Get Adobe Flash player

March 4, 2013

The White County Drainage Board convened at 10:30 A. M. in the Commissioners’ Room of the White County Building, Monticello, Indiana. Board members present were: Chairman Steve Burton, Drainage Board Member John Heimlich and Drainage Board Member David Diener. Also present were Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Bradley E. Ward and Drainage Assistant Mary E. Sterrett.

Also in attendance were:

B. J. Propes-White County Highway Department Vicki Mann

Mike Kyburz-White County Highway Department Carol Watkins

Sharon Watson-White County Soil and Water Jim Blake

Dale Lehe David Thomas

Richard Bol Bruce Nogle

Terry Blackman Marvin Good

Ron Coonrod Kyle P. O’Farrell

Kevin O’Farrell Bill McClean

Todd Frauhiger P.E.

The March 4, 2013 White County Drainage Board was called to order by Chairman Steve Burton.

The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2013 White County Drainage Board Meeting. Board Member John Heimlich so moved. Board Member David Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried

 

Next on the agenda-F. M. Coonrod Drain #526 Reconstruction Hearing

Surveyor Ward presented to the Board the following:

1. Mr. Coonrod was asking to close in a half (½) mile of the F. M. Coonrod Drain #526 but now

he is asking to close just the first fifteen hundred (1,500) feet. Speaking with Todd Frauhiger and Mr. Coonrod we believe and eight (8) inch tile will work with the proper grade. That is if the County Highway can adjust the culvert under the County Road. Right now there is about one and half (1½) foot of fall and if the culvert was closer to level that would give the proper grade on the tile that Mr. Coonrod is proposing to put in.

2. Terry Blackman asked the size of tile to be put in. Surveyor Ward replied eight (8) inch. Mr.

Blackman asked if the eight (8) inch was big enough. Surveyor Ward replied only fifty-five (55) acres would be using that tile for that stretch. Mr. Blackman also asked at whose expense this project would be. Surveyor Ward replied that all expenses would be paid by Mr. Coonrod.

3. Vick Mann asked if this tile would break down at whose expense would it be to repair it.

Surveyor Ward replied this will be a County regulated tile so it would be paid of the F. M. Coonrod maintenance fund. Ms. Mann has been paying to repair a tile on her property which is thought probably to be a private tile. The Surveyor asked her to come down to the Surveyor’s Office and he would check out that issue for her.

4. Note just for the record: This will not be heard on the digital minutes: Mr. Ronald Seidel spoke

to Mary Sterrett prior to this meeting and he was fine with the project as long as it wasn’t on him and he wasn’t paying more assessments for the project. His daughters said that he needed to get back to the nursing home so he didn’t stay for the Hearing.

5. B. J. Propes said he would go out check into the culvert work.

Chairman Burton presented the following:

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 BENEFITTED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION.

BOARD MEMBER HEIMLICH SO MOVED

BOARD MEMBER DIENER SECONDED THE MOTION

UPON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, AND AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIONS (IF ANY) 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 BENEFITTED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION PLEASE ANSWER BY SAYING “AYE.” THOSE OPPOSED “NAY”.

THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF 3 IN FAVOR AND 0 OPPOSED.

THE WHITE COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD THEREFORE ADOPTS THE RECONSTRUCTION REPORT OF THE WHITE COUNTY SURVEYOR AND THE 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 F. M. COONROD DRAIN #526 ESTABLISHED.

Next on the agenda-E. M. Ferguson Drain #691 3rd Informational Meeting

Engineer Frauhiger presented a review on what had been discussed at two (2) prior meetings.

Engineer Frauhiger: This is the third informational meeting that we have had. At the last meeting we had we discussed doing some additional field work. Getting some grade shot on the tile and seeing if we could come up with some different project that might still give us the best bang for our buck but reduce the per acre cost. The first couple of informational meetings we had three (3) alternatives that we had talked about. Those alternatives ranged in cost that would work out from between six hundred and fifty dollars ($650.00) per acre to about seven hundred and twenty-five dollars ($725.00) an acre. What we have done since the last meeting we did go out and shot some grade. We looked at the overall condition of the tile. There are still a few places that I would suggest maybe digging it up because we got some weird looking grade on the upstream end. But we have come up with a proposed alternative to reduce the cost quite significantly. What we would consider doing or what we would recommend doing would be basically reconstruction of the tile upstream of State Route 18. Basically put it back to the condition that it was originally installed at. We would start at State Route 18 we would go upstream to Branch #1 with a fifteen (15) inch tile. Then we would start from that point and go all the way up to the end with a twelve (12) inch tile. We would also replace Branch #1 and Branch #2 with a new twelve (12) inch tile. We would leave everything down stream of State Route 18 the same. With the exception of the outlet end. If you remember there is another legal drain that comes in and somehow these two (2) drains got tied together. We would suggest separating those so each tile has its own outlet. Then reconstructing the outlet end. We have really good flow in the tile from State Route 18 to the downstream end. It has the capacity to take the water. So by rebuilding this portion and basically putting in what it was designed and constructed we think we can take care of most of the problems. The cost for that portion would reduce down from that seven hundred dollars ($700.00) an acre range down to about four hundred dollars ($400.00) an acre. That could further reduce slightly if you remember we talked about at the last information meeting the portion under State Route 18 and State Route 18 right of way. Which would be to bore under State Route 18 that would be paid for by INDOT. That would come off the watershed assessment. I did have a chance to talk to a contractor on Friday just to go over it with him. He said we might be a hair conservative on our numbers also. He thinks we are very close to the ball park. When we actually do it you might expect the numbers might come down eight (8) to ten (10) percent. I guess that is the alternative we are looking at right now. Reconstruction up stream of State Route 18 put it back in the condition that it was originally designed to and put in. Leaving the downstream portion alone except for the outlet end. My guess that would be roughly four hundred dollars ($400.00) an acre so it has reduced the cost from seven hundred dollars ($700.00) to four hundred dollars ($400.00).

Kevin O’Farrell: Are the diameters of tile north of State Route 18 the same, smaller or bigger?

Todd Frauhiger: About the same. They will be bigger if you remember in the far upstream end I think that is a six (6) inch. That will be twelve (12) inch obviously on a legal County tile I wouldn’t recommend putting a six (6) inch back in so we would go twelve (12) inch.

Kyle O’Farrell: Would that include the stone to put it in? Todd: That is correct. That would be installed per manufactures requirements so we have full warranty on the tile. Kyle, one (1) more question as far as cover it would not be much different than if you had a broken tile?

Todd Frauhiger: That is correct we would get it on the same grade. There is one (1) section that we got some funky profiles on the tile and we are trying to figure it out. The other thing that I think is interesting too. I think there was some public comment about State Route 18 and the tile actually being put off grade there. When we shot the air well there on both sides it does look like we have grade under State Route 18. I still think the problem upstream where we are seeing the water standing is the fact the tile upstream of State

Route 18 is in broken down condition.

Kevin O’Farrell: I was actually there when Tony dug that up and that tile was heading uphill. It was off of the air well. It wasn’t right there you couldn’t see it. It was out in that edge a little bit. You could see that it was going up. I guess that would not matter I guess if you are putting it in to correct grade.

Todd Frauhiger: We shot the air well so we might have missed it. That is correct we would put it in at the correct grade. That is correct.

Mr. O’Farrell: Is anyone old enough to remember what it did back years ago when this tile was put in. Was it ever satisfactory or was it always a problem.

Dale Lehe: It has always been a water problem since we have been there.

Carol Watkins: My father used to farm that ground where the water is.

Kyle O’Farrell: Did it stay drained?

Carol Watkins: It was damp and you had to be careful but he farmed it. It wasn’t an early planting.

Kyle O’Farrell: Right but it never held water forever?

Carol Watkins: It did in the very, very back where that one (1) tree is back in there it did hold water there.

Todd Frauhiger: The one (1) advantage we are going to have with this particular type of tile is you had open joints with the clay tile. The smooth plastic is not quite as good as this stuff you will have joint every twenty (20) feet in the new stuff but they are a tight joint.

Mr. O’Farrell: It looks like that rock will help pin it in.

Todd Frauhiger: That is correct. Downstream using the existing open jointed clay tile someone mentioned the downstream area works fine. We have good fall downstream, it is just upstream we are a little bit flatter it would be my guess with the smaller diameter clay tile you would probably have some break downs up there.

Kyle O’Farrell: What about the areas that is all grown up in trees. Is that all going to be perforated I am assuming.

Todd Frauhiger: We have not decided which portions will be perforated or which portion will not. We are just barely into the beginning portion of the design. You have got to remember with perforated tile there are advantages and disadvantages.

Audience Member: So it is possible you will put solid through that tree line?

Todd Frauhiger: There exactly.

Dale Lehe: You said fifteen (15) up to State Route 18.

Todd Frauhiger: That is correct downstream if I remember correctly we are putting downstream sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) at the outlet.

Surveyor Ward: It would be a sixteen (16) from the highway to CR 300 and eighteen (18) from CR 300 to the outlet is what is existing.

Todd Frauhiger: So basically we would be dumping the new fifteen (15) into a sixteen (16).

Chairman Burton: Other informational figures, how many acres in the water shed?

Surveyor Ward: Six hundred and seventy-five (675) acres.

Chairman Burton: How much money currently does this ditch hold?

Surveyor Ward: Maybe one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), not very much. We have done a lot of work in the last three (3) years to try to get it operating.

Chairman Burton: Taking the six hundred and seventy-five (675) acres times the seven hundred dollars ($700.00) is?

Surveyor Ward: That is close to seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000.00).

Todd Frauhiger: Four hundred and seventy nine thousand ($479,000.00), seven hundred and ten dollars ($710. 00) an acre. We have a four hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($450,000.00) project which is six hundred and seventy dollars ($670.00) per acre The option one (1) was a five hundred thousand dollar ($500,000.00) project and that was seven hundred and forty dollars ($740.00) an acre. Then this new recommendation would be approximately four hundred dollars ($400.00) an acre.

Questions on financing this large of project and possible ways to do so. Discussed were the following:

l. Bond or the County borrowing from a bank.

Board Member Diener explained: There would be cost concurred that percentage whether it is cost of doing a bond or going to the bank and borrowing it. That cost would be applied the reconstruction cost of the project. Then be divided by acreage by the people in the watershed.

Attorney Loy: Bank Loan: Interest on the bank loan if you were to the fund through a bank loan that does become a part of the project. Anything you do not pay with in the first year then you are assessed the 10% over the term of five (5) years. The term of the bank note has to be repaid in six (6) years.

2. Borrowing from the General Fund with repay to that fund. It was noted that there is not enough money in the General Drainage Improvement Fund to cover that large amount of money.

3. Perhaps doing a variable rate on the reconstruction project.

Dale Lehe asked about an option for cost verses benefits-variable rate.

Board Member Heimlich explained variable rate: The simplest way to explain it is you are trying to assess cost according to the benefit received. So the acreages benefited more by the project would pay a higher rate than the ones that aren’t. It can get kind of complicated to balance that out. We do have a few here that are on variable rates.

5. Doing a maintenance modification to the maintenance fund of the ditch. That would be raising the current rate of two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per acre to whatever amount determined by the Board.

Chairman Burton: If by chance we do move forward on this, I am not saying yes or no, I just want everyone to be aware of this in some shape or form. We are going to have to come up with the money because of the amount of the project.

Chairman Burton: This is just an information meeting but I will make comment that there was a letter from Naomi L. Herron expressing her opinion that she is in favor of the project. A copy of her letter was given to the members of the Board to read. Copy on file in the Surveyor’s Office. Normally we would not do this many informational meetings but I personally feel it is necessary because of the cost of this project. I am going to say this is a small amount of acres, six hundred (600) acres. The cost of this project is huge. I appreciate everybody coming here and asking these questions. But I again personally feel it is really necessary in this that everybody kind of get a feel of this and be on the same page with whatever we move forward with. Now, I will back up just a little bit. The slightest thing that should be done is separating the two (2) tiles down at the headwall and relieving pressure there. Maybe spot fixing north of the road. I am not proposing this but we can ratchet it back down the other direction. To leave it without doing anything I don’t think is a good idea. But to focus on problems where we really know there are problems, the tree area and the headwall. So, we got everything from not much invested all the way to you bought your Ferrari.

Kevin O’Farrell: The INDOT part would be huge too. We were there and saw it investigated.

Chairman Burton: So, ultimately we need your input.

Kevin O’Farrell: One (1) thing I could probably add because we have been working with Tony Cain on it. The old clay tile that is in there he has replaced stretches of it with plastic. There is quick sand up through there which is pretty normal. A lot of those clay sections are tilted and you don’t know where they are at. So, it is possible to get a lot of blockage but you don’t know where they are at. You replace twenty (20) foot sections and in that where there was no suck hole he would run into these sections of tiles that where tilted. That would be one of my things I could just throw out there because I know that might be a problem to spot fix in that area.

Chairman Burton: What is the reaction of the room to a variable rate?

Audience member: Asked for variable rate to be explained.

Board Member Heimlich: The simplest way to explain it is your trying to assess cost according to the benefit received. The acreages benefited more by the project would pay a higher rate than the ones that aren’t. That is about as simple as I can put it. We do have a few that are on a variable rate.

Surveyor Ward: Not many but a few.

Chairman Burton: It is more the exception then it being common. Basically there is more benefit to an acreage north of State Route 18 then there would be to an acreage south of State Road 18. Obviously State Route 18 would be a breaking point there. I am not trying to pick on anybody there but you can see there is a difference. One (1) reason south of State Route 18 there is a lot of fall there. So you are going to get natural north of State Road 18. That water is not going to get out of there without this drain.

Attorney Loy: Without further engineering study on this that is about all you can say about variable rates or benefits.

Board Member Heimlich: Again if it was just ten ($10.00) or fifteen dollars ($15.00) an acre you could say just flat rate that would be the way to go. But when it gets up to four hundred dollars ($400.00) an acre we are supposed to base our vote on is do the benefits outweigh the cost. Well, for some of the acreage here when you get up to four hundred dollars ($400.00) an acre that becomes an issue.

Kyle O’Farrell: It depends on how well it works when it is done. If you put all that money up there and you don’t have a big enough outlet to start with you are going to say boy we kind got a problem we put all that in and the money. It is not my property that we are representing I am just saying are we pretty sure that kind of soil type with that kind of watershed is that tile big enough. Is there any way to know if that is big enough on the north side of that road? It would have to be something pretty big I would think.

Todd Frauhiger: If you remember the very first option we talked about was upsize the entire tile from the downstream end all the way to the upstream end. Just based upon acreage and that was seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00) an acre. The reason I stressed and I will stress it again is what we are proposing except for the very up stream end where we are going six (6) to twelve (12) there is a lot of reasons for that. We are putting it back in as it was when it was constructed. So, the downstream tile that could have handled it back when it was constructed it will also be able to handle it now. We do have enough fall downstream of State Route 18 that tile has the capacity to handle the water we would putting into it with the new tile.

Kyle O’Farrell: It does meet specs even though it was put in years and years ago? That is why I asked if anyone remembered if water stood on there. Let’s just say with a three (3) inch rain. How old is that tile there may not be anyone around that truly knows that answer.

Todd Frauhiger: If there truly is which I trust what you said. If there truly is a section under State Route 18 that is backwards then you are exactly right the open jointed clay you do have settlement issues in it.

Kyle O’Farrell: I know it would be better. It should be quite a bit better.

Todd Frauhiger: It will be better.

Kevin O’Farrell: I guess it just so happens the people that we farm for own that stretch is in that area where it doesn’t have a lot of cover.

Surveyor Ward: It is about running pretty flat in that area too. Starting at State Route 18 we figured about only about a foot of cover through that section, maybe.

Attorney Loy: I want to add the Board has to analyze whether or not the benefits over all exceed the cost of the project. We have had some from time to time we have had drainage problems that cost more than benefits of improving the land. Under those circumstances the Board is obliged not to do the project. The costs are more than the benefits.

Kevin O’Farrell: Would it be ok to say that everyone north of that tile wouldn’t pay any more maintenance fees from that period on that tile period?

Attorney Loy: Short answer to your question is “No”. All this is engineering and spec driven but if you have just using the ridiculous. If this cost a million dollars ($1,000,000.00) probably not worth it. But there are projects. The Board has to reach the threshold conclusion before moving on. But the cost of this entire project outweighs or is less than benefits to landowners benefited.

Todd Frauhiger: Just to add on to that if I could. The section under State Route 18 could be fixed basically at no cost to the watershed. I think what Steve said a second ago if the decision was made to fix what is out there. There are ways to do that. What we would have to do is I think I mentioned at one (1) of the other hearings (meetings) the only way to find out where it is plugged or where it is off grade is to TV it. We would have to go to the sections that we know have problems you would have to dig down to it to get access to and run a TV camera up it. That would be the way to find out exactly which sections are not working. Which sections are clogged. Which sections need repaired. I don’t think anyone ever said do nothing, walk away. I think we just have options on the table from to do minimum to try to get it working again or to try to do something more than that.

Dave Thomas: Is there any way to go up north in a certain place with new tile….inaudible

Todd Frauhiger: That is another option too. Right now what we have done is, the upstream end is six (6) inch tile. So basically we ran new tile up to the end of it. But that is another possibility too. That would be another interim alternative just to start at State Route 18 and go up to the place that we know are not working and not have to TV it, replace it that way. That is any idea too. We can take it in as many steps as you want to take it.

Chairman Burton: Even if we do that we would probably still have to do something on the money end of it. Right now this ditch is pretty poor.

Carol Watkins: The Surveyor before you what was his name?

Surveyor Ward: Mr. Sterrett, Denny.

Carol Watkins: No, before that.

Surveyor Ward: Rick Raderstorf? Before him? George Milligan? Jim Milligan?

Carol Watkins: No, twenty (20) years ago. I would go in there and he would say do you really want me to do something about it? It is just going to raise your taxes.

Chairman Burton: I think everyone in this room understands this is not County money. The County oversees it and regulates it. But the cost of this whole project will come out of landowner contribution. This is not County money that is funding this. The landowners are going to fund all of this.

Carol Watkins: I guess what I am really saying is why didn’t you go ahead check in to it and fix it?

Board Member Diener: We can talk about it today and we can talk about it next week but to guess why something happened twenty (20) years ago. Not to cut you off mam but we can’t do a thing about it. All we can do is to guess, wish and hope. The issue we have here is the two (2) projects that we have kind of considered. Four hundred dollar ($400.00) an acre to seven hundred dollars ($700.00) an acre. Assess higher for people who may have more benefit or who have less benefit. It quickly becomes to me in my mind is that if I had ten (10) acres or one hundred (100) acres here. Would I go out and fix my own tile for seven hundred dollars ($700.00) an acre or would I rather contribute to this project. Then hope it works for downstream or upstream depending on where I am at. That is where you run into this question. If I am south of State Route 18 and I don’t have a problem in this area I feel really like I am bailing out other people that have the problem who don’t want to fix their tile individually and are looking for me to paid for it. As everyone has said this is your money. You are just asking us how to do it fairly.

Dale Lehe: Is there anything planned yet to fix under the highway?

Surveyor Ward: We have to wait to see where we go with this project. If we would do it right now we would probably be the ones eating the cost. I say we, the watershed would be eating the cost. There obviously has to be conversation with INDOT to get them on board.

Todd Frauhiger: Anything in their right-of-way it would be their cost to fix.

Mr. O’Farrell: Which is different than what I was told a long time ago.

Carol Watkins: How soon will they be fixing that?

Todd Frauhiger: What would happen is they would not fix it. Let me be clear. The County fixes it then we get reimbursement from the State. They would not send their own contractor out and do it. So, either it is going to be part of a larger project or it is going to be a standalone project or require a maintenance project in the future.

Kevin O’Farrell: That is good news because that is a lot of money.

Todd Frauhiger: That is correct that is why I mention that the four hundred dollars ($400.00) per acre is a little conservative. Brad mentioned going up to the first branch with new tile at fifteen (15) inch tile. Just to bomb bard everyone with numbers. That is about one hundred and fifty thousand ($150,000.00) for the total project. About two hundred and twenty dollars ($220.00) an acre. Just to replace from State Route 18 up to ... That is about a mile of new tile.

Dale Lehe: That would be two hundred and twenty ($220.00) for everybody unless you do a variable rate?

Todd Frauhiger: That is correct, just flat to make it simple.

Chairman Burton: We want to be careful about doing something with the State until we know what our true future plans are. Because if we turn around and stick that in there and we fine out we wanted a different grade in there.

Chairman Burton: Why I brought this up is to make sure everyone understands. If the project drops down to two hundred dollars ($200.00) an acre we could that out of the General Drain Improvement Fund.

Surveyor Ward: I would have to look I can’t tell you what we have in there today.

Chairman Burton: It could change quickly depending on the direction you want to go. Let’s kind of move on. We can do some exploring with what I call cuts and views. That happens in lot of places. Sometimes they are successful and sometime they are not. We are probably thirty (30) day away for realistically being able to do that successfully with the ground conditions. We haven’t done a Hearing and it might be one (1) of the best opportunities to do some exploring. Would the room desire to do a little more research first to see if we can identify some areas? The only way to get through quick sand is what I’m going call solid link plastic. If we can identify those places and deal with it which we have in other areas and been successful at it but just repairing one (1) or two (2) in that area doesn’t usually work.

Kevin O’Farrell: Inaudible conversation…

Chairman Burton: The other thing to keep in mind you are saying will this tile handle the water flow. Even a three (3) inch rain if it comes immediately you are going to have water standing. Even if we redo this you are still going to have some losses. A six (6) inch rain in a short period of time you know what is going to stand. So, ultimately you are still going to have crop failure due to water standing no matter what we do here. Again be prepared I have had people come back to say we spent all this money and I still got water standing.

Kevin O’Farrell: If you got all the money in the world and you start it from the end and oversize like you said to start with. You are not going to have any water problems…inaudible…

Chairman Burton: Please excuse me. We are saying we can’t go backwards. This was different twenty (20) years ago. We had livestock and we had fence rows so water didn’t move as quickly as it does now. So, we didn’t absorb our neighbor’s water as quickly. What use to happen as you all know everything is fast and everything is quick as far as we get that water and we get rid of it. Comments from the Board.

Board Member Diener: We are waiting for something from them.

Chairman Burton: Eight (8) landowners present at this meeting. Chairman Burton asks for a quick show of hands of how many people would be in favor of doing some exploration when the weather clears up, the first choice. The second choice would be that we try to go ahead and try to pick a plan. The first choice is let’s do some exploration raise your hand. Eight (8) hands were raised therefore a vote was not taken on go ahead with a plan.

Board Member Diener: Is there an opinion from the landowners in regard to self-imposing a higher drainage rate?

Chairman Burton: We would have to have a Hearing to raise the rate.

Kyle O’Farrell: I have one (1) more question, these two (2) guys see this more than anyone, if that were your farm what would you recommend? Not to put you on the spot but…

Surveyor Ward: I don’t farm but I would have a hard time with four hundred dollars ($400.00) an acre. I don’t know how many acres you are actually losing.

Kyle O’Farrell: That isn’t what I was asking, what plan would you lean towards?

Todd Frauhiger: I think personally what the group has decided is the best thing to do. Because it is hard to comment on that when we still have a little bit more and we did the best we could surveying. But there were just some places the surveying data didn’t quite make sense. We know we have a problem in sections of it. After we do some more exploration we may be able to come back with a little bit more refined plan.

Dick Bol: How many dollars are available even for the exploration? Is there enough to do a decent amount?

Surveyor Ward: There is eighteen hundred dollars ($1,800.00) in the fund as of November of last year. I don’t know how much Tony Cain can do for eighteen hundred dollars ($1,800.00).

Chairman Burton: You may get him out there once and he may use that especially if he uses the camera the first time. The other thing to keep in mind is that you can go in to the hole. Dave Diener’s suggestion here for raising that was great but until we know what you choose to do in the project…. We can go in the hole a little bit with the exploration if it is productive. Then we can figure out how you are going to pay it. Would that be satisfactory? If we turn around here in the next thirty (30) days and say we are going to raise your rate to do this we are not going to see that money quick enough to cover for what we are going to do now. So, let’s wait and see what the project is going to be then we will have a figure to cover everything. We can adjust the rates accordingly. Does that sound fair? We are going to do this within reason. We are not going to out there and spend three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) exploring. I couldn’t tell you what a top end is but it will be supervised.

Kevin O’Farrell: Is near the head wall where you were wanting to split the two is that a done deal?

Surveyor Ward: Well, we would have to have the money to do it. We would have to have some kind of modification. I suppose we could slit that money out of the two (2) watersheds that come in there. Fifty (50), fifty (50) or whatever to get that done.

Board Member Heimlich: What is your cost of the estimate on that?

Todd Frauhiger: If we do the head wall and split those two (2) tiles down there with a concert head wall we got fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) to split the tiles and do a little bit of ditch work downstream. Maybe do a little bit of work on the County culvert there. We have got fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) proposed to that.

Chairman Burton: Even if we have a contractor that is free and available we are still looking at sixty (60) days. Any information is going to take time. We will try to stay in contact with you or you can contact the Surveyor.

Kevin O’Farrell: I only have one (1) more thing as far as how much cover is over that do you know for sure. One (1) thing you would have to be aware of if you put it in is how much cover is over the top of that. The reason I’m bringing it up is it is possible even where it cuts through in those areas you could almost do a property line cut through to where you are not farming right over the top of that main tile. Even from our stand point if we go in there and rip that tile out the people north of us get zero (0) from that point.

Surveyor Ward: The least amount of cover is on the ground that you guys farm. That is where it is really shallow.

Kevin O’Farrell: That is one (1) thing from State Route 18 to that fence row that we farm at there are things that can be done to protect that tile where we are farming that we can do to protect it. If it comes down to that.

Todd Frauhiger: You have got to have that dug up in a couple of places in there because according to the survey there is no way you are not into it already. According to the survey there is only a foot of cover on it.

Kevin O’Farrell: Actually we have only hit it in one (1) spot. Several years back we hired Milt Crowell to come in there a surface cut that to those outlets we actually paid for it ourselves. We thought maybe the tile was plugged. We had talked to Wrede’s and he said sometimes you can super charge tiles to clean them. Which in that case it didn’t work. I am saying in the one (1) area where we hit it that could be pretty easily corrected. We have never hit it anywhere else. It is not very far between the fence and the first air well. You probably know exactly where I am talking about.

Surveyor Ward: Yes.

Next on the agenda-Discuss Drainage Solutions for Golden Beach

Discussion on Golden Beach Drainage with the White County Highway Department and the White County Drainage Board. There is no regulated tile in the area and no regulated ditch in the area. The people do not pay any type of maintenance assessments.

Other Discussions:

1. Board Member Heimlich asked if Cass County responded back about the Quincy Myers Drain

shared drain with Cass County.

Surveyor Ward stated that he now has the legal description and the water shed. That is as far as that project has gone.

2. Todd Frauhiger mentioned that Bob Gross had called him regarding the drainage review plan for

the Reynolds project. He told Mr. Gross he would review it and put them on the agenda.

Chairman Burton adjourned the March 4, 2013 Drainage Board Meeting.

COMPLETE DIGITAL MINUTES MAY BE HEARD IN THE SURVEYOR’S OFFICE