on their own has changed the assessment roll. He said on the Carter-Hines Main the estimated assessment is going to be $8.03 an acre. On the Moss and Delaney Branch, including Branch One of Moss Delaney the cost estimate is $40.96 per acre. Branch One is of the Carter-Hines is $46.52 an acre. Branch 1 of Branch 1 of Carter-Hines is 112.37 an acre. At this time the floor was opened to comments.

 

Mark Hines addressed the Board asking why the cost of reconstructing Branch 1 of Branch 1 is so much higher than the other branches. Engineer David Finley explained, “First of all, let me say I understand that $112.00 is outrageous. I was concerned about this kind of thing initially two weeks ago when you wanted to separate the branches out. The primary thing that is driving this on Branch 1 of Branch 1 is the fact that you have an area where we just had to put in a bunch of B-borrow and some geotextile to get the thing on a consistent grade. We have some structures that are way low, mostly buried. Around CR 1450 there is just a whole bunch of various fill activities and this kind of things that have to be done. This is the engineer’s cost estimate for the project, based on INDOT pricing structure, based on INDOT unit prices. Depending upon who does the project, what he does and what he charges, there is a possibility that is going to be a lot less. The best unit prices I had available to me to do the process is what INDOT has to pay for theirs. So, we ended up, because of the mature of the work, we have one problem area there where we have to put a lot of expensive stuff in.”

 

Mrs. Mitchell asked what expensive stuff. Mr. Finley repeated, “Some granular backfill, geotextile, probably some extra rip rap to keep things from eroding. The particular place of real trouble is I believe at CR 1450. It was a choice between digging the ditch a lot deeper to get down to the low point of trying to figure out some way to bring it up to grade. There is kind of a hole there between State Road 16 and CR 1450. We had the choice of doing a lot more digging trying to get down to the bottom of the hole or putting something in to fill the hole up, either way it is going to cost an arm and a leg to do it. What we were doing by filling that hole is actually minimizing the amount of dredging that would have to be done, and over all it is going to cost less.”

 

Someone asked what the factor was that caused the hole. David Finley answered that he does not know. He said he does not know the history of the ditch well enough to answer that, but if you go out there, there are cattails and everything else growing up in that particular spot.

 

Robert Mitchell addressed the Board stating that he feels they should go back to the start, to what they first estimated at $12.71 an acre and everyone paid on the project, because that was affordable. He said when you go to changing things you get into trouble down the road. Chairman Schmierer answered, “We aren’t changing anything from what they did in 1961. I think Christys owned the ground that you do now in 1961. They were charged for Branch 1 and Branch 1 of 1 and the Main. The branches paid separately in 1961 as well as the Main paid on it. The people on the Main that weren’t on the branches didn’t pay on the branches. At that time they did all the branches and everybody paid on their own branches. You’re unfortunate that you are on two of the branches and that’s where you cost is coming so high.” Mr. Mitchell said he thought the figure (12.71) that they first come up with was ok; it was one everybody could afford. He said there will be cleaning done on down later on and they’ll want them to help pay for it. Chairman Schmierer said “On the Main you will help, but you will not help on the branches.” Mr. Mitchell stated that he thought it ($12.71 an acre) was a figure everyone could live with and not be hurt too bad.

 

Carolyn Mitchell asked if the decision has been made that that is the way they are going to do it, everybody pays on the Main and the branch people pay for the branches. Chairman Schmierer stated, “Well, that was the consensus the last meeting we had, I think that is the consensus the Board received at that time.” Mrs. Mitchell said, “At the last meeting I was here and I thought it was understood that you were going to give the people time to think it over and then decide, because we could not hear there was so much noise in here. We saw toward the back and you could not hear. When Mr. Heiny came up and talked to you folks we couldn’t hear a word that was said. I’m going to state that I think everybody should pay on everything at the $12.71 because that is an affordable price that they came up with and this other is not. We traced that ditch this morning and it is not going to be but a matter of five or ten years until this same ditch on down, from CR 600 North on down to at least CR 475, there’s a lot of brush on it, it is going to be the same thing and those people are going to want our help then. I think we need to help each other.” Chairman Schmierer said, “On the Main, ma'am, we’re talking about the Main. The $12.71 an acre included the branches, and everybody on the Main was going to help pay for them.”

 

Board Member Heimlich said, “But it didn’t include all the branches. That was the problem; there were people on branches that weren’t getting anything done to their branches that were paying for all the other branches. That can cause problems down the line when their branch needs done – if then the people who have their ditches all taken care of say there’s only one branch over there that has a problem and we aren’t going to pay on that, and the people on the branches that are getting done now wouldn’t had those people help them. It just seemed a lot cleaner way to do it, to have each branch pay their own and then everybody pay on the Main, and that’s the way it was done in 1961.”

 

Chairman Schmierer stated, “We have some branches that some people have done on their own, cleaned out their own branches and then they are having to pay for your branch and they were hollering about it and I don’t blame them. I would holler about it, too. I wouldn’t like paying for something I had already paid for.” Mrs. Mitchell said, “Well, that’s true but wasn’t there reimbursement money there from the maintenance fees?” Chairman Schmierer said that one branch that was done was not reimbursed; they did that on their own. Mrs. Mitchell said, “But was their any fees for it?” Chairman Schmierer stated, “At that time, no.” Mrs. Mitchell asked, “Is there maintenance fees on the branches? I looked at my tax bills and I couldn’t find any, only on the main ditch.” Chairman Schmierer said, “Well, no, none of the branches, all you are paying on is the Main, there is no maintenance on the branches.” (This is covered later in the meeting.)

 

Brenda Cochran addressed the Board. Her property is that of Harley Perkins, her dad, at the end of the ditch next to Cass County. She stated that they cleaned their ditch twice at their own expense and now they were going to have to pay for everybody else. Chairman Schmierer answered, “Not on the branches, if you’re not on the branches (Mark Hines said she’s on Br. 1 and Br. 1 of 1).” Chairman Schmierer explained that she pays on the Carter-Hines because it is the Main; it takes the water from Branch 1 and Branch 1 of 1. Board member Heimlich said everybody is going to pay on the Carter-Hines. She said her dad has always taken care of the ditch on their end, and has had it cleaned twice that she knows of, once being just last year (Branch 1 of 1). She said she doesn’t understand having to pay so much, and that she’s paying double on one.

 

Chairman Schmierer explained again, “Well, you’re paying on Branch 1, Branch 1 of 1 and plus you are paying on the Main. You see, now we have a petition on Branch 3 and when that Branch 3 is done it will be paid for by the people being served by Branch 3.” Brenda Cochran asked if they h ad to pay this all at once. The answer was that they have five years to pay it, and they are charged 10 percent interest if paid over five years. Mrs. Mitchell asked if that interest stays in the ditch account. Chairman Schmierer answered that it goes back into to the ditch account.

 

Becky Shultz addressed the Board saying, “I inherited Betty Minniear’s land which was Clarence Thomas’s, my grandfather. If the ditches have not been cleared since 1961, where are all of the tax monies paid in to that?” Chairman Schmierer answered, “You don’t have any maintenance money paid in to any branch. The only thing you are charged maintenance on is the Carter-Hines Main and there is money in the Carter-Hines.” Becky Shultz asked if that was going to help pay for this. Chairman Schmierer answered, “No, this is a reconstruction and we don’t use maintenance money on a reconstruction.” Becky Shultz asked what maintenance means. Chairman Schmierer answered, “Well, it means that we go back out and maintain it after it is cleaned we have to keep it maintained by spraying it and keeping the brush and stuff off of it. If it had been sprayed and maintained to start with we wouldn’t be out there taking all the brush off of it now.” Becky Schultz said, “So there should be plenty of money in that fund. (Chairman Schmierer answered affirmative) Number two, have any of the farmers gotten any drainage statements as to the funds available and expenses incurred?” Chairman Schmierer asked her to restate that. She said have you collected monies for this before? The answer was not, there is nothing that has been collected on this (project) at all. Mark Heiny stated that Becky Shultz is not on one of the branches. Mark Hines agreed that she is just on the Main.

 

Mark Hines addressed the Board again, stating that he was not present at the last meeting and he got a tremendous shock when he got the transcript of the last meeting. His assessments went from $5,000 to $20,000, so his appeal to the Board is, “Could we cut off Branch 1 of Branch 1, the work don’t on that, to reduce it down so that it would be feasible for us that are being affected by this? And, or, the Moss Delaney Branch, could they cut that off if they would feel like it is just getting to be too much for them? Because just simply cutting off Branch 1 of Branch 1 would reduce mine, and ours, considerably. That way it would go in increments instead of such an astronomical charge. Would that be considered by the Board?”

 

Chairman Schmierer stated, “I don’t know about the Board, but Mark, how long have we been trying to get this here? We have been trying to get it to this point for five or six years that I know of.” Mark Hines said, “And I hate to cut it off.” Chairman Schmierer stated, “You can pay it over five years. I totally understand what you are saying. In 1961 your parents paid almost $4,000.00 so yours is $20,000 now. What did a new tractor cost in 1961, what does a new tractor cost today, talking about expenses. I guess that is something that could be considered by the Board, but I really think if we do that * Cut Branch 1 of Branch 1 from the project), and I understand your finances totally, but I really think by cutting if off we are going backwards. We’ve tried and tried and you know your father sat in these meetings and we have got several things done, particularly in that area of the county since I have been here, since John has been here and I hate to see us do something like that. I’m not saying it is not possible, but I just think you really want to consider that, because I tell you if could take another five years to get back to do anything with this. Another five years and it is going to be worse than it is now and I think your cost in another five years will be as astronomical then as it is now.”

 

Mark Hines stated, “I wouldn’t want to do anything…I am on the head end of it and to tell you the truth I don’t need it, I can get along with out it. If the ones up above me said ‘hey we need it’, I would go along with it. It’s just that mine has gone from an assessment of about $5,500.00 to $20,000.00 and that hurts.”

 

Contractor Mike Ezra asked, “What is causing the price to be that high. There’s always alternatives. You could possibly clean one side of it or is the cost extremely high for filling in that one section, it maybe a big issue that may not be quite that bad?” Mark Hines stated that there is no brush on it, there’s maybe no more than twenty-five or thirty trees. Someone commented that the ditch is very clean. Mike Ezra said it just seems to him that the cost estimate is out of the way. Mark Hines asked if the one who gets the bid is bound to abide by engineer recommendations. Attorney Loy answered, “Yes.” Mark Hines said, “Because in this instance I would agree with this gentleman here (Mike Ezra) that we could ease back on supporting the banks and with whatever and just dip the bottom of it out and personally I wouldn’t fill any hole, I would, if the silt came down fill that hole myself and just ease into it and then pick up where the grade needs to pick up on beyond that, but I’m not the engineer.”

 

Chairman Schmierer said, “Branch 1 of Branch 1 if we didn’t do it, it is probably going to fill the hole up eventually by itself if the water is coming down there, with silt and everything. It won’t affect Branch 1 at all will it if we don’t do Branch 1 of Branch 1?” David Finley answered that it won’t; it might fill in Branch 1 prematurely. Chairman Schmierer said if there is a big hole there, how can it? Someone said it depends on where the hole is. Mark Hines said the hole is probably about a thousand feet of fifteen hundred feet away from Branch 1; it is actually across the road. Chairman Schmierer asked if the road being there is causing it. Mark Hines said he would say that back somewhere someone just got a little deep as they dredged it; they just got a little low on their dredge.

 

Carolyn Mitchell stated, One thing I think that hurt there, too, a few years back the County dumped shot rock in the corner there and it fell off in the ditch and backed it up and washed the sides down and we weren’t aware of it on our farm until one of the neighbors stopped and told us and then we called the County and they came out and took it out and what they did otherwise I don’t’ know. That may be what started it.”

 

Chairman Schmierer asked how many here of on Branch 1 of Branch 1. Discussion…Mark Hines here, Stillwell's here, Lucas, Cochran's here, Liming (Mark Hines said he would represent him, he farms his ground)…inaudible at times. Chairman Schmierer asked if they were in favor of dropping Branch 1 of Branch 1 from the project. (No audible answer to the question.)

 

Mark Hines said, “The thing is, if we could reduce this cost and get it down and must go through there and just do a decent job without too much extra work then it would be alright.” Chairman Schmierer asked how long Branch 1 of Branch 1 is. Mark Hines thought about a mile long. Mike Ezra stated again that he thought the estimated was way out of line. He didn’t think there’s any reason they have to drop it, just have a couple of contractors look the situation over and the cost of it.

 

Chairman Schmierer asked how many acres are benefited on Branch 1 of Branch 1. Board Member Heimlich answered there are 159 something, almost 160.

 

Mark Heiny asked, “How would it be, Mark (Hines) if you dropped it off of this project and all of you guys got together with the contractor that bids this job in and do the work?” Attorney Loy stated, “We would still have to go basically through the same procedure, we would still have to bid it.”

 

Mike Ezra stated, “I’ve never seen a case where a hole holds water back. So why couldn’t you work around this and possibly make this (inaudible)…do this in stages and do that at a later time and not make this cost as much…” David Finley answered, “The primary reason for wanting to establish a grade is that you got a good grade. If you take the pipe that is under CR 1450 and replace it at an elevation that is representative of a good grade through, you’re going to have a low spot of that pipe and you’re going to have a wet spot that is going to grow cattails and what not, it is going to b e a maintenance issue. If you’re going to be aware that you are going to have a maintenance problem there.” Someone asked if there is maintenance money on that branch. Chairman Schmierer answered no. Someone said there WILL be (maintenance money) after it (project) is done. Chairman Schmierer said no, we don’t have branches on maintenance just the Main. Board Member Heimlich asked, “None of the maintenance on the Main is used on the branches? The answer was no.

 

Secretary Kiser stated we would like to clear up which branches of the Carter-Hines are on maintenance. Surveyor Sterrett read a list of those that are on maintenance by themselves: Riffel, White, Church, Burget Br. 7, Burget Br. 5 & Nancy Hall Br. 2, Burget Br. 2 & Br. 1 of Br. 2, and Carter-Hines Br. 4. Secretary Kiser explained, “Those are on maintenance by themselves, the Carter-Hines Main does not pay on those branches. The only thing the Carter-Hines pays maintenance on is the Moss & Delaney Branch because when we took it in (as a part of the Carter-Hines Drain) we set it up that way. When the Carter-Hines was set up on maintenance, we find no evidence of any branches set up on maintenance with it. In other words, Branch 1 and Branch 1 of Branch 1 are not on maintenance, nor is the Sipple.”

 

Mark Hines stated, “I wish it could be changed, if you look at a map of the Carter-Hines Ditch, if you look at Branch 1 you sure enough would almost declare that Branch 1 was the main line and the Carter-Hines was the branch.” Chairman Schmierer said he doesn’t disagree with that at all. Mark Hines said he wishes we could establish Branch 1 as being part of the Carter-Hines and not call it a ditch of its own because it is every bit the main line as the Cart-Hines itself. He said if we could do that that would at least ease some of the burden of those like himself getting dipped for the Carter-Hines Br. 1 and the Branch 1 of Branch 1. Chairman Schmierer answered that to change that it would have to be petitioned, you would have to have hearings on it and everyone on the Carter-Hines would have to agree on making it a part of the Carter-Hines.

 

Mark Hines said, “Once again I would like to ask you if we could at least get the cost of Branch 1 of 1 down some, and or exclude it from the project and maybe just run up a couple of hundred feet up the line to reduce dirt, we would ask your opinion on these matters. I don’t know about the Moss & Delaney whether they would want to cut that off or not. It’s up to them.” Chairman Schmierer said, “I wouldn’t think they would, that was added on because they wanted it added on.”

 

Gary Gerlach spoke representing himself and brother Todd who farm south of SR 16. He said they have a stub ditch (private) that they maintain up behind Grady’s and ends up against the Perkins ground and also on the Carter-Hines and Branch 1. He just feels like they’re paying extra because they’re out at the end of the line and he feels like he has been paying maintenance for the water off of that stub ditch. (See Tape)

 

Chairman Schmierer stated that we have the majority of the landowners on Branch 1 of Branch 1 present and if he is hearing them right they would like to delete Branch 1 of Branch 1 completely. He said there is no way we can bid it after we pass it (establish the project). He asked Attorney Loy if we go ahead and pass it and the cost of still going to be that high can we delete it then. Attorney Loy said no, you have to delete it today if you are going to delete it.

 

Surveyor Sterrett asked how we are going to bid the project, will we bid each branch separate? Board Member Heimlich said we are going to have to bid each branch separately to keep the assessments fair. Surveyor Sterrett said, “If one contractor bids lower on one do you take it as a sum?” Board Member Heimlich said they would be separate bids. Attorney Loy said, “Off hand, I would say you would consider each project separately and each bid separately. Board Member Heimlich said you could have more than one contractor on the project.

 

Chairman Schmierer asked Attorney Loy, “If we put this to bid as is and it is going to cost too much to do Branch 1 of Branch 1, if the costs exceed the benefits, can we delete it at that time?” Attorney Loy answered, “No, you determination today would be whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. Then when you bid it, if the bid comes in excess of your estimate, you can reject the bid and rebid it.”

 

Board Member Heimlich stated, “They are going to bid on the specifications that the Surveyor and the Engineering Company lays out. Are we approving that today, like for this Branch 1 of Branch 1, is that a part of it? All I see in here is just general provisions; I don’t see any specs that would make that Branch 1o f Branch 1 so expensive. What in these specifications (information folder) here speaks to what we were talking about on Branch 1 of Branch 1?”

 

David Finley responded, “It is not very specifically stated here (general specs). Essentially, it is the regarding of the ditch. We are trying to maintain a consistent slope without any holes and without any humps in the ditch. What, in our estimate, was necessary to maintain that without giving the Drainage Board a future maintenance problem ends up being a fairly expensive proposition simply because we are going to be putting in some kind of granular backfill for a fairly long distance, having to put geotextile over that and then cover that with rip rap to hold it. Like Mike says, it is probably going to be very easy to do that at a lower cost than what we have estimated but in order to do that the best way we could we really have to use INDOT unit prices to bid the project out, and INDOT pays a premium for their work which is why I think…to my way of thinking, I think we can work with the contractor do this a little less expensively. I am kind of in a quandary myself because I know $112.00 per acre is too high and I know we are going to set the assessment today and in the future we may be able to reduce that, but I don’t want to take that chance without actually having…inaudible.”

 

Chairman Schmierer stated that when we quoted the Ackerman Drain project the bid came in almost half of what the estimated costs were and there were other bids within seven to ten percent of the bid we accepted, three or four thousand dollars difference from the one we accepted. He feels that this project won’t come in this high.

 

Mark Hines said, “You and I both know it can be done cheaper but if we have to go according to all the engineer’s recommendations to do all of this, then that keeps bumping it up. If we do cut off the Branch 1 of Branch 1 today by general consensus, would we then within a year or two or three up on that end, would the Surveyor have the authority, just going through him with your approval, of allowing us to go ahead and work on Branch 1 of Branch 1 at a later date without a long petition and public meetings and all that? Just on this small branch.” Chairman Schmierer said it would have to be petitioned again. Board Member Heimlich said, “Well, no, they could do it on their own if the plans were approved by the Surveyor and it would have to be on your own, in other works, I don’t know how many we said were on that, was it eight or nine total? We wouldn’t get involved then in making sure everybody pays their fair share. You have to do that yourself. That is really the reason for a County Drainage Board and County ditches is so that everybody is made to pay their fair share. If everybody does it voluntarily then that’s fine but just so you understand that there may be one or two people that don’t pay.”

 

Mark Hines said, “I am on the head end, it would be a long time before I would need it, but in considerations of my neighbors I would be willing to approve it, I could get along without it for many years. My second question would be, it seems to me like if we asked the contractor to divide out each one of these with an estimate, is that going to get bigger than what it can handle, instead of just taking the total estimate of the whole project and divide out all the acres, will it be more confusing?” Chairman Schmierer said no, it is not going to be any difference in cost.

 

Attorney Loy explained, “One alternative, and this would be in the bid process, when the bid specs are drawn up one alternative is ‘please give us a bid for the whole project and also give us bids for individual projects’, giving you guys the flexibility to pick and choose.” Chairman Schmierer said, “Well, I think they have to bid it separate, George, because there’s no way they can bid it together. I want it bid separately because if Branch 1 is going to pay for their we want it bed separately, and if the Main is going to pay for the Main we want it bid separately.”

 

Attorney Loy stated, “I think it is permitted for you to modify this project by dropping a branch, for instance, and I think you can turn right around and come back and have a reconstruction project for that branch you dropped without years of…” Mark Hines said, “See, if we went to work Branch 1 of 1, would we even call it reconstruction or would we call it maintenance? Not asking you for money.” Board Member Heimlich answered, “If you did it on your own it wouldn’t make any difference what you called it.”

 

Chairman Schmierer stated, “I think I am hearing from, the consensus that I am hearing, I don’t know about the rest of the Board, the consensus that I am hearing is that the Branch 1 of Branch 1 – you have the majority of the landowners here – they’re asking us to drop Branch 1 of Branch 1 from the project and that this time I would entertain a motion to do such.”

 

Board Member Ferguson made a motion to modify the Carter-Hines Drain Reconstruction Project by dropping Branch 1 of Branch 1 from the project. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Board Member Heimlich asked if there was anybody on Branch 1 of 1 here that doesn’t want to see that dropped. There was no response. Chairman Schmierer asked if there was anyone here that opposed dropping Branch 1 of 1. Mark Hines suggested running up the branch 75 to 150 feet so the silt doesn’t just pill right down. Board Members said that is normally part of the specs. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 3 to 1 in favor of modifying the project as moved.

 

Chairman Schmierer stated: There being no further discussion or evidence to be submitted in these proceedings, the chairman would now consider a motion to determine that the costs, damages, and expenses of the proposed reconstruction will be less than the benefits accruing to the owners of the lands benefited by the reconstruction. Board Member Heimlich so moved. Board Member Ferguson seconded. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, and after having considered all the evidence and objections concerning the proposed reconstruction, those members of the White County Drainage Board in favor of the motion that the costs, damages, and expenses of the proposed reconstruction will be less than the benefits accruing to the owners of the land benefited by the reconstruction please answer by saying “aye” (response is yes) and those opposed “nay” (response no). The motion passes by a vote of 3 in favor and 0 opposed. The White County Drainage Board therefore adopts the amended reconstruction report of the White County Surveyor and the amended schedule of assessments, including any annual assessments for periodic maintenance. The White County Drainage Board now issues its written Findings and Order declaring the proposed reconstruction of the Carter-Hines Drain and Branch 1 and the Moss & Delaney Branches established.

 

(Crowd noise)

 

Board Member Heimlich made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2002 meeting. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

 

The Board signed the Certificate of Assessments to the Auditor on the completed J. L. Ackerman Drain Reconstruction.

 

Surveyor Sterrett asked the Board to accept a petition for the reconstruction of the Joseph Kellenburger Tile Drain in Honey Creek Township submitted by Dirk Fleck and signed by landowners. The drain is 3,960 foot of tile. Board Member Heimlich made a motion to accept the petition. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

 

Chairman Schmierer adjourned the meeting.