Get Adobe Flash player


March 6, 2006 Tape #005

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. Ferguson and John C. Heimlich, Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Dennis W. Sterrett, Engineer L. Todd Frauhiger and Secretary Romana Kiser in attendance.

Also attending the meeting were Allen Howe, Toby Ploss, Charles Lucterhand and Tony Cain.

Chairman Burton called the meeting to order asking for approval of February 21, 2006 minutes. Board Member Heimlich so moved. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. Minutes approved unanimously.

Chairman Burton called the continued Reconstruction Hearing on the J. L. Ackerman Branch #9 Drain back to order. It was continued from the February 21, 2006 meeting. Chairman Burton asked if anyone was here for the Hearing. Allen Howe said Monty Moss asked him to come. Toby Ploss said he farms Otto Wuethrich’s land west and north of the proposed reconstruction site.

Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I went out and got some additional elevations. (Referring to the map) This is 1200 E here and this is where they want to put the tile in. So there will be an open ditch from 1200 E and then the tile and there’s 700 feet to Monty’s property line and then there’s 1,600 feet across Malchow’s.” Board Member Ferguson said, “He’s (Monty Moss) just putting in 1,500 feet.” Surveyor Sterrett said, “Yes, but Monty needs to clean all of the ditch that is on him to make the project work.” Board Member Ferguson said, “I went up there and looked at it and there was a lot of water HERE but not anything there (See tape for explanation of what he observed, making him think it needs lowered.) This needs to be dipped or cleaned out here doesn’t it?” Surveyor Sterrett said, “Actually this is alright. We could lower the pipe and get another percent of grade.” Engineer Frauhiger stated, “What we are looking at, Bud, is get the silt out, put the pipe in at the hard pan, clean the ditch – all across Monty’s property is going to have to be cleaned. So, get the silt out of the ditch at that particular point. We have two alternatives at that point for downstream between the end of the pipe and the County road. We like the one that requires the County pipe be lowered about a foot and a half, and what that does, it gives us more slope on the ditch downstream of the pipe. We can get the water away from the pipe quicker, it will move the water through there a little bit faster, nothing will settle in the pipe, less will settle in the ditch between the pipe and the County road. So I guess what our recommendation would be is that we put the little bit steeper slope on the ditch and we lower that pipe at the County road. We don’t do anything downstream then, or very little.” Board Member Ferguson said it LOOKS like it needs to be dipped. Engineer Frauhiger said, “It does need to be dipped. The next question is, if this (indicated on map) is the property line and Monty dips all of this, it doesn’t make any sense not to go ahead and get that out of there, too.”

Chairman Burton said, “So what’s before us now is that we change the grade of the culvert at the County road, Monty is responsible for dipping and installing the enclosed tile through his property, and that is part of this reconstruction project. And the maintenance will assume the cleanout of the additional 1,500 or 1,600 feet.”

Engineer Frauhiger said, “We have some other issues we were supposed to address. The siltation, some type of siltation basin upstream of the pipe, what we did is we put a riprap check dam, which will go across the bottom of the ditch. It is going to be nine inches from the flow line up to the top of the riprap. It is basically just going to give a way for the water to slow down. Water is still going to flow through the riprap so we’re not going to obstruct the ditch, but it will slow it down and will cause the silt to tend to drop out upstream of that riprap check dam before it gets into the pipe. And then further maintenance will be needed in the future just upstream of that check dam, removing any silt that settles out, a maximum of about nine inches.” Chairman Burton said, “And that will be on his (Moss) property.” Engineer Frauhiger said, “That’s correct. And, we did have them revise the plans to show that check dam and to show that the ditch would have to be returned to its original hardpan grade prior to installation of the three foot pipe.”

Board Member Heimlich asked if there is still a swale in the plans. Engineer Frauhiger said, “Yes, we have no elevation along the route of the tile that is higher than the upstream top of the bank. If the pipe ever became blocked, the water will rise up to an elevation, flow on downstream the way it does before it could get out of the ditch upstream…inaudible…There’s no way that this pipe will block water and cause the water to come out upstream. It just couldn’t happen.”

Chairman Burton asked for any further discussion. Toby Ploss stated he would like to see the ditch cleaned from 119 clear on up. He said the brush is terrible and needs taken off. (See tape) Surveyor Sterrett stated, “Actually we are getting a petition ready for that, to be signed. It needs it all the way from the highway up, from 16 up to 119, the main ditch does.” Board Member Heimlich said, “I would say you’d have to have a separate Hearing. That’s not part of this Hearing.” Chairman Burton stated, “That would be a Reconstruction and this is a Reconstruction Hearing advertised specifically for this project. The process is slowly getting to what you are asking for, but the Hearing we are involved in today was specifically advertised for this and we can’t include that.” Surveyor Sterrett said, “We’ll get the petition ready. That’s our next project.” Board Member Heimlich said, “I think we have all the questions taken care of that were raised earlier at the Hearing.” Attorney Loy asked, “Including the assessments?” Surveyor Sterrett answered that Monty is paying for everything from the road back to his property line and no assessments change. Chairman Burton stated, “He (Monty Moss) is absorbing all the costs on his property and then Maintenance (fund) will assume the cleanout east on the 1600 feet. Attorney Loy said, “Per the prior Maintenance Schedule.” Surveyor Sterrett answered, “Right.”

Chairman Burton read the Adoption of Reconstruction: “There being no further evidence to be submitted in these proceedings, the Chairman would consider a motion to determine that the costs, damages, expenses of the proposed Reconstruction (of the J. L. Ackerman Branch #9 Drain) will be less than the benefits occurring to the owners of the lands benefited by the Reconstruction.” Board Member Heimlich so moved. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. “Upon a motion duly made and seconded and after hearing and considered all the evidence and any objections concerning the proposed Reconstruction, those members of the White County Drainage Board in favor of the motion that the costs damages and expenses of the proposed Reconstruction will be less than the benefits occurring to the owners of the lands benefited by the Reconstruction please answer by saying “Yes” (3) “Opposed” (0). The motion is passed by a 3 in favor and 0 opposed vote. 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 Branch #9 J. L. Ackerman Drain. Meeting Adjourned.” (Project established)

Surveyor Sterrett said that Allen Howe estimates $1.00 a foot to clean the rest of the ditch upstream. He is doing the work for Moss Farms on the Reconstruction project. The Drainage Board authorized the Surveyor to make out a work order for Howe Excavating to do the rest of the Branch #9 J. L. Ackerman Ditch (1,600 feet) at $1.00 per foot.

Surveyor Sterrett reported, “Smolek Hog Building Production is requesting a waiver from the White County Drainage Ordinance for their site in Liberty Township. Mr. Burton and I went out and looked at it, on a sand hill. The Timmons Ditch is down here (indicated on a map). This is CR 900 E, this is an existing hog building and that is an existing hog building.” See tape - Conversation inaudible here discussing size of buildings and flow of water. Chairman Burton stated that his (Smolek) own property becomes detention and he is comfortable with granting a waiver. Surveyor Sterrett stated that he can’t see where he would be affecting anybody else.

Board Member Heimlich made a motion to grant a waiver from the White County Drainage Ordinance to the Smolek Hog Building Production Site. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Surveyor Sterrett stated, “Next on the agenda is the Wolcott Mini Storage. Charles Lucterhand (owner) is here. His drainage plan was approved in 2003 and he went ahead and built a building. In May 2004 we sent him a letter that he had his building built but his detention storage wasn’t in. Then he came to a Drainage Board meeting, and the Stollers. On May 24, 2004 we wrote him a letter saying that the decision of the Board was to temporarily waive the required detention pond that is to be constructed off-site of the mini storage, on the Stoller property, until such time that any further buildings are constructed or any changes take place on the Charles Lucterhand one acre site of the Wolcott Mini Storage. It was agreed by all parties that at that time a drainage permit will have to be re-issued. The detention storage facility will have to be in place before any building permits will be issued. So now I believe he wants to build another building without detention. Drawing studied. See tape for Mr. Lucterhand’s explanation of why he wants to know he has his building permit before he goes to the cost of putting in detention. He was promising to put detention in the very first thing when he has the excavator there. Mr. Lucterhand said it was difficult getting his first building permit. Surveyor Sterrett said one reason it took longer was that he cut one acre out and it was an illegal cut and had to get a subdivision. He said that the Area Plan director said that Mr. Lucterhand can bring a site plan to her and she could tell him whether or not he can get a building permit.

Surveyor Sterrett stated, “The Stollers still need to grant him an easement (for the off-site detention storage).” Mr. Lucterhand said that has already been taken care of. Surveyor Sterrett said he did not find it in the record. Board Member Heimlich said he thought the Drainage Permit would have to be re-issued because nothing is done out there for a year. Surveyor Sterrett said yes. Board Member Heimlich said, “Plans were approved but we have to make sure nothing has changed out there. What he is saying is that he can’t get the permit to build until the detention is in. But, we have to have some means of accomplishing that.”

Engineer Frauhiger stated, “If the drainage is re-approved, re-issued, it is my understanding is that when the Building Permit was issued it was for the entire project, which would include the building and the detention pond, am I right George (Attorney Loy)? Because normally when we walk the approved drainage plan to Diann (Area Plan) she issues the building permit and that procures both the storm water facilities and the building. In this particular case we aren’t changing anything. We re-issue the drainage permit and you get a building permit which covers the detention pond and the building at the same time.” Surveyor Sterrett said, “But, at the meeting (May 17, 2004) we said the drainage permit will have to be re-issued and the detention storage facility must be in place before any building permits will be issued by White County Area Plan. The Drainage Board allowed him to go ahead with one building without detention.”

Board Member Heimlich stated, “We have to re-approve the plans and the other thing is, do we let a building permit be issued before the detention put in.” Attorney Loy asked if detention area is necessary for what’s there now.” Board Member Heimlich said, “No, we agreed at the time that it wasn’t.” Attorney Loy said the normal scenario is that we approve the drainage plan and that is part of the check list for a building permit. Then you build your building and at the same time install your drainage. You don’t have to build the drainage ahead of the building as long as it is done by the time the building is up.” Engineer Frauhiger said correct. Board Member Heimlich said we need to amend the order to allow that to happen. Surveyor Sterrett said another important thing is the easement since the drainage area is off-site. Chairman Burton said, “Part of our motion is that we require that the easement be binding and recorded.” Attorney Loy said to Mr. Lucterhand, “It is an easement granted from the Stollers to you for the purpose of that drainage.” Surveyor Sterrett said, “You need somebody to write you a legal description for the easement and then you will have to get that document signed by the Stollers. You are going to need an attorney.” Mr. Lucterhand asked, “Do I get my drainage permit issued today or do I have to have the easement?” Chairman Burton said, “Yes, that has to be in your hands.”

Board Member Heimlich made the motion, “To re-issue the drainage permit for the Wolcott Mini Storage and to amend our order from May 17, 2004 to Area Plan to allow a building permit for the second building to be issued before the detention swale is actually in. And, requiring the easement for the off-site detention swale be obtained and we still require that the detention swale be constructed before actual construction begins on the second building. We are approving this plan and we are amending that order.” Mr. Lucterhand said, “You are saying I can get my building permit right along with my drainage permit before I start my detention pond, right?” Chairman Burton said, “After you legally do your easement.” Board Member Heimlich said, “We are saying this detention swale has to be constructed before you begin actual construction.” Surveyor Sterrett asked, “Will he need the easement recorded before ANYTHING happens?” Attorney Loy said not before the building permit but he is going to have it before he can actually break ground on anything. Board Member Heimlich said that’s the only thing that makes the drainage permit work is the assurance that it (detention) is always going to be there. Attorney Loy said to get a copy of the easement to the Surveyor’s office. Surveyor Sterrett asked, “If you approve the motion can I issue the drainage permit before the before the easement gets to me?” Attorney Loy stated he recommends getting the easement first. He said the easement should be in recordable form with the legal description for the easement on it.

Chairman Burton stated, “We have a motion on the floor if you are comfortable with everything that has been stated here today.” Charles Lucterhand said, “Ok, I know I have to get the easement recorded with the legal description. I don’t understand, do I get my drainage permit today? Or does the easement with the legal description have to be recorded before?” Attorney Loy stated, “If you issue the drainage permit and say give us the easement later, there’s no way of knowing you got your easement.” Charles Lucterhand asked if he has to wait until the next meeting. The answer was no.

Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Surveyor Sterrett reported that Larry Klink had reported a rock chute washed out. It is on the bank of the Fleet Lakin Drain which Jasper County maintains. Surveyor Sterrett conferred with Jasper County Surveyor who agreed to fix it. But, in the meantime the Surveyor’s office determined that White County installed the rock chute as Spencer Tile maintenance according to our records. Jasper County Surveyor went ahead and ordered the repair to be done and estimates it will cost $2,500.00 and Surveyor Sterrett agreed we would go 50-50 with them on the repair. Randy DeVault is doing the work. Board Member Heimlich so moved that we go 50-50 with Jasper County to repair the rock chute on the Fleet Lakin Drain coming off of the S. T. Spencer Tile. Board Member Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Surveyor Sterrett reported that the Assessment Roll on the Hall Extension Reconstruction (called T. Young in White County) has been turned in to the Auditor for collection. Benton County Surveyor called to see why funds had not been sent from White County. Benton County is in charge of the project and he explained that they collect monies in advance for Reconstruction. Our Surveyor’s office had received the assessment roll but our Auditor did not, so White County will not start collecting until May 2006.

Surveyor Sterrett stated, “We have here the road plans for Gordon Road and Sixth Street. Just briefly looking at them, there’s going to be two forty-eight inch outlets and one thirty-six inch outlet into Buss Ditch. Since this is a Commissioners’ Road I just wondered if you would care to have Todd look at it.” Engineer Frauhiger stated, “When Denny and I looked at that last Wednesday, as I was driving back from White County I got a phone call from Kevin ( Jasinski, Proj. Mgr./American Consulting Inc.). Kevin and I both have concern, two forty-eight inch pipes and a thirty-six inch pipe might take up the capacity of the open channel. So, Kevin actually asked me, he said he thinks it might need detention and I said I don’t know yet. I asked Denny if it would be alright if I got a cross section of the ditch downstream where the pipes are going to come in. After the meeting we are going to do a quick Mannings rate and see what the capacity of the ditch was just using Mannings equation downstream. You’ve got about 140 CFS of water dumping into the ditch. We’re not sure what the capacity of the downstream ditch is or if it even has that capacity. The first thing we thought we might do is….inaudible….see what the capacity is, see how much of that capacity this pipe might use. Kevin said Wednesday March 9 is preliminary field check. Once we figure that out we can determine whether or not detention is required. Kevin did say there is an existing detention pond in a subdivision and he had asked if there was any way he could drop some of the water through that existing detention pond. He said your response was it is a private detention pond and probably not.” Surveyor Sterrett said he counted 26 inlets along Gordon Road. Engineer Frauhiger said that Kevin asked what is downstream. Engineer Frauhiger said, “It has a lot of water draining into it. The ditch is pretty much open until you get down to the park (City Park). Then there’s a series of basins (like steps). The last thing we want to do is have an adverse effect on that situation down there.”

Chairman Burton asked, “So the question is if we accept ACE or get Todd involved?” Engineer Frauhiger said, “ACE does the design. CTE wouldn’t do any design on it. What Kevin remembered and I think Denny checked it, at one point before on another section of the project the Drainage Board gave authorization for me to spend a few hours looking at it. That’s why Kevin called me directly. Surveyor Sterrett said, “That was on the part between Ohio Street and Hwy. 24.” Board Member Heimlich said, “That was on the City’s section.” Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I guess I’d like to have some help on it if I have to make decisions. Those are pretty good sized pipes.” Engineer Frauhiger said, “I’ll just keep working with Kevin if that’s ok.” Board Member Heimlich answered, “Yes, I suppose that’s ok.”

Engineer Frauhiger reported, “Two weeks from today we have a Reconstruction Hearing for Excel Co-op. Remember what they’re going to do is to relocate the ditch and close it? This morning we got plans in and even though Paul (Engineer Couts) talked to me last week, they have totally changed it. They’re not going to close it in a pipe anymore. They’re using open ditch around the two silos and they’ve got a drive across the open ditch with four 24 inch pipes in it. Then they’ve got the bottom of the ditch lined in stone two foot up the bank. It’s totally different than what we had presented and talked about at the last Drainage Board meeting. The first thing that scared me immediately is four pipes underneath the driveway. It’s a “V” ditch and you put four 24 inch pipes in it, you put a foot between each pipe, the width of the pipe is wider than the top of the ditch.”

Board Member Ferguson moved to adjourn. Approved.