Get Adobe Flash player


October 3, 2005 Tape #019

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 Steven Burton, O. D. “Bud” Ferguson and John C. Heimlich, Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Dennis W. Sterrett, Drainage Engineer Todd Frauhiger and First Drainage Assistant Mary Sterrett in attendance.

Also attending were Attorney Dow Dellinger, Bill Pyle, Don Pauken, Jeff VanWeelden and Charlie Mellon.

Chairman Burton opened the meeting asking for the approval of the minutes from the September 19, 2005 meeting. Board Member Ferguson so moved. Board Member Heimlich seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Chairman Burton turned the agenda item to further discuss the drainage review on Rangeline Properties Transfer Station over to Surveyor Sterrett. Surveyor Sterrett stated, “We received this morning from Mr. Dellinger…. (Attorney Dellinger said he had brought copies)…these are some of the modifications that were required in the last meeting to be addressed. I had picked out six different things from reading the minutes of the last meeting. One was to require a manhole on the County tile and the pond outlet, which has been addressed with a twenty-four inch Catch Basin with a T. (Tile Connect Detail Drawing attached to hard copy of these minutes in Surveyor’s office) Todd, did you talk to them?” Engineer Frauhiger said, “Yes, I got a call from Dan Zinnen early last week asking exactly what we were hunting for and I gave him some ideas. I received a fax of the proposal Thursday and I received another copy of it this morning. It was in line of what he and I talked about and it should make a nice Catch Basin.” Chairman Burton asked, “That is back at the property line to the south?” Engineer Frauhiger stated, “That is where the outlet from the detention pond is coming into the County tile.”

Surveyor Sterrett stated, “Another item that needed to be addressed was the canopy covering the ramp and that has been addressed in this modification letter. (Copy of letter of modifications attached to hard copy of these minutes in the Surveyor’s office) The loading ramp drain is being pumped to the dirty water tank and that’s been addressed. And, I don’t know about the maintenance easement around the detention pond. I don’t see that addressed here.” Attorney Dellinger stated, “I’ve got that, too. I have a proposal on that.” (Copy of Perpetual Drainage Easement Agreement attached to hard copy of these minutes in the Surveyor’s office) Surveyor Sterrett stated, “And a Consent to Encroach. There was some discussion about the location of the finger system, too…..inaudible….” Chairman Burton asked, “What about it?” Surveyor Sterrett said, “In the minutes there was discussion about showing the location of it.” Attorney Loy asked, “And is that what is designated as septic?” Attorney Dellinger stated, “We have that designated as septic area there and our thought was we would put in……I think the discussion was we would waive any liability you have for digging if you had to maintain the tile and any damages be done with the septic. We put that into the Consent to Encroach wording, we just simply state, yes that’s the location of it, but we just simply state that we waive any liability for the County to maintain the tile that runs through there. We thought that would probably be the easy way to address that instead of trying to dig and find or relocate something.”


Engineer Frauhiger asked, “You wouldn’t happen to know off the top of your head what kind of maintenance easement we kept around the top of the pond, do you?” Attorney Dellinger said, “The description, I think, we have a drawing and if you look on the back, I think that allows for about a twenty foot perimeter around there. We put it in the easement that both parties would have Lot One and Lot Two, have access across BOTH parcels of property to maintain and that way if we had something wrong with the tile that either adjoining lot could work on wherever that comes, that comes across basically here. We thought we’d give them an easement in case we had a problem with that juncture there where both properties had access on either property to get in and maintain.” Attorney Loy asked, “What is designated as proposed outlet pipe shoots up here to the northwest? Attorney Dellinger answered, “Yes, we included that as an encroachment. We weren’t sure that that would actually be an encroachment on the tile but we thought we would show that in the drawing, just in case. The portion really coming from the pond back into the tile is not really tile. That’s what they’re putting into the ditch, but what we thought we’d do is go ahead and make it where we had consent to encroach on that and also put the maintenance on both. Both parcels.” Attorney Loy said, “The outlet from the Catch Basin to the Diener (Earl Diener Tile),” (Dow said, “Correct.”) “And that’s fine with you? If the Board is to approve the Consent to Encroach, how much of this is essential to be included in the consent? At the outset, the only thing I need to know is, how close can they come, like nineteen feet each side. And we would address the septic system business that we just talked about. All of this is really part of the drainage plan that Todd has reviewed.” Attorney Dellinger stated, “We thought we would submit that as an attachment to the proposed drainage plan and refer to the August 4th drainage plan we previously submitted and thought that was probably the easiest way to include those provisions to that, make that part of our request.”


Surveyor Sterrett asked, “So nineteen feet is your closest dimension?” Attorney Dellinger said, “That’s what we figured. That was as close as we’d come was nineteen feet there so we just made it the same distance on both sides.” (Attorney Dellinger explains the wording – See Tape). Attorney Loy stated, “The outlet pipe, we are not going to be assuming jurisdiction over, are we, for repair and maintenance? That’s theirs.” Engineer Frauhiger answered, “That’s correct.” Attorney Dellinger said, “I’ve got it in the easement agreement that both lots will be responsible to share the cost of maintenance of that and I showed the encroachment in case at some point and time you guys took over the tile. If for some reason the County wanted to take that over, I thought we’d get the consent that would include the area around the Catch Basin.”


Attorney Loy asked, “What is that small box or structure that is just to the south of the existing tall metal frame building that looks like it is right over the Diener Tile?” Jeff VanWeelden said it is like a box van. Chairman Burton said, “My list has gotten to five and you said there’s eight items?” Surveyor Sterrett answered ‘six’ and reviewed them. Chairman Burton asked, “And you feel you have enough documentation to meet all of those?” Engineer Frauhiger said, “I don’t think we do. The only question I have, I heard someone say something about septic tank area marked?” Board Member Heimlich said the only thing marked is the tank. Dow Dellinger said, “Yes, the tank, because we’re not sure where the fingers are.” Surveyor Sterrett said, “I did call Dan Banes (County Health Officer) last Thursday or Friday and he doesn’t have any record of septic tank or finger systems in the County.”


Chairman Burton stated, “At this point I will ask for public input on trying to meet these requests from last meeting. Do you have any thoughts or objections to what they are presenting to us today?” Don Pauken said, “I haven’t really seen what’s being presented but I think as far as the twelve items required by the Ordinance, as far as the Catch Basin or detention pond is concerned, if that satisfies those twelve requirements, I don’t have a problem with that.” Attorney Dow stated, “So we are going to just attach those changes to the August 4th application.” Don Pauken stated, “No problem with the sumps.”


Bill Pyle had a question, “They were requested to show where those laterals were in that septic tank….inaudible….what if there aren’t any laterals?” Attorney Dellinger said, “There’s been no leaching, there’s no evidence of any kind of sewage in the tile, so I don’t think there is any problem.” Chairman Burton said, “And I assume with the paperwork we are getting today, if tomorrow or the week after, if Dan Banes or someone from the Health Department was made aware of a problem with the septic system contaminating the tile or a problem that we would have legal recourse to go in there and we had no obligation to fix or repair, it would be their responsibility.” Bill Pyle said, “So that’s not going to be completed until the locations of those fingers, that was on the last meeting that we requested they do, they’re not going to have to do that, by just assuming liability, is that the case?” Chairman Burton stated, “The concern from last meeting, there was a leach bed over our County tile and it would become a problem, who would be responsible. Does this address that issue?” Attorney Loy, “Yes, I think the primary concern was, if we damaged their finger system because we had to get to our tile, that’s their problem. We don’t assume responsibility for it. They repair any damage or repair that we would have caused by trying to get to our tile.” Bill Pyle said, “I guess the only part I question is, if their laterals or their septic tank isn’t up to code, aren’t they required to bring that up to code now?” Attorney Loy answered yes. Board Member Heimlich said, “The point you are raising I think is valid. I don’t think the finger system under the present Code could be right over or right next to a tile. You have to run a perimeter drain around it and then into a tile. But, I’m not sure the Drainage Board is the place for that objection, I think the Health Department would be in charge of regulating that.” Attorney Loy said that Dan Banes is the contact person for the Health Department, but as far as THESE proceedings are concerned, if we have to go through their septic system to repair our tile, it’s their problem. (Plans being studied and comments – See Tape) Don Pauken said, “Any problem of driving over this septic tank and field? Their problem?” Attorney Loy said, “Yes, it is their property and if they destroy it……” (Someone commented that they have done it for years.) Board Member Heimlich said, “I was told when I put mine in that you shouldn’t drive heavy equipment over it. And again, if it fails, that’s a matter for the Health Department.”


Chairman Burton asked, “Any other questions? Attorney Loy spoke to Attorney Dellinger, “Dow, the Consent to Encroach, if they do it, will be consenting to not constructing ANYTHING along there, for the moment, this and this as shown by……” Dow answered, “And that’s why I was going to put the existing structures because you probably have some encroachment down here. So I thought I should put the proposed new structure, and then the existing structures.” Attorney Loy said, “And if you remove, repair, demolish and replace or something, you come back to us for approval.” Dow said, “We propose to attach the package with that drawing.”


Chairman Burton asked, “Has this drainage plan been submitted to IDEM?” Dow answered, “They have the building plan, they had the original drainage plan without the sump collection on the outside. (Chairman: With retention pond?) No, they didn’t require the pond. It is the County Ordinance that requires those ponds.” Board Member Heimlich asked, “How does that work? You saw the original plan like I did. This is different from that plan. If it is going to be built differently than what they originally approved, don’t they have to approve…..” Engineer Frauhiger answered, “I don’t know about IDEM, but INDOT requires their standards or the local standards to be met, whichever one is more restrictive. So, this particular case, the calculations were submitted from the original IDEM permit were less restrictive than the County Ordinance. So in INDOT’s logic they would say that you have to meet the more restrictive ordinance, which in this case would be the local.” Dow said, “I asked Dan when we left the last meeting if we were going to have to change our thing. He said this is going beyond what IDEM requirements were on that original submitted report. This goes beyond what they require for a drainage plan.” Board Member Heimlich said he understood that but he didn’t know if it had to be resubmitted.


Mr. Pauken or Mr. Pyle stated, “I talked with Melissa Hawkins of IDEM and she said any change to the drainage plan must be submitted prior to any actual changes being made and they will decide whether it is a minor or a major modification to the permit, and at that time proceed in that vein, and possibly another hearing because people within a quarter mile or half mile must be notified of the change on the drainage plan. The drainage plan is critical and …..inaudible.” Board Member Heimlich said we certainly would need clarification from IDEM on that. Dow asked, “Before the building permit is issued?” Chairman Burton said, “It could even come back before us because we will base our decision on IDEM’s approval. Can we make this decision today without knowing……that’s my question.” Engineer Frauhiger asked, “Can there be a drainage plan re-submittal to IDEM without it approved by the County first, because really there’s no drainage plan until something is approved. Right now it is just a concept.” Attorney Dellinger did not think, since this is not going to be a material change and it is more restrictive than what IDEM requires, that there would be an issue with the IDEM permit other than we simply send them a final set of plans. Mr. Pyle or Mr. Pauken said, “And we’re suggesting that there is (an issue). We’ve spoke with Melissa Hawkins. We have her phone number and……” Attorney Dellinger said, “And that’s great, but we need to get before the Board and get a decision on this plan, you guys either approve or disapprove this plan. We need to know so we can go forward with it.”


Chairman Burton stated, “Why I am saying that we are different at this point and time is it hasn’t in the past come before us with this project with the Drainage Board. So to say that it is OK and there won’t be a problem since we weren’t involved with the original……” Attorney Dellinger said, “The Commissioners were involved with the original. They signed a letter…..” Chairman Burton stated, “This is the Drainage Board.” Attorney Dellinger said, “And I understand that but it’s not like this group hasn’t seen this plan before.” Chairman Burton clarified, “The drainage plan was not submitted to the Commissioners, on any of this, prior to this Drainage Board so to say that we had previous knowledge from the Commissioners’ meeting, no we have not. All we are dealing with today is the drainage plan for this project, correct? So to say that we have knowledge of how IDEM is going to react on this or what they would suggest the procedures are is zero at this point and time because we have no experience with that at this point and time on this particular project.”


Attorney Dellinger stated, “Well, with the initial plan, Weaver Boos believed there was not enough impact on the drainage to require an independent drainage plan. Then when they saw, Denny provided Dan (Zinnen) with the Drainage Ordinance, they said the Drainage Ordinance was more restrictive than what the State requires. So, then they put together the amended plan to you guys.” Chairman Burton asked, “So there is not a problem with you resubmitting or asking IDEM if there is an issue with this?” Attorney Dellinger stated, “IDEM has reviewed the site, they reviewed the drainage of the original plan, which they didn’t call for any type of Catch Basin, they didn’t think it was enough to affect the watershed to what their requirements are. So, I don’t know who the secretary or whoever you talked to at IDEM is, but Dan (Zinnen with Weaver Boos) is telling us that there is not going to be an issue with resubmitting the final plan, because all we have done basically is taken the drain, made a Catch Basin for any runoff water and added the cover over the ramps, which actually one of the engineers for IDEM suggested he might want to do that at some point and time to keep the site cleaner. So, they’ll be happy with the changes.” Bill Pyle or Mr. Pauken stated that IDEM approved something that isn’t going to be that way now and they are going to be overseeing the operation and he thinks it is within their realm to know exactly what changes have been made.


Chairman Burton asked the Board’s opinion on which should come first, County or IDEM. Board Member Heimlich said, “I guess it doesn’t make any difference, but I do agree that both would have to be approved. I think the new plan does have to be approved by IDEM since it is different to what they approved before.” Engineer Frauhiger stated, “I would agree. We just stepped out and talked about it. I’m not sure how you would make a resubmittal to IDEM unless you have an approved plan from the County. But, you’re right. IDEM has to eventually approve it, they just have to have something to approve.” Attorney Loy stated, “You can approve what you are looking at subject to any other required permits, including IDEM, if you want, or attach any condition.” Board Member Heimlich stated, “They currently don’t have a building permit and they have to have the IDEM approval before the permit is……..” Attorney Loy stated, “AND your approval of their drainage plan per the Ordinance.” Chairman Burton wanted to establish which comes first, the County or IDEM. Attorney Loy stated, “You have to have both.”


Mr. Pauken responded, “Lot One was not approved by IDEM, correct? That wasn’t part of what they approved, is that correct? (Someone asked ‘What is Lot One’?) The house. It has not been approved by IDEM.” Chairman Burton asked, “For the drainage pond?” Mr. Pauken stated, “The retention pond falls on that property.” Board Member Heimlich asked, “What do you mean it hasn’t been approved by IDEM?” Mr. Pauken answered, “That was not approved, it wasn’t zoned.” Board Member Heimlich answered, “Well, right it has not been rezoned; it’s not part of the Transfer Station.” Mr. Pauken said, “This Drainage Board is looking at something on that lot and it’s not rezoned. I think IDEM has a right to look at that.” Board Member Heimlich stated, “We’re not arguing that. Certainly IDEM is going to have to approve the drainage plan. But I think we already addressed the issue for being able to put a retention pond off-site.” Board Member Ferguson said it wouldn’t even have to be rezoned to drive trucks over it. Board Member Heimlich stated that is another issue, not for the Drainage Board, that is for Area Plan to address.


Board Member Ferguson asked what motion needs to be made. Board Member Heimlich said, “To start any of this, there has to be the Consent to Encroach, right?” Attorney Loy answered, “In my opinion, yes, there’s two items that are before you, as I understand. Number One is their drainage plan that is required to be submitted by ANYBODY under our Drainage Ordinance, and that’s been reviewed. (Attorney Dellinger said, “With the amendments that have been submitted to you today.”) And along with it, if that’s going to be approved, there will have to be a Consent to Encroach because of the Diener Tile Drain. That’s the only issues I’m aware of that are before the Drainage Board at the moment. There IS the concern about if IDEM has reviewed the revised plan and I think we all agree that they have to see it.” Board Member Heimlich said, “I think that is necessary for the building permit, I don’t think it is necessary for this approval.” Attorney Loy agreed. Board Member Heimlich stated, “I’m trying to get what is tied to this drainage plan approval. Is the Consent to Encroach part of that?” Attorney Loy said it would have to be. He explained, “Well, it MAY be, typically a Consent to Encroach, in our typical situations, somebody is just wanting to build a structure within seventy-five feet of the centerline of some tile. They want to do that, obviously they are proposing to build. If it is nothing more than that, if it is not a drainage issue at all, it’s a Consent to Encroach. And, all you are consenting to is for them to come within nineteen feet at two spots per this plan. You are not giving them a consent to build a row of buildings nineteen feet on both sides of this tile. The consent is up to those two points at the present time. You acknowledge there are a couple of existing structures and a septic system. If they revise, remodel, relocate or do anything to those, they have to come back to us. But really, it’s just these two points here that I’m aware of. We are saying ‘yes you can construct this building within nineteen feet at these two points, as shown by this attached diagram.’ Beyond that, I don’t know of any other conditions you want to throw on there other than the normal ones we always do, and the septic system business that we talked about. I will include that. But I don’t see any drainage issues, per se on the Consent to Encroach.”


Chairman Burton asked if we should separate the Consent to Encroach and the retention pond. Attorney Loy said, “It is however you want to do it, you don’t HAVE to give anybody permission to build within seventy-five feet and therefore you can attach any conditions you want to the Consent to Encroach. There is also this drainage plan out here. It was engineered, submitted to Todd and he has approved it, with some modifications.” Engineer Frauhiger stated, “I recommend it for approval.”


Board Member Ferguson moved to go ahead with the approval of giving the Consent to Encroach and also approve the drainage plan for Rangeline Properties Transfer Station in Union Township. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 2 to 0 with Chairman Burton passing. Attorney Loy stated he will draft the encroachment agreement. Attorney Dow Dellinger said, “I will get the easement recorded and get it to you.” Attorney Loy said, “That easement is a condition of the drainage plan.” Board Member Heimlich reminded, “We are still going to have to have this new drainage plan go through IDEM.”


Surveyor Sterrett discussed the upcoming maintenance project on the M. K. Reiff Ditch. He stated, “Back in April this year Harold Reiff was in here on the Reiff Ditch and we discussed how much maintenance money we had to do a maintenance job. The Reiff Ditch is eight thousand feet. At that time there was $3,000.00 in the maintenance fund and they were willing to do the rest of it – two landowners. So my job was to go out and get an estimate on how much I thought it was going to cost and get quotes. But, since that time we spent $1,900.00 getting the silt off of the metering station south of Burnettsville. So, there’s not that much money in there now. There is $1,900.00 in the fund and it brings in about a thousand dollars a year. So my question is, should I proceed with getting quotes? I have it set up as cost per linear foot for dredging only and cost for linear foot for dredging and brushing. The landowners said they would take the brush off the ditch. They were wanting me to use up to the $3,000.00 and they were going to pay for the rest of it. It was determined there would probably be around $2,400.00 by the time the project started. Surveyor Sterrett said we could probably put it in debt a year. Surveyor Sterrett said, “That’s what they talked about and they were agreed on that. They wanted to get the cost per foot so they’d know about what it was going to cost. So I can go ahead and get the quotes?” Chairman Burton said, “It’s the difference of instead of having $3,000.00 we’re going to have $2,400.00 as a matching to their investment, so if you have the quotes and we only have X amount of dollars, they either agree or not agree to our contribution.” Surveyor Sterrett said, “I can get the quotes and have them come when we open the quotes.” That was agreed. Attorney Loy asked how many landowners are on that watershed. Surveyor Sterrett said there are 36, 59 parcels, 1634 acres benefited. Surveyor Sterrett said he thought he should get quotes for brushing also in case the landowners didn’t take the brush off, so he is submitting it to the contractors both ways.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I do think the whole 8,000 feet needs to be done. Up at the north end there is a County Tile going into it and it is silted three-fourths shut and it is that way all the way down the drain. Not only where Mr. Reiff owns, but I think it needs to be done north of where he owns, too. And, there is another County Tile coming in north of CR 100 North that has silted up the ditch is what the problem is, it’s that way all the way up. The Board agreed to have Surveyor Sterrett go ahead and proceed.


Surveyor Sterrett presented information on setting rates on the F. G. Church Drain reconstruction project, “This is the F.G. Church Ditch that has been petitioned for reconstruction in 1998. It starts behind Verne Wilson’s, runs parallel to CR 400 N. I came up with some estimates of about $38.00 an acre and I want to set the minimums. There are six parcels that are less than an acre. There was about $21,900.00 for the brush, which there wasn’t too much brush on it, well there is quite a bit really. I estimated $44,161.00 for excavation, so it came to $72,667.00 and that was about 1,900 acres affected. That’s $38.00 an acre. I need to know what would be a good price to set the minimum at.” Board Member Heimlich asked what size most of the minimum parcels were. Surveyor Sterrett said that most of them were under an acre. Board Member Heimlich said he would consider making a $38.00 minimum if that’s what it is going to be per acre. They are all houses. Chairman Burton suggested a $38.00 minimum or when bids come in, whatever the cost per acre actually is. Surveyor Sterrett said it can’t be over ten percent of $38.00 or they could just make them $50.00 minimum. For discussion on what has been done on other drains – see tape. Board Member Heimlich stated that the houses are putting more water into the ditch faster than farmland does so we can make it higher. He doesn’t think it should be any lower than that.


Board Member Heimlich made a motion to set the minimum rate on the reconstruction of the F. G. Church Ditch at FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00). Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I would like to enter into record that we have the HMP Property Management Consent to Encroach recorded. This is Hendrickson’s Consent to Encroach along the Buss Ditch. It has been recorded and signed.”


Board Member Heimlich reported, “On the Monon Ditch, we have a date for a Hearing, November 15, 2005 at West Central School. A question was raised at the meeting last week. There’s three areas in White County up by the County line, and of course the spoil was never leveled in that area it is just rough, but there’s three large waterways or cuts in the bank and in order to dig that they are going to have to level that out. In White County is where they are going to have to have big cranes in there. The proposal was to level those waterways out and put pipes in so they could be maintained in the future if you have to get a crane in to get a tree out that has fallen in or for spraying purposes. Because everything is going to be done from the east side. The Board said, I think they were in favor of it, but they wanted my approval since it was in White County. I said I would want to go back and talk to my Surveyor and at least make sure those landowners knew what was being proposed so they had some input in it. I don’t think that they probably will have a problem with it, if the pipes are sized big enough that whatever water is going in there is still going to go in there in a reasonable time and not going to be backing water up. I’ve got the maps. There’s three areas. One is right up by the County line and that’s Dale Gudeman’s property, probably within a few hundred feet, maybe closer than that to the County line. There’s another one on property of Tadonna Investments. This would be next to Leslie and Debra Ezra, Michael McClain. Then the other one is also, I think, on Dale Gudeman’s property and it is close to the property line between him and David and Betty Downey. So I will give you those three maps and if you could take a look at it and make contact with those landowners so they know what is being proposed. I have no idea how much surface water flows in there or anything about it. The Engineer said twenty-four inch pipes which is pretty big, but in some cases it may not be big enough if there is a huge amount of water coming in there all at once. It would take a pretty good size pipe if you’re not going to back water up. I just want to make sure that they are aware of it and they do get sized properly.”


Chairman Burton adjourned the meeting.