Get Adobe Flash player

 

January 5, 2004 Tape #001

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

Also attending were Brad Jordan, Jim Jordan, Greg Jacobs, Steve Salomon, Brad Stockment and Charles Mellon.

First on the agenda was the opening of sealed quotes on the maintenance clearing project on the Fern McKillip Branch #1 Drain in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana, to remove trees that are down through the Kyburz property. Attorney Loy stated that three invitations to bid were sent out and two replies were received. He stated that the two bids are from Gutwein Bulldozing and County Line Tile/Excavating. The quote is for a stated sum for clearing of all trees and brush on approximately 1,800 lineal feet of the open ditch.

Attorney Loy read the bids as follows: Gutwein’s quote is $4,500.00 and County Line’s quote is $4,200.00. Chairman Schmierer said we would take those under advisement for now and make sure they are in order.

Chairman Schmierer called to order the Maintenance Modification Hearing on the Davis & Shields Tile Drain in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana. Chairman Schmierer read from the information sheet from the Surveyor’s Office that the maintenance fund currently brings in $94.90 yearly and it is in debt $374.57 so it would take almost four years to get it out of debt at that rate. He stated that is the reason for the Hearing, to raise the assessment. He reviewed the claims history from 1999 to present and it appears that the tile repair work has been done on Gould property. He said it must be an older tile drain and it is going to take some maintenance to keep it up.

Chairman Schmierer stated that we have a proposal to raise the rate to $2.50 an acre and $10.00 per lot or minimum that would bring in $234.74 annually and get it out of debt in a little under two years.

Chairman Schmierer recognized Jim Jordan who addressed the Board saying, “I’m on the end of it, and when it comes into my property there is less than twenty inches of ground cover on it and it is an 8 to 12 inch tile. I smash it every time I run over it. It has been in there I don’t know how many years, I’ve farmed it thirty years. I patch it out of my own pocket every year; I’ve never charged the County a dime on it. You don’t have any funds, like you have now. I need a new tile that comes up through there. If I had an eight inch that comes up to my property, I’d take care of the rest of it.”

Chairman Schmierer answered, “What you will have to do, if you want a new tile put in there you have to petition for reconstruction to put a new tile in. There’s not a lot of acres in this (watershed) is there, Denny?” Surveyor Sterrett answered there are ninety-two acres. Chairman Schmierer said he didn’t know who the owners were. He asked Mr. Jordan how many acres he has in it. Mr. Jordan answered he has twenty acres. Surveyor Sterrett named owners Mark Jordan fifteen acres, Kirk Dahlenburg fifteen and Gould about forty. Board Member Ferguson asked if Steve Cosgray had some there, too. Jim Jordan said he just farms some. Chairman Schmierer stated, “I would say we have to go ahead and raise it anyhow to get it out of debt.” Jim Jordan said, “If you’re going to do that, I’m going to start charging the maintenance fund for my repay. If I do that you’d have to raise it to fifty dollars an acre almost. I’ve got about four (tile holes) out in it right now.” Chairman Schmierer said, “I guess I would have counsel address that.”

Attorney Loy stated, “Denny has a procedure for paying for work, but you have to do it in advance.” Jim Jordan said, “No, what I’m getting at, I don’t want to keep paying maintenance for something that we keep working on it.” Chairman Schmierer stated, “I understand where you’re coming from, but what I’m trying to state is, we’re already in debt $374.57 and by raising this, this is basically just going to get it out of debt. What I would suggest you would do, and then we could probably change the maintenance on it, since you have that problem is petition us for reconstruction and do it properly to get away from that problem. I don’t doubt your word at all because we have this problem (with other drains) in the County. If we don’t do that, we’re still going to have major problems, I agree with you.”

Jim Jordan repeated, “But, what I’m coming from, if you’re going to raise the maintenance like that, I’m going to use more than the maintenance every year so it will still be in debt. If they’re going to charge, I’m going to start charging. They could’ve fixed it out of their own pockets.” Chairman Schmierer said, “But they haven’t. That’s the reason why….I read off, you heard what I read. How long is this tile, Denny?” Board Member Ferguson said it goes into the Carnahan Drain. Surveyor Sterrett said it is a little over a half a mile or so, it goes a quarter of a mile through Jim Jordan. Chairman Schmierer asked what it would cost to put a half a mile of tile in (Board Member Ferguson said it depends on the size) and what size is in there now. Jim Jordan said he thinks it starts with twelve inch tile and goes down to eight a cross his field and might go to seven. He said they have hooked tile onto it and when they hit their low spots they had about twelve or thirteen inches of dirt over a five inch tile and that’s not much grade.

Surveyor Sterrett said he didn’t know how you would correct that at the grade it is now if you can’t lower the outlet. Jim Jordan said the outlet is probably a hundred feet from the ditch……inaudible – see tape.

Jim Jordan repeated, “I don’t want to keep putting maintenance on something that won’t work.”

Chairman Schmierer stated, “I’m not sure that no bigger than it is, the landowners should get together and do their own. It would be cheaper.” Jim Jordan stated, “If I had a tile come up to my property, a five inch tile in two directions would take care of my twenty acres or my thirty-five acres.” Chairman Schmierer said, “I’m just saying by the time we put engineering fees and everything else into it by law, you guys can probably hire County Line Tile or anybody you want and tile it yourself and then petition to vacate that tile. It might be your best bet. Any way you go it’s like anything else, it’s going to cost money. But that’s why we’re raising it, trying to get it out of debt.”

Jim Jordan said, “In the past everybody was fixing their own tile. It changed ownership of the ground and that’s where problems started.” Chairman Schmierer said in 1999 on Norman Gould (property) we spent $538.81 and that’s probably when it went in debt. Is that when he bought the ground? Jim Jordan answered yes.

Chairman Schmierer stated, “We can extend this Hearing to the next meeting if you wish, if you want to try to get Gould to come in here and see if you can work out something.” Jim Jordan stated, “Steve said he was going to talk to him and he would be at the meeting. I’d just as soon wait until he…inaudible.” Chairman Schmierer stated, “Ok, we can continue the Hearing until next meeting, January 19, 2004. But, get him in here and we’ll have to do something with it because we have to figure out how to get this thing out of debt.”

Engineer Frauhiger presented an Exemption to the Drainage Ordinance for approval for White Rock Subdivision in Liberty Township. The owner is Walter Sparks. Engineer Frauhiger explained that it is a one lot subdivision and is being split to build a house. He said they ask for an exemption from the Drainage Ordinance and there is no problem with it. He and Denny met with the owner and he explained exactly what they are going to do.

Board Member Ferguson made a motion to approve an Exemption from the Drainage Ordinance for White Rock Subdivision in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Engineer Frauhiger recommended approval of drainage plans for White County REMC at the old AO Smith building site. He and Denny met with REMC designers and Bill Smith from the City Council. He said, “Basically what they are doing is, it is an existing parking lot and they are making a yard lot to store some material. There is an existing ditch that comes around the building, comes back in these trees and dumps into a riser which goes into another tile that runs down this side of the building and back into Buss Drain. Their total improvements on the site were all less than ten thousand square feet but since they were going to be doing some work on the building we decided to go ahead and have them go through a permit process, which they did. After the meeting, we requested some changes be made to the plans. They made those changes. At this particular point I think everything is fine and we’ll go ahead and approve it.”

Board Member Ferguson made the motion to approve the drainage plan for White County REMC at the old AO Smith property site. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Engineer Frauhiger reported that he and Surveyor Sterrett had a chance to go out and take a look at the Excel Co-op railroad siding site south of Reynolds and took some pictures. He stated, “It is kind of an interesting situation. Overall, drainage-wise, I don’t think there is any problem. There is a little bit of additional water coming from that front parking lot, there’s no problem whatsoever with that water, in my opinion, going down to the ditch. It is just going a different route than it normally did. I think that Roger (Wiese), the downstream property owner, had made some comments about potential silt, and the only potential problem I see through this, and Brad (Stockment) and I talked about it, about possibly putting a small pipe in through that cut area to hold some of the water back. I think that is exactly what we are going to have to do. If it is ok with you, Brad, what I was thinking that we put it at the south end of the cut. There is about a six hundred and thirty foot ditch that has been cut through the hill and the soils are bad through that cut area, it’s a lot of sand.” John Heimlich stated, “That is a concern we had when we went out and looked at it.

It’s quicksand.” Engineer Frauhiger agreed, “Exactly, and quite honestly when Denny and I were out walking up and down the ditch bank, there’s areas where some of the silt has already let loose. It is going to be real hard to hold that ditch. But, in the same sense, it is going to be too expensive to try to cover the whole ditch with a pipe. So, my thought is if we put the pipe in downstream where the ditch is, what that pipe is going to do, it is going to slow the water down and any of that ditch bank that we happen to lose, we’re probably going to hold upstream in that pipe. It IS going to be a maintenance problem, where I wouldn’t be surprised, just to get rid of YOUR water you’re going to have to go out there sometimes and dredge that ditch out upstream of that pipe. But, that’s the best way I can see to fix it. I don’t think you are planning any ditch treatment, stone, or are you just going to seed it?”

Brad Stockment stated, “There are provisions for rip rap where the pipe extended underneath and enters into the Johnson Ditch. There are also provisions for silt fences, but as you know, the project is not complete and I don’t think there is any way we can really tell what is going to happen until we get it done.” Engineer Frauhiger said, “What will help is if we can go ahead and get that fifteen inch pipe installed down there, and just use straw bales and put around the upstream end of that pipe. What that will do, before we get the ditch banks covered, anything that comes down will get caught by the straw and keep it from going downstream. Otherwise, I thought everything looked ok. There is a small additional amount of water going in, but that’s the reason for the fifteen inch pipe. What we are going to do is basically turn this ditch into a small detention area.”

Board Member Heimlich asked, “Where did that water from Gutwein’s parking lot, where was that designed to go as far as their drainage plan?” Engineer Frauhiger answered, “That was designed to go back into the detention area, into a tile and over to the same ditch it is going into now.” Board Member Heimlich said, “It was hard to tell by just looking at it out there, but would it go that way now?” Brad Stockment said, “I don’t think you would ever get that water to come off of the west side of that parking lot to go that way. I think it basically just went out there and pooled between their parking lot and the railroad tracks.” Board Member Heimlich said that is the way it looked, just eyeballing it. Engineer Frauhiger said that’s what his guess would be, too. Brad said, “I don’t think it’s a problem as far as being a lot of water there.” Engineer Frauhiger said he would tend to agree.

Engineer Frauhiger stated, “Actually what it is going to do is, that ditch constructed down through there, assuming that we don’t get a large amount of silt downstream, which I think we can address with straw bales and fifteen inch pipe, I think downstream the drainage off of Roger’s field is going to be better because there is going to be a place for that water to get away, where there wasn’t before. If you look along the old railroad track there was really no defined ditch, it was just little pockets of water standing. We saw a small evidence of some downstream siltation but not anything that is going to cause problems at this particular point. Did you guys look at it the day after the big rain, yesterday? (No) I think what we ought to do is get a fifteen inch pipe put in the downstream end of that cut and get some straw bales put around the upstream end of it, and do the best we can to hold that ditch until we get the project done and get some cover on it.”

Brad said, “So really you’re talking starting, basically, at Morningsong’s property line on the very south end (correct) and then coming north two hundred feet.” Engineer Frauhiger said, “I don’t think we need to go that far. I was thinking maybe fifty to seventy, something like that.” Brad said, “Just address the steepest part of the bank then, the steepest part of the cut.” Todd answered, “Right. And if we keep it as far south as we can to collect any of that ditch that we do leave.” Brad said, “Use as much of that ditch as we can for storage.” Todd agreed. He said, “I would just put the black plastic fifteen inch smooth core in there, it is easier to handle, it will go in quick. You can embed it in sand that is there. Put some rip rap around it downstream. Get the straw bales around it upstream for sure.”

Board Member Heimlich asked, “Is that going to be in the form of a drainage plan that we approve?” Engineer Frauhiger stated, “They submitted a set of plans that were designed by…….” Board Member Heimlich stated, “We really should have for this project, there was enough, I think we addressed that, there was enough permeable surface that we should have approved a drainage plan. There should have been one submitted.” Engineer Frauhiger answered, “How about if they would submit a letter detailing, I don’t know if you need to draw it up via plan sheet, but if you would submit a letter just summarizing basically what I just said, we can go ahead and actually approve a letter and call it a drainage plan. I don’t think we need to go to the expense of drawing up a plan at this point.” Attorney Loy agreed. Engineer Frauhiger said, “We do have ditch cross sections all the way down through there. You can get a letter drawn up, couldn’t you?”

Chairman Schmierer asked Counsel if that was satisfactory. Attorney Loy said, “So long as everybody understands that we are going to hold you to it. Whatever plan you submit. Like Todd said, we are not going to require the full blown drainage plan.” Board Member Heimlich said, “Basically, what they’ve done is included in that (project plans).” Todd said, yes we’ve pretty much got the whole set of plans. Board Member Heimlich said, “So the additional would be the pipe through the hill.” The answer was yes. Attorney Loy asked if that was ok. Excel Co-op representatives agreed.

Surveyor Sterrett reported that in 2003 the Surveyor’s office completed 225 maintenance repair orders on the County drains totaling $103,517.00 which did not include any spraying of the ditches or any maintenance bid projects.

Chairman Schmierer asked Attorney Loy if there was any reason not to take the low bid on the Fern McKillip Branch #1 maintenance project. Attorney Loy said the bids were in order. Chairman Schmierer asked if there is money in the maintenance fund. Surveyor Sterrett answered yes, there is. Board Member Ferguson made a motion to accept County Line Tiling/Excavating’s low bid of $4,200.00 on the Fern McKillip Branch #1 Drain maintenance project. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Schmierer opened the White County Drainage Board 2004 Organizational Meeting. He asked for a motion to appoint Attorney George W. Loy as the White County Drainage Board Attorney for 2004. Board Member Ferguson so moved. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Board Member Ferguson made a motion to re-appoint Ronald A. Schmierer as chairman and John C. Heimlich as vice-chairman. Chairman Schmierer asked for a motion to continue this year as we have in the past, which is Ronald A. Schmierer as chairman, John C. Heimlich as vice-chairman and Romana Kiser as secretary of the White County Drainage Board. Board Member Heimlich so moved, saying everybody is re-appointed. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Board Member Ferguson made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Schmierer recognized Greg Jacobs who was present to speak to the Board with his concerns about silt build-up at the mouth of the Snow Ditch, the regulation of the ditch south of Chalmers Road and putting landowners in that area on the assessment role being in question. Chairman Schmierer stated, “Denny (Surveyor Sterrett) and I went down to Delphi and met with Mr. Chapman (Carroll Co. Surveyor, Wayne Chapman) and Denny had walked it, the day I was going to walk it I fell down a stairway so I couldn't walk it but we’ve been down through it. Chapman’s opinion and our, too, is that’s a natural waterway from where we are regulated to. It has to; Chapman agreed with me, it would have to go through the DNR and IDEM to even change anything to regulate that down through there. So, I asked Chapman what his opinion was on having a Joint Drainage Board meet on that, and he didn’t think that at this time even bother putting a Joint Drainage Board in because he wasn’t going to recommend that we do anything with it either, other than start the process if we can through IDEM and DNR and see what can be done. That IS a natural waterway and we have several of them in the County that we don’t regulate. In fact, at Brookston, a good example of that is the creek down there. We don’t regulate west of SR 18, actually a little bit further than that, west of CR 100 for that Moots Creek area coming into that because it’s a natural waterway and that’s all controlled by DNR.”

Greg Jacobs asked, “But, is that section of ground included in your legal description for that as a drain?” Chairman Schmierer answered, “Yes, I’m sure it is because we’ve had some problems down there before. There where I live on the west side of Brookston, we had trees in that ditch before I became Commissioner and we couldn’t do anything. Harold Luck and I paid for having them taken out, but we had to go through DNR and get permission to take the trees out of there, because they were causing flooding, before we could take them out of there.”

Greg Jacobs stated, “Well, my concern is that both in May of ‘67 and May of ’87 this Board has accepted ownership of this drain and that this drain does extend down to the Tippecanoe River, and I am a little bit confused as to the reluctance when we have proven that we have a serious problem and it pertains to the State statute on several issues. I realize that it is a little bit out of the norm, or at least that’s what I’ve come to suspect, but the fact of the matter is that this Board DOES have jurisdiction down to that and I’m a little confused as to why get a decision. I realize that there might be a permit needed by IDEM or DNR, but I was told a month ago that I need to file for a petition for reconstruction, which my problem can be corrected under reconstruction on land that is under your jurisdiction. So, I simply need a decision. We HAVE the money. One of the concerns two years ago was who was going to pay for it. Who was going to pay to clean it out? In ’01 when I approached this Board, at that point ownership was accepted by the Board then, and because I let it lie, it lied until this year, the concern seemed to be getting approval from the landowner and who was going to pay for it. Well, before I spent forty grand I was going to pay for it. Now I don’t have any willing participants, except one, I’m willing. On my property, it is on the ditch’s property, it’s far too expensive to do it, although it IS an option. I’m a willing landowner to do a silt trap. So, I kind of hit a brick wall as far as a month ago, saying, ok file for a petition. As I read the State Statute, I find where it does speak of, in paragraph two of Open Drains, but no where does it say that just because it is an open drain doesn’t mean that you have responsibility over it. In my experience with this problem, it seems that you haven’t had to deal with this problem in the past where open and natural drains are concerned, but now we have a problem that lies in the legal description. Here’s an open drain that has several acres that aren’t being assessed that need to be assessed and I simply need for a positive recommendation that this Board will use the power the State has given them in Statute to one, even if a property owner doesn’t want to willfully do it, you have the right to go in there and correct the problem, you have the right to extend well passed the seventy-five foot easement if it’s required. The State Statute allows you to correct this problem. We have the money, we don’t even have to go to necessarily, although I believe they should participate, every landowner in this 4,300 acres plus, but we don’t even have to worry really about them paying the lion’s share of this problem, because we have nearly $600,000.00 left, uncommitted, in innkeepers’ tax, which if we do our homework now, when they meet in June or July, probably could get approval. We have the SFLECC who has funds, and as we all know that the innkeepers’ tax was designed to clean up silt on our lakes. It would qualify for this. And the SFLECC has funds, they’re willing to, I think if they know that there can be a working relationship, they have funds to pay for the engineering and I honestly believe that they would commit that $5,000.00 to get the engineering going if they knew that something COULD happen with it and there could be an amicable relationship between this Board and them. But, they’re not going to spend one nickel for something that they’re not sure that they’re going to be able to do anything with those plans once they get them because obviously this is not on their land, it’s on YOUR land. I just don’t understand why we can’t vote to proceed with facing this problem.”

Board Member Heimlich stated, “Well, you SAY that money is available but how do you know that money is available?” Greg Jacobs answered, “Well, I attended; I have a twenty year plan from the SFLECC, a projection of how they plan to use that money. Let’s just ASSUME that the Innkeepers’ Board doesn’t allow anybody…you know, use that very vague definition of ‘lake enhancement’, that could be a park on the lake, but let’s just assume…..” Board Member Heimlich stated, “That’s what the Statute said, but if you go back to the minutes of the discussion when that Innkeepers’ Tax was put in, you’ll find that it was VERY clear, and I think that in subsequent meetings when they’ve had requests for money that WOULD come under your vague definition of lake enhancement, they’ve said ‘no, that money is meant for cleaning the existing silt traps that were going to be put in the mouths of all of those different ditches, and before we go through that cycle we don’t have any idea what that’s going to cost. That was what that money was to be billed for, the State was paying for the, they had grants to do the construction of the silt traps, but locally that innkeepers’ tax was going to maintain them. And I think they’ll be very reluctant to spend any money outside of that fairly narrow….”

Greg Jacobs said, “I can’t speak for the Board, but I did attend the Innkeepers’ meeting and listen and I think that I would disagree with that. I did present the problem that we have, as I have said before this isn’t just a problem for Snow Ditch, this goes to every large drainage ditch in this community, but there was a willingness to listen to something that is well presented in six months when they come back to meet again. They were open-minded to it and they were very supportive of granting whatever it was, three hundred and some odd thousand dollars for the silt detention pond that they want put in and that was granted. So, I think that the SFLECC is involved and we just haven’t got to Lake Freeman yet. So, it isn’t JUST for those silt traps that are up on Lake Shafer. It’s for any silt trap that needs to……inaudible….so we just haven’t got to Lake Freeman yet. Lake Shafer has had much higher priority. But there IS a willingness on the SFLECC’s side to, I believe participate, and they agree that it makes a lot more sense to do it where I’m talking about, but they can’t do that without you. And you have concerns for the expense of the landowners and that is admirable even though SFLECC shouldn’t foot the bill for this. But, we have a source that we can hold down the costs to the landowners and we need to use that. But, the only way we can do that is for this Board to take the first step and agree that it is a good plan and work with the SFLECC. Now I know in the past you said ‘well, tell them to come’ and well I’ve told them to come three times and I don’t know why they are not.” Board Member Heimlich stated, “I said I would sit down and meet…” Greg Jacobs said, “I know you did, John, and it has kind of been a frustrating thing and I understand their position, but the jurisdiction comes under this Board and the law allows you to fix this problem, as it is written, and I just need this Board to want to agree to work with the SFLECC, only from the standpoint that they have access to capital and they’ll hold the costs down. And then, too, use the State Statute to do it on land whether that landowner wants to do it or not if that’s where you deem it necessary to do it.”

Chairman Schmierer said, “How much of this ground down here is in Carroll County and how much in White County?” Surveyor Sterrett said, “There’s approximately six thousand feet altogether.” Greg Jacobs said he thought it was nine thousand. Chairman Schmierer asked if half of it was in Carroll County. Surveyor Sterrett answered no. He didn’t have his scale with him to figure it. Greg Jacobs said he is guessing that there is close to 330 acres in Carroll County that are unassessed.

Chairman Schmierer said, “Well, we went down and talked to (Surveyor) Chapman and I would say he is not interested in getting a Joint Board together at the time we talked to him. And if we don’t have a Joint Board we’re not going to be able to get it done. But, it is also a natural waterway and it is a natural drain so consequently that’s where we’re at with it.” Greg Jacobs said, “What does that mean other than they don’t want to participate?”

Chairman Schmierer said, “If they don’t participate we can’t take that ground in. If they don’t want to participate with the ground that is in Carroll County, we cannot take that into zoning, we cannot put that in under maintenance or anything. We can’t put something under maintenance in another county. We can’t take it in as part of the drain if it’s in another county. We have no jurisdiction at all of anything in another county. Am I right George (Attorney Loy) or am I wrong?” Attorney Loy said, “Correct, yes.” Chairman Schmierer said, “We have several Joint Drainage Boards. We have Joint Drainage Boards with Pulaski, Jasper and Carroll, Benton, several Joint Boards. We don’t have any active Joint Boards with Carroll now at the present time we don’t have any projects going on. But we have one when we have projects going. But, when we were down there, that was the conception we left with was, he wasn’t interested in doing anything with it. We even talked to their Area Plan guy down there. We had him in and asked him how it was zoned. So, it isn’t going to do us any good to put it in, first place. Second place, it’s going to take a long drawn out procedure to get IDEM to do anything.”

Greg Jacobs answered, “So? You have to start SOMEWHERE. (Chairman Schmierer agreed with him.) Just because Carroll County doesn’t want to participate, because it’s maybe a little extra work? You’re draining forty-four hundred acres into this. I don’t understand how they can stand in the way of correcting a problem that your forty-three hundred and sixty acres is causing. There has to be a method for having them participate.” Chairman Schmierer said we can’t force them to participate. Attorney Loy stated, “There is a means by which you request for a Joint Board, but that Board doesn’t exist at the moment.” Chairman Schmierer said, “No we don’t have a Joint Board at this time and we went down and talked to him and presented to him the case, what you are wanting and what we thought needed to be done, and he was the first one who told me ‘you’re going to have to go through IDEM and DNR with it being a natural waterway, a natural drain’. You’re going to have objections from the people that own the ground in a natural waterway down there, too.” Greg Jacobs said, “That’s ok. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t going to be taken care of. Their land is causing a serious problem and it is causing tremendous injury to me and almost me alone. I don’t want to have to take a litigious point of view, but it is just common sense. The State Statute very clearly tells us what you can and can't do as a Drainage Board. I don’t know what I have to do; I’ll start attending their Drainage Boards if I have to. I perfectly well understand why there would be a reluctance to get involved with it, because nobody needs anything else to do. But, I have spent forty thousand dollars to date on this problem and I can’t spend any more, and I know perfectly well that the State law that governs this, allows us to take care of this problem. I beg of you to get involved moreso than we have. I mean, let’s make a decision. We have the SFLECC that will get involved. We can’t just sit back and say, just because Wayne doesn’t want to spend some extra effort to get a Board together, that it isn’t the right thing to do.”

Chairman Schmierer said, “I think you’d be better off to go down to their Drainage Board meeting and petition them to get a Joint Drainage Board around and see where we can go from there.” Greg Jacobs said, “So even if I give you permission as a Carroll County landowner to do something…..because the problem isn’t just on Carroll County. It just makes sense, absolute common sense, to take care of it on Carroll County’s property, but we could go right next to, right at Hicks’ Corner there and put it on the north side of the road. In fact, that would be Plan B if I had to come up with a….or eight hundred feet south where you claim ownership, if that indeed is in White County. So there is a way of fixing this. I’ll gladly start attending their Board meetings, but it still doesn’t answer the question – is this Board willing to take the burden from me of going out and finding the landowner that is willing to participate in this and use the jurisdiction that the State has given you to correct this problem.”

Board Member Heimlich said, “It still gets back to who is going to pay for it. And you’re telling me you know that SFLECC is going to do this and that but I haven’t heard the first thing from SFLECC.” Greg Jacobs said, “Not definitely, I’m saying that there is willingness and I understand that they have to come up with their criteria and you have to come up with your criteria and you are the ones that have the State law on your side, not them. They don’t have an ounce of power unless it is inside their jurisdiction, and inside their property line…..inaudible…They happen to be the organization with all the money. But even if they don’t participate 100 percent, it doesn’t take away the fact that those Forty-four hundred acres are responsible for this. So, I don’t think we can just proceed with this in that somebody else has got to foot the bill. We can prove that those forty-four hundred acres are responsible, so what I’m trying to say is that IF we can get together with the SFLECC, that those landowners are going to benefit. But it isn’t going to happen by me going back and forth. Greg Jacobs isn’t going to get this done going back and forth between the two. And it is still going to come down to YOU are the Board with the jurisdiction to get this thing done, not them. They happen to have the money and I really, honestly believe they are interested in this project. They said so off the record, they haven’t voted and they’re not going to vote until this Board gives them some guideline that they can go by. They’re VERY interested in it. Five thousand dollars in the scheme of things with what they are spending, that’s not a lot of money to do the preliminary engineering, but they’re not going to do it if they don’t know it is going to be money well spent and the two of you get together.”

Board Member Heimlich stated, “But then you’re asking for the silt trap to be funded by the landowners on the forty-four hundred acres, and I think from a cost/benefit standpoint that would be difficult to defend – that the landowners are receiving benefit from that.” Greg Jacobs said, “As an unassessed owner on the Snow Ditch, you think it would be difficult to prove that I am NOT benefiting from the Snow Ditch, which the State Statute allows there under reconstruction?” Board Member Heimlich said, “If it was part of a reconstruction project, you know, a silt trap could be put in the specs as far as that, but you’re talking about a, just a lone project to construct the silt trap, paid for by those that are assessed on the Snow Ditch. And I say, what benefit are they getting from it?” Greg Jacobs said, “Well, no I’m not exactly saying that, what I AM saying is that if it came down to it, by rights they should have to pay for it. It seems obvious to me that the SFLECC IS interested in this project, and…..” Board Member Heimlich said, “Well it’s obvious to you, but as I say, it is not obvious to me because I haven’t heard from them.” Chairman Schmierer said, “There isn’t any of us that have heard from SFLECC. I talked to Daryl Johns and he never said a word to me about coming to the meeting. Our meetings are open, he knows, he could come to them. They come to us on other issues. I don’t know if they’re even interested in silt traps up in the ditches.” Greg Jacobs said, “I’m not even going to speak for them, all I know it really doesn’t matter because THIS Board has the jurisdiction to solve this problem, and I just need you to say, if you don’t interpret the State Statute the way I do and I’m left to fend for myself, just tell me that and I’ll see what else I can do, but the State Statute is clear on reconstruction and I asked a month ago to petition for this under reconstruction. I don’t care if you do it in White County of if you do it in Carroll County. I think your money is more wasted in White County, but, and I will participate in Carroll County, but I’m asking this Board to make a decision with the State Statute that is given you to help me correct this problem, because I can prove and I am a landowner on the Snow Ditch and the State Statute does protect me from harm.”

Board Member Heimlich said, “Well, I think we do have a little difference of opinion on the interpreting the Statute, but I’m still not clear on exactly what you want this Board to do.” Greg Jacobs said, “I want this Board to recognize that all the acres in Carroll County are indeed on the Snow Ditch and however it needs to be done, get them assessed, me included.” Board Member Heimlich said, “That has to be a, I think it is clear that has to be a Joint Board.” Greg Jacobs said, “They obviously are not on board with this so this Board has to take a different approach to force them to be on board with it. It appears to me, and I don’t know what that approach is.” Board Member Heimlich said, “IF that were done, if we had a Joint Board, and to whatever means those people were taken in, then you could build a silt trap there.” Greg said, “ONLY if this Board which governs the Snow Ditch is willing to use the Statute as it is laid out that allows you to go in and do construction as you deem necessary with or without their permission.” Board Member Heimlich said, “That’s the second thing, now the third thing would be who is going to pay for it?” Greg Jacobs replied, “Then I would ask you because again, I don’t believe that it should be limited to SFLECC, we have to approach this as if ‘what if they DON’T?’ But, I believe that they will and they will listen, but then we need to, whatever determines, whatever criteria is necessary from you’re point of view in order to have a working relationship with the SFLECC, because it IS property under your jurisdiction and somehow that jurisdiction, I mean if I am them, some sort of jurisdiction would have to extend to them, you know grant them access to that property that you control whether it be for maintenance, for construction or engineering.”

Chairman Schmierer stated, “One of the problems you are going to get into, Greg, is if we get, so if we need reconstruction solely to put in a silt trap, and that’s what we’d have to do, if we have landowners object they can put it in court. We have a ditch in this county now that it has been fifteen or twenty years now.” Board Member Heimlich said, “But this one, if we are doing this as a reconstruction project, that’s what I’m getting at, the benefit aspect of it. The ONLY people that are going to benefit, if this is the only part of the project, are the people down there that are affected by the silt. So I would imagine that everyone else upstream from that, if they don’t have a problem now, they’re going to object to it. And they CAN stop it. That’s why I’m; to me the main thing there is whose going to pay for it?” Greg Jacobs stated, “At this point, does that question really have to be answered for you to….” Board Member Heimlich stated, “Why yes, sure because to me the rest of it is a waste of time.” Greg said, “I can’t get that question answered until we know that they have something to talk about, and really, why can’t we get the question answered why aren’t we willing to bring those acres into assessment? And to lay out the criteria for the SFLECC, maybe the money part of it will be solved, because we know the money is over there.” Board Member Heimlich said, “Well, MAYBE, is over WHERE? The money is over where? You’re talking about the SFLECC money?” Greg answered, “Yes, and if all else fails, assess everyone from there to the Tippecanoe River.” Board Member Heimlich answered, “See, that’s the point I am telling you. That isn’t going to fly. (Jacobs – why?) Because none of those other people are going to perceive that they are benefited by it, and they can stop it. They’re going to be way over fifty percent.” Greg said, “I’m not talking about upstream.” Board Member Heimlich asked, “Who are you talking about?” Greg answered, “Downstream that are affected by the silt problem. And I’m not giving up the argument that the people upstream have some responsibility for this silt problem.” Board Member Heimlich said, “Yes, I’m not going to argue that with you either, but it is really immaterial because they DO have the power to stop a reconstruction project if they have over fifty percent of the…”

Greg Jacobs stated, “Well, we won’t know until we get there, and I understand your background experience with this, and that’s likely to happen, but we still have this problem that we have to take care of. And, I’m willing to take that path, if that’s what it….I don’t believe it is going to get to it.” Board Member Heimlich said, “Well, I want to see some indication (Chairman Schmierer said, “If the SFLECC is interested.”) Right. And you say ‘what’s the difference?’ If we are going to go for this Joint Drainage Board and Carroll County is going to fight it, I mean we’re going to have to get into a confrontation with Carroll County over it, then go through the SFLECC, and as I say if the money isn’t there at the end, I don’t want to waste, I don’t think the Board wants to waste all that time and effort, especially the confrontation with Carroll County, over it if nothing is going to come from it.”

Greg Jacobs asked, “What happens when a landowner on the ditch upstream, one of these forty-four hundred acres, there’s a problem in the ditch and it causes him a problem? What do you do?” Board Member Heimlich answered, “It depends on what it is, if it is just a small wash-in that would be paid for out of maintenance. (Mr. Jacobs commented he has a LARGE wash-in) If the ditch is filled in to where it is affecting drainage, where you have tile outlets under water, then it comes to a point where they will petition for a reconstruction. And, as I said, if that was the case you could put that in the design that it would be designed with a silt trap.”

Engineer Frauhiger asked, “Can I make a comment from the engineering side of it, and I’ll show you the plans we just finished for one for Hancock County. As of June of this year IDEM will not allow online detention basins anymore, siltation basins or detention basins. The reason they won’t allow them is because they were allowing a number of them, and there were a number of them constructed in the State and the siltation didn’t get cleaned out of the online basin and they had a bigger problem downstream than they had before they put the basin in. They found out the basin would fill up in approximately a year, no one would go out and clean them and then the silt would continue on down, and they won’t allow them anymore. So, what they want now is called an offline basin, where the natural stream continues through and then there is a berm constructed between the natural stream and the detention basin so that low flow in the stream, maybe three or four feet deep continues on through and then when you get a big rainstorm, when you should get more sedimentation, the water gets up to a certain point in the ditch and it spills over a spillway into a detention basin. The silt settles out there and then on downstream there is a way for the water to get back in. The one that was just bid in Hancock County, actually it was bid about a year and a half ago, it controls sedimentation for a watershed smaller than this, and the low bid price was 1.3 million to get through the IDEM permit phase and the DNR requirements. Now, if it was just as it was in the past, going out to a stream and digging a hole and making the hole bottom lower than the bottom of the ditch, and saying that is where all the sedimentation is going to settle out, that is what we USED to do and it didn’t cost anything like this. But when you have the forces of water coming up to a certain depth, spilling over the spillway into a ditch, that spillway all the way across there, and most of it is rip rap. A good portion of it that takes the most flow is a concrete spillway that goes down into a detention basin. IDEM requires maintenance ramps now on these things so that you can get your excavator down to clean them out every so often. Before they are permitted, they require a maintenance plan, estimation on how long it is going to take for them to fill up and how they are going to maintain them, and a maintenance schedule and show that there is money being collected to meet that maintenance schedule. And, there are extremely complicated things on the engineering side. Can you imagine five thousand dollars to start the engineering, you were probably right about four years ago. I can show you memo after memo in the office from IDEM about online retentions and online sedimentations and they have pretty much put their foot down. You can ask any engineering firm, if you say I want an online detention basin or an online sedimentation basin, IDEM is not going to approve it, there’s no way. Then you get stuck into the offline situation, and because of requirements that IDEM has, the offline costs just go skyrocketing because you have the maintenance, the maintenance ramps, the spillway between the main ditch and the sedimentation ditch, you have some type of outlet control structure at the end, you get the water from the sedimentation basin back into the ditch between rainstorms.”

Chairman Schmierer stated, “We will try to get together with SFLECC, contact them. I’ll make an effort sometime this week or next to contact them and get them to come in and talk to the Drainage Board at their earliest convenience and we’ll let it go from there.”

Chairman Schmierer adjourned the meeting.

After the meeting adjourned, Excel Co-op representative Brad Stockment asked what the time table was on their project. Engineer Frauhiger stated he felt they could get their letter submitted and they ought to be able to get that pipe installed fairly quickly, he would say within the month. Board Member Heimlich asked Todd if he contacted their engineer. Todd stated he talked to him on the phone. Brad Stockment understood that they are expected to lay a pipe in the grade that is there now. Engineer Frauhiger said exactly, and cover it up.