Get Adobe Flash player



BE IT REMEMBERED, that the White County Drainage Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 21, 2015.  The meeting was held at the White County Building, 2nd floor, Commissioners’ conference room beginning at 10:30 a.m.

Drainage Board members present were:  President Steve Burton, Vice President John Heimlich and Member David Diener.  Also, present were the White County Attorney George W. Loy, White County Surveyor Bradley E. Ward and the Surveyor’s Assistant Sharon Broussard.

Others present were:

Mike Kyburz – WCHD Supt. J.D. Smith – WCHD

Sharon Watson – White County Soil & Water

Todd Frauhigher, P.E. – AECOM Bryan Rogne - AECOM

Kyle Rule – Rep. for John B. Hinshaw Revoc.Trust

Jerry Lindquist- landowner James L. Hunt - landowner

Jack Pherson Trent Pherson

Rick Roach-Rep. for David A. & Tami J. Parrish and Valerie Saems Meyer and Constance Saems


President Burton called the meeting to order.



Vice President Heimlich made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the regular meeting held on September 8, 2015; seconded by Member Diener.

Vote: Unanimous



This discussion is continued from March 2, 2015, regarding the Reconstruction Project. Reconstruction is an extensive new project on an existing ditch; one that can include changing the original specifications of the ditch.


The petition was carried by Valerie Saems Meyer.  The petition was accepted by the White County Drainage Board on September 13, 2013.  There is now due the general drain fund ($23,520.22). Currently collects $3.00 an acre and $10.00 minimum.  The annual assessment is $1,847.10.  The four year maximum is $7,388.40 and is on the 2015 assessment list.  There are approximately 611.076 acres in the watershed.  The location of the ditch is near Monticello, Indiana, in Union Township.


Surveyor Ward reported the notice of the filing of the reconstruction report and schedule of assessments and their availability for inspection and the time and place of hearing was mailed to all those landowners affected more than thirty (30) and less than forty (40) days before the date of this hearing. Notice of the time and place of hearing was given by publication in the newspaper two (2) times.  Attorney Loy commented the job will have to be advertised for contractors.  The contractors usually have thirty (30) days from the time they receive the bid packets. A general bid is one year from the time the quote is accepted.


Surveyor Ward said he received a letter from Valerie Saems Meyer and the board has the letter. This is the only written information received for or against the project. Attorney Loy commented the letter written by Valerie Saems Meyer appears to be in favor of the project.


The White County Engineer, Todd Frauhiger, P.E., presented the reconstruction plans that were displayed on the meeting room wall for everyone to view. He said the next steps were to finalize the specifications and meet with potential contractors for cost estimates before the project goes out to bid.  The engineers have done some extensive remodeling on the entire project since the last public meeting. They redesigned the plan to get the water off in twelve (12) hours as requested by the landowners and tenants.  He explained the three (3) tile sizes starting with a twelve (12) inch control pipe (structure) to utilize the wetlands area for controlled flooding upstream, which can be changed in the future to a fifteen (15) inch pipe if necessary; coming into the fifteen (15) inch pipe upstream, then eighteen (18) inch pipe and ultimately a twenty-four (24) inch pipe.  He said based upon the modeling the twenty-four (24) inch pipe downstream will work instead of the thirty (30) inch pipe, used in the design the last meeting, and save a considerable amount of money to be more cost effective.  The tile sizes are going to be a huge benefit to the watershed.  To replace the clay tile with current plastic tile is the reason for the cost.  To maintain the warranty it (pipe) has to be installed with the manufacturer’s recommendations which required bedding and gravel.


Engineer Frauhiger mentioned that the ditch, with the dip, upstream in the tile is able to be lowered and dredged out.  Also, to the extreme upstream the pipe will get lowered about a foot.  He said they will need help with the construction on the very downstream end.  They can’t pick the connection points up, so they will need the property owners (Franscoviak) help to make sure we get everything tied back in for them.


Bryan Rogne, AECOM, elaborated on the upstream area at Rick Roach request. Bryan said it will be a simple structure.  A standard twelve (12) inch culvert type opening as an inlet to the tile system that will be about ten (10) feet long.  This tile can be changed to a fifteen (15) inch tile later or have a restrictor plate put on it to reduce flow rates on pipes.



Jack Pherson asked about tree removal on the upstream ditch part.  Engineer Frauhiger responded that any trees or roots that are in the topside of that ditch, that affect the contractors ability to get in and dredge, will have to be removed.  The ditch will be left in the same location and be cleaned out, dredged down and lower the upstream pipe.  The contractor will have to spoil the sediment on either side of the ditch, so those trees are going to have to come back from the ditch.  We have to be careful, because we don’t want to get too far outside the limits of the existing ditch.


Jack Pherson asked about the dead trees in the ponding water standing on the city property.  He wants to know how the tile will stay open and not get plugged with debris. The answer was that the problem will have to be reported to the surveyor for maintenance.  It is city property and if it is not reported the county does not know about it.


Rick Roach asked about the twelve (12) inch pipe location upstream coming to the road? Also, he said his issue, as a farmer, is that is a lot of tile not functioning; how much grade are we gaining on this?   Engineer Frauhiger said “yes” it (12” pipe) would and we gained as much grade as we could that it is a balancing act and Surveyor Ward said there has to be a decent clearing on there to dredge and there will be more grade thru the Saems property.


Rick Roach said the landowners’ concern is the total cost of the project and bid process. They want to know what kind of return they are going to get on their investment. Surveyor Ward explained it (the total cost) cannot be above what he advertised.  This includes money for the project engineers to oversee it.


Rick Roach stated “I don’t think I have the ability to say for them.  I was here for information purposes only and I don’t want to be put in the position today that I’m going to make a decision for Dave and Tammy is what I’m trying to say.”


Rick Roach request clarity on the “continuing of the present maintenance” (annual assessment) part of the notice the landowner received. Surveyor Ward said it is the same maintenance fee that they are currently being assessed.  The surveyor explained they will probably have to raise the assessment if the project is not done.


Vice President Heimlich wanted confirmation that the landowners will have to pay the entire amount up front for the reconstruction project or pay ten (10) % interest.  Surveyor Ward said the landowner has to pay the total amount that you are assessed or ten (10) % on the balance due per state statue; not county statue.  Attorney Loy commented this is equal payments over five (5) years; not more than five (5) years.  Also, the Drainage Board suggested the landowner could get other financing for less interest on their loan.  The landowners will get a separate bill from the treasurer’s office.


President Burton stated the bid can be less and we can accept it; but if all bids are above it then they are rejected. President Burton said that this project is big enough that the county will be looking for another source of funding. The general drainage fund does not have an adequate balance to handle the $440,000.00 with other projects in the county going on at the same time.


Kyle Rule said his calculations run about seven hundred twenty dollars ($720.00) per watershed acre. Surveyor Ward and Engineer Frauhiger agreed.


Kyle Rule asked Surveyor Ward “if the contractor’s bids come back higher than the estimate would you reconsider running that north instead of thru the open ditch?”   Engineer Frauhiger said “the county was advised to run along the route of the open ditch and stay away from the city owned property upstream.”


Kyle Rule said he was not clear why it has to go around. He asked “wouldn’t it be better to go around than thru it, if everyone would agree?”  Surveyor Ward said “we ran out of grade” and “it would have cost more to tile it.”


Kyle Rule stated his concern that other landowners will be tying into the new main downstream and it will add water quicker.  Engineer Rogne responded to his concern and said they were designing this, so it would have flexibility twenty (20) years down the road when this happens.


Member Diener said that no water can run off the site faster than previously; a drainage plan has to be presented and approved by the Drainage Board.  There will have to be more regulations sooner or later.


Attorney Loy advised that, technically under the law, anyone who wants to outlet their drain into a regulated drain has to contact the surveyor to get permission to determine if the drain is adequate to handle the discharge.














President Burton asked everyone present if they had an opinion or comment. He said he did not hear anyone say they were against it.


President Burton presented the Adoption of the T.J. Woltz #603 Reconstruction:



I.C. 36-9-27-52


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.


Vice President Heimlich made a motion to approve the order authorizing the reconstruction of the T.J. Woltz #603 regulated drain, seconded by Member Diener.


Upon a motion duly made and seconded, and after having considered all of 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 three (3) in favor, zero (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 T.J. Woltz #603 drain established.  A copy of which will be mailed to all owners affected.
















Surveyor Ward received a written request from the Benton County Surveyor, David L. Fisher.  He is requesting the appointment of two (2) White County Drainage Board members for a Benton-White Curtis Creek Joint Drainage Board.  There is a meeting scheduled on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners’ room, Benton County courthouse, 706 East 5th Street, Fowler, IN.


Steve Burton and John Heimlich committed to the Benton-White Curtis Creek Joint Drainage Board.


There being no further business to come before the board, their meeting was adjourned.






___________________             ___________________­_____         __________________

Steve Burton, President            John Heimlich, Vice President         David Diener, Member