Get Adobe Flash player


January 5, 2009 Tape #01

The White County Drainage Board convened at 10:30 A.M. in the Commissioners’ Room of the White County Building, Monticello, Indiana, with Board Members Ron Schmierer, John Heimlich and Steve Burton, Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Dennis Sterrett, Drainage Assistant Mary Sterrett and Secretary Jamie Rozzi in attendance.


The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes from the December 15th, 2008 meeting. Board Member Burton so moved. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.


The second item on the agenda was reorganization of the White County Drainage Board for 2009. Board Member Burton made a motion to keep the same officers from 2008. Officers are as follows:


Ronald Schmierer - President

Steve Burton – Vice President

Dennis Sterrett - Surveyor

George W. Loy – Board Attorney

Jamie Rozzi – Board Secretary


Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.


The next item on the agenda was Town of Monon Treatment Plant on the McKillip Ditch. Last week the Drainage Board received a certificate of approval in a floodway. Dave Scott, Town Superintendent was in attendance to explain what the town is planning to do.


Dave Scott explained, “Basically, on the south end of these aeration tanks there are two small clarifiers. We are going to add two circular clarifiers back there.”


“What is a clarifier?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


Dave Scott answered, “It separates the water from the solids after it goes through the aeration tanks and the bugs have a chance to work…The new clarifiers are going to set back away from….We’re going to take the existing clarifiers out of service and just cap them, we aren’t really going to take them down. We’re going to build two circular clarifiers out there in the open space. We are also going to add on to the chlorine tank, it will be double the size. It will encroach also in that 75 feet right of way.”


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “That is the McKillip ditch running on the south end of the plant and then it turns and goes under the railroad.”


“We do have an existing fence that is around there that is in the 75 foot right of way also, but if you ever have to clean that we’ll just have to take it down and replace it,” Dave Scott stated.


Chairman Schmierer stated, “It’s in pretty decent shape down through there isn’t it?”


“Yes, it is. I think it is anyway,” Dave Scott stated.


“The brush was up toward ST RD 43. It has grown back now though. That was the first project…twelve years ago,” Chairman Schmierer stated.


“There is some brush between the highway and the treatment plant,” Board Member Heimlich added.


“The brick building is within 40 feet of the top of the bank. We have room to work there if the fence wasn’t there. I suppose you could dip it from the Vanguard side,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


Chairman Schmierer explained, “I don’t think we need anything else. They notified us that it was going to be there and that’s the main thing. They are already on the right-of-way and I don’t think there is anything else that we need to do. That is what…I was checking with Attorney Loy to make sure.”


The next item on the agenda is Mike Ezra Storage Buildings – Drainage Review. This site is located west of Buffalo on the south side of SR 16. Surveyor Sterrett explained, “It is real sandy soil. He is building a detention pond. There is an outlet to the detention pond that runs west. This is a platted subdivision called Crawford’s Corner and in the platted subdivision there is a utility easement that runs down the back lot line. So, that tile will be in the utility easement. I think he is going to start out with one building and see how that goes and then build the other two, but he is going to put his detention pond in first.”


“And we got an email from Todd (Engineer Frauhiger) that he has approved it…,” Chairman Schmierer stated.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “Yes, he has reviewed it, done the calculations and it is ready for approval.”


Board Member Burton moved to approval the drainage plan for Mike Ezra Storage Buildings. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.


The next item on the agenda is to discuss two minor subdivisions.


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “I received a letter from the surveyor, Jim Milligan, requested an exemption for this proposed subdivision, King’s River Bend Subdivision. This site is along the river north of Buffalo.”


“Has this already been subdivided?” Attorney Loy asked.


Surveyor Sterrett replied, “No, it is coming before Area Plan. There is a cottage on the top of the bank and the river is just right down there. I think two brothers own the property and they want to divide it up amongst them. There are some mobile homes on it. I went out and looked at it. It all drains to the river. ”


“In your opinion does it need a drainage plan?” Chairman Schmierer asked.


Surveyor Sterrett replied, “No.”


Board Member Heimlich questioned, “They aren’t building anything?”


“No, they are just dividing that lot,” Surveyor Sterrett replied.


“It is an exemption just for that purpose, for subdividing it and no other purpose. If someone builds something on there that might invoke the drainage ordinance that is another matter,” Attorney Loy stated.


Board Member Heimlich made a motion to grant an exemption to the drainage ordinance to King’s River Bend Subdivision. Board Member Burton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.


The second minor subdivision is LSCC Subdivision (Lake Shafer Christian Center) on Sixth Street north of Rickey Road. The landowner (church) wants to sell the lot they want to divide off.


“This is the same situation here,” Attorney Loy stated.


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “This is the same situation, but this is zoned B-2 so there could be a business…Right now you see a dimension of 32 feet from the playground. This lot does not meet the square footage for B-2. So, they are going to first try and get a variance to lessen the square footage. If that doesn’t work they are going to move the…I think the lot line had to go like 60 some feet south to get the right square footage. So, they can move that lot line and take out the playground.”


“This is to do what?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


“Sell Lot 1, they are trying to sell Lot 1,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “Oh, but you are saying if they do that they wouldn’t meet the setbacks.”


“Yeah, the way they have it subdivided right now they don’t meet the square footage on Lot 1 according to the Zoning Ordinance. So, they have to request for a square footage waiver from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lot 1 is kind of low. I think there is water that stands there sometimes,” Surveyor Sterrett explained.


“I think they’ve had a circus on it before and had to move it because there was water there,” Chairman Schmierer stated.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I guess my concern would be if the purchaser of Lot 1 would know that he may have to provide a drainage plan.”


Chairman Schmierer asked, “Where are they going to drain it to?”


“Well, is the new part of Sixth Street still in the works through there? I saw some tubes sitting there at the intersection. There will be a drainage tile run along there when Sixth Street goes in,” Surveyor Sterrett asked.


Board Member Heimlich asked, “So does all of that from the church now drain that way?”


“No, not really, I think there is a side ditch…this is looking south toward town. You can see that there is a swale cut into this side ditch. I think the church kind of drains off into the side ditch, but I didn’t see any water. There wasn’t any water standing in the low place,” Surveyor Sterrett explained.


“Property to the south of this…where does it drain? Does it drain back into Lot 1?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


“No,” Surveyor Sterrett replied.


“That is that storage business. Does that have water retention there?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “No, they don’t have detention. I think they were put in prior to the ordinance. He built it way up. I think it goes to the street also. It looks like everything goes west.”


“What is your recommendation on that Surveyor Sterrett?” Chairman Schmierer asked.


“The letter from Jim Milligan states that the development of Lot 1 is unknown at this time; therefore the owner is asking to be exempted from any requirements of the White County, Indiana, Drainage and Sediment Control Ordinance at this time. The developer of Lot 1 may need to meet these requirements,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


“How are they going to meet them?” Chairman Schmierer asked.


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “Well, they don’t know what’s going on there.”


“Well, no matter what…if they build something on that they’ll have to meet them,” Chairman Schmierer stated.


“What are our requirements here? Obviously, there could be a problem later if someone buys Lot 1 and then they have a water problem,” Board Member Heimlich questioned Attorney Loy.


Attorney Loy explained, “We do have a catch all provision in the event…if someone builds on it they are still going to have to come…they still need to sign off on a drainage permit. I believe they still do.”


“Yeah, they will, but I guess my question is whether that is something we should take care of at this time or just wait,” Board Member Heimlich stated.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “Maybe you don’t want to call it an exemption.”


“Right, we shouldn’t exempt this property, we’re just allowing it to be subdivided, right?” Board Member Burton asked.


Attorney Loy explained, “Right, and we don’t want people to misunderstand that. If they exempt it for this purpose, it’s exempted for all purposes.”


“But that is what is being asked for here is the exemption just like the other one?” Board Member Heimlich questioned.


“Well, it appears as if that could be the case. The Drainage Ordinance requires a drainage permit for all subdivisions or at least come to us with a plan or exemption, strictly for that purpose,” Attorney Loy explained.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “And that is what they are asking…to be subdivided that they are going to have to have that.”


Attorney Loy stated, “Right, either a waiver or a plan. Is there a one size fits all drainage plan that could easily be done for all purposes?”


“No, I don’t think there is any tile out there,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


Attorney Loy asked, “The lot is for sale, but no buyer? Is that your understanding?”


“It’s been for sale for some time. I’ve seen signs on it for a long time,” Chairman Schmierer stated.


Attorney Loy explained, “You can, just like you did on the other subdivision, strictly for the purpose of subdividing, but it making it clear that it is still subject to the Drainage Ordinance come the time that any improvements are made so that the buyer doesn’t think that it is exempt for all purposes.”


“And if a building permit comes through our office and it’s over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface we say they need a drainage plan,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


“Or, if in your opinion if it’s less than that it’s going to alter the drainage substantially,” Attorney Loy stated.


Chairman Schmierer stated, “Well how do you want to word it?”


“Well, what do you want to do? Do you want to exempt it?” Attorney Loy asked.


“Why do we even need to exempt it? I would just say that if they want to subdivide it let’s make them have a drainage plan to start with, for that lot, no matter what they are going to put on it so that the person buying it doesn’t get blindsided and then we have to fight with them over it. So why not just make them come up with a drainage plan to start with instead of blindsiding us? That’s what I’m afraid of,” Chairman Schmierer explained.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “I guess that’s my concern…not specifically on this one...I would have to see what Surveyor Sterrett or Engineer Frauhiger would say about it, but theoretically if someone had a property and they wanted to lop off the wetland that they can’t do anything else with and sell it. You know you are going to have problems…we are going to have problems with it at some point.”


Attorney Loy stated, “It’s for the church’s protection also. The guy may want to drain south toward the church and think he exempted now.”


“I don’t think it would have to be an elaborate plan, but I think we should see something as to where the water of that Lot 1 would go,” Board Member Heimlich stated.


“Actually both lots…they are wanting to subdivide this into 2 lots,” Attorney Loy stated.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “The church, I assume, is draining now.”


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “I noticed that there was a tile shown on the outside of the church. It’s kind of funny though, the little squares are light poles right next to it. It looks kind of suspicious though because the light poles are right there close to it. I would more likely think that’s what it is, power lines. I didn’t look at it that close.”


Chairman Schmierer asked, “Well, why don’t we send it back to them and tell them to give us a drainage plan to go with it?”


Board Member Burton stated, “The other thing, going along with what Board Member Heimlich is saying is that taking the picture with the ditch coming off Sixth Street and curves and goes east from the pictures…not knowing where the property line was, even if that was the property line the church gets back involved and….Well, it would have to be close to the property line because as that comes off of Sixth Street and heads back east, it’s to the north of the playground, right? So that picture of the side ditch where the water is kind of standing and it comes around, whose property is that on which the church is using for drainage right now?”


Attorney Loy stated, “Right now it is all one owner and now is your chance to require some sort of basic drainage for both lots.”


“This drainage is on the church property,” Surveyor Sterrett explained.


Board Member Burton stated, “And as it comes around and comes back to the east…”


“I didn’t think it headed over to that low place,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


Board Member Burton replied, “It probably doesn’t, but I assume there is a lot of water that heads to that point and is it on Lot 1 or is it on the church?”


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “It’s in Lot 1, you mean that swale? The swale is on the church lot, Lot 2. So, you are saying that the water is going to come off the other…”


“It’s possible that water is coming back this way to start with, or vice versa that some of the church’s water is coming out here and heading northeast. I am just agreeing with Board Member Heimlich.”


Board Member Heimlich stated, “I think a drainage plan could not only protect a future buyer or Lot 1, but it also could protect the church from something that might happen after that lot is developed.”


“Would we figure 80% coverage? Is that how you would figure to do the drainage plan?” Surveyor Sterrett asked.


“What do you mean 80% coverage?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


Surveyor Sterrett replied, “Impervious surface.”


“Well, as I say, I’m not sure you need the full blown thing we get for development, but I think we need some sort of indication here where the water is going…or is going to go,” Board Member Heimlich stated.


“We don’t have contours or anything,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


“And it could very well be when the buyer of Lot 1 comes along and wants to build whatever it is, he gets his building permit, he’ll get a waiver because the plan you approved back in January was adequate to the subdivision,” Attorney Loy.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “I just don’t feel comfortable granting an exemption to it.”


“I think it will come back to bite us. I think it will bite the guy that buys the lot and he’ll be an unhappy camper too,” Chairman Schmierer added.


“So, the request for an exemption from the drainage ordinance for LSCC Subdivision (Lake Shafer Christian Center) is denied,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


Chairman Schmierer stated, “Yes.”


Chairman Schmierer then asked the individuals in attendance if they wanted to address the Drainage Board.


Mr. Redlin explained, “My name is Todd Redlin and I am the Farm Manager for Richel Enterprises. We own some ground in Monon and Princeton Township. Eric Ledger is also with me, he is one of our operators. First of all I wanted to say thank you to Denny (Surveyor Sterrett) and the Board for giving us a friendly clean-out exemption on a regulated drain. It enabled us to take advantage of some good weather and get some tile projects done that we would not have been able to do otherwise. One of the other questions…I have been involved with Richel for several years and have gotten to know Denny on some projects, but we….when I started with Richel Enterprises, Monon Township and Princeton farms that we have there are some definite drainage issues in that area. Some of the drains are regulated and some of them are not. We, from our standpoint at Richel and with our operators, we have been very good advocates of improving the drainage, strong commodity prices have helped that the last couple of years. A question I wanted to pose is what can we do as landowners…and I know Denny, I pose the question with the FEMA update, I understand that Denny has a lot of territory to cover in White County. This last spring obviously created a lot of new issues that no one probably foresaw…what can we do as landowners to help Denny, and therefore help you guys, on some of the small regulated drains that there is money in the accounts…to stay ahead of the game in cleaning. I’ve been an advocate. I own farm ground, I’ve rented farm ground…I know that a short ditch that may be regulated, Denny’s got to decide, do I deal with the big problems over here or do I deal with the smaller problems. That is just purely a function of his job and there’s not enough of him to go around some days. What can we do as landowners to help stay progressive and stay on top of the game on regulated drains? Especially on some of the smaller drains…what is the simplest method for me to work with Denny to utilize the funds that are available in some of the watersheds so we don’t get behind the eight ball on some of the ditch cleaning? That is my fear, that we’ve already got some ditches, a couple watersheds that are relatively small that need…the folks I’ve talked to that are involved would like to see them cleaned while it’s inexpensive and the longer you wait the more money you end up spending. Is there anything…I don’t know, maybe you want to talk or discuss that.”


Mr. Redlin continued, “The second question I have is the Slough Creek (Owen Denton) watershed; if you have an update on the Joint Drainage Board and what’s occurring there. My biggest reason is that if you look at the map, there is about 14,000 feet in White County. About 10,000 feet passes through Richel’s property. Richel and EC Farm spent $22,000 last year to clean that ditch ourselves. We had one unfriendly landowner that we had to pass through on the last 4,000 feet. They did give us permission to do it. We spent another $6,500.00 cleaning that. From the White County/Jasper County line to the terminus of that ditch has been cleaned completely. We spent about $29,000.00. I’m just curious is to what the progress is with Jasper County on getting the rest of that ditch cleaned.”


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “We just received a letter today from the Jasper County Surveyor’s Office. They want us to approve the minutes of the last meeting. I brought them so the two board members could look over them.”


“Do you want to continue to answer their questions?” Board Member Burton asked.


“Like it says, there is not another meeting scheduled for the Jasper/White County Joint Drainage Board in the near future, so I don’t know what that means,” Surveyor Sterrett explained.


“That doesn’t sound good to me,” Mr. Redlin replied.


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “Well, they don’t have a surveyor up there right now.”


Board Member Burton stated, “I think their intent is to move forward and they’re not putting it off to the side…it’s just that they have some ongoing issues that have probably slowed it a little bit; one of those being the surveyor. Their intentions are to move forward as timely as possible.”


Surveyor Sterrett, “I think our next meeting will be considering the assessments.”


“When we met with them at this meeting they wanted to know if White County was on board with this or in agreement with this and we said yes, continue on. The one discussion…,” Board Member Burton stated.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “You bring up a good issue and this is one that we kind of brought up at that meeting. We knew that you (Richel) had done the work already on the White County side; to start with they were saying…if you just want to be exempted, just exempt that part. We didn’t think that was a good idea because obviously you can clean that part but you still need the outlet on the rest of it, but how that fits into the assessments on the whole thing that is to be determined yet.”


Mr. Redlin stated, “My concern as the Farm Manager, and Denny and I have had a conversation about what I thought. The 10,000 feet through Richel, in my opinion, is in very good shape. We clear cut both sides of the ditch bank; we intend to keep it clear cut. There is one spot along the railroad track; east of it there is about 300 yards that probably hadn’t seen the light of an excavator since it was dug originally. We literally took out cottonwoods that were 30 inches across at the base that were in the ditch. There was a tremendous amount of stream bank erosion. We did the best that could with what we had to try…I will say the $6,500 bid that we did, which would have been starting at the previous culvert going back east, there is probably some work that needs to be done in there to preserve the stream bank. My fear is that it cut a notch out toward the railroad track and my fear was that the railroad could come by with a belly car and roll a load of stone off and fix their problem and cause us a lot of grief. The whole reason for us to do that is that at the end of the ditch Richel has 120 acres and that is the outlet for the 240 acres. Those two farms…that whole 160, part of it actually goes west. The last section of that which is owned by the Lights, the $6,500.00 didn’t get that project done as well as we thought. There are some issues in the channel yet. We did get all the brush off. It’s a workable solution from this point. Our fear, Ledger’s and Richel’s is that there is $30,000.00 that we’ve invested in that ditch and we didn’t do it because we didn’t need an outlet. We did it because we absolutely have to have that outlet. There are a lot of acres affected there and I’m glad to hear the assessment issue. It ought to be a regulated drain, I guess. There are a lot of acres affected there. My fear was that Jasper County would say that you guys (Richel) has done this and then the ball gets dropped and we’re stuck with an unregulated drain because I will say the two of us sitting here are the only two that spent any money on it.”


“But is a regulated drain, right?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


Surveyor Sterrett replied, “Yes, it’s just not on maintenance.”


“Really?” Mr. Redlin asked.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “It is a regulated drain, that’s why we were on the Joint Board.”


Mr. Redlin stated, “I was under the understanding that it was more or less a private ditch. I’m surprised to hear that with a watershed that size that there is no maintenance fund set aside.”


“That is changing,” Board Member Burton stated.


“There are a few like that...some are pretty large. Yeah, it is regulated it just hasn’t been on maintenance,” Board Member Heimlich stated.


Board Member Burton explained, “And that is one of the things they discussed is, once they get it cleaned out as to estimate maintenance from now on.”


Surveyor Sterrett commented, “Maybe why it was never put on maintenance is because you might only have three or four landowners on it.”


Mr. Redlin stated, “I own some land in Pulaski County and I was involved in the Big Monon and my fear was this is the type of water that could become White County and Jasper County’s Big Monon creek. I personally as a farm manager would like to NOT see that happen. We ended up spending $2.00 a foot to essentially reconstruct the ditch that hadn’t been touched for 55 years. So I guess you can take that information and use that as a benchmark because unfortunately, sometimes the engineers and other folks can make that number awfully large and that’s what I think raise people’s ire. I think there are enough acres involved that money can be collected and set aside for maintenance and even reconstruction. I’m glad to hear that you guys are not letting that die on the vine.”


Board Member Heimlich explained, “One of the questions that was raised by them as they were trying to decide what the cost was going to be for assessments was, was there any work that was going to have to be done in White County? That is what we’ve asked Surveyor Sterrett to take a look at because we knew it had been dug out, but was there going to be some touch up that was going to be needed as part of this project and what would the cost of that be? It sounds like it’s going to be minimal in White County.”


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I thought it looked pretty good.”


“Other than the Light property that we had to do on the cheap because we were paying for it, we made it functional but only one side got clear cut and it actually will need more maintenance on the other side,” Mr. Ledger stated.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “Well, you can only cut one side of the ditch.”


Board Member Heimlich stated, “As far as the overall project, it will probably only be cutting one side anyway because DNR will get involved in that.”


“My opinion would be the channel through that last property; it could use some attention yet. It was purely a function of…,” Mr. Redlin stated.


“How long is that?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


“About 4,000 feet,” Mr. Redlin replied.


“That landowner didn’t want to participate or what?” Chairman Schmierer asked.


Mr. Redlin replied, “No, it’s a shame because they benefited. They did at least give us permission to access the property to do it.”


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “I didn’t realize you guys cleaned it. You had to get quotes, didn’t you?”


Mr. Redlin replied, “Well, the Light’s requested quotes and they looked at them and said that great, we’ll give you permission, but we’re not going to pay anything on it. So, we’re sitting here saying our option now is to pump water or bite the bullet and dug the ditch.”


Board Member Heimlich asked, “So do you have equipment? Did you dig the ditch?”


“No, Jerry Gutwein, Mike Ezra and Weaver-Fox were the three quotes and Weaver-Fox was the lowest. Mike Ezra dug the balance though through White County,” Mr. Redlin explained.


Surveyor Sterrett stated, “It’s pretty wide at the county line, up by Lee.”


“It’s more like a pond at that point. It gets to the county line and it stops,” Mr. Redlin stated.


Mr. Ledger explained, “We have severe beaver problems down in that area that are coming from the river all the way up that watershed and they get worse every year. Every place there are trees, they will find a home.”


“It’s moving forward at its own speed,” Board Member Burton stated.


“It’s going to be hard to convince people down in Princeton Township that their water goes up to…,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


“That was the other one we had, we’ve got people down there (Princeton Twp.) that are part of that watershed too, even though they don’t have a ditch going through them,” Board Member Heimlich stated.


“I think that was part of that friendly clean-out that we just did that you gave us permission to do as that ditch continues on into Princeton Township,” Mr. Redlin explained.


“No, you’re thinking further east,” Mr. Ledger stated.


Mr. Redlin replied, “No, it comes in and it’s the ditch that comes in the back side of the Mitchell property. It’s finished and it dog legs down across ST RD 16 and goes over.”


“I thought there was another ditch?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


Mr. Redlin stated, “And there may be further west into Jasper County that comes down, I’d have to look at a map.”


Surveyor Sterrett asked Board Members Burton and Heimlich to review the minutes from the Joint Board that were received in the surveyor’s office today.


The next item on the agenda was an update on FEMA. Surveyor Sterrett explained, “We had 17 PWs (Project Worksheets). Out of those 17, there were 139 sites that were worked on. When we sent the PWs to Homeland Security there were 108 sites that were completed, so they just paid us whatever the contractor charged us—they paid 75% of that. 31 sites were estimated by FEMA so we had 5 PWs that are not competed yet and out of those 5 PWs there are 4 sites that remain to be fixed yet. We are getting ready to send in our quarterly report this week. So, altogether we had $104,920.79 worth of repairs and $31,000.00 was estimated by FEMA. We may be a little short there. When FEMA paid us they paid 75% of the ones that were 100% completed, which was $55,413.59. Actually, the check was for $67,052 but some of it they took 75% of what the estimate was for the ones that weren’t completed and paid us 50% of that. So, when we got that check we figured up how much work we had done and deposited that back into the separate drainage funds and we kept the $11,000 in a separate fund. So, it is just sitting in a separate fund waiting for these jobs to be completed. Now we only have 4 left to be completed, so we’re going to send in our quarterly estimate and I hope they can figure out how they paid us. So they still have 25% to pay.”


Attorney Loy asked, “So is that with the intention of paying another 50% once the job is done or is that a full and final…”


“No, we are going to send in quarterly reports and I assume they will pay us more,” Surveyor Sterrett stated.


“The rest of the 50% based upon the actual cost,” Attorney Loy stated.


Board Member Burton replied, “We will never get 100%.”


Surveyor Sterrett explained, “Well, we’re going to send in our actual cost and I don’t know what they are going to do with their estimates because some of our estimates were under the actual cost and some of them were over and I could never get an answer out of them of how they were going to do it. So, anyway we have $11,638.89 stuck in a fund waiting to be drawn out for these ones that are now completed and they will send back that states how much they paid for each PW. We have taken the $55,000 and put it back into the drainage funds for each ditch and that is what we will have to do with the remaining funds.”


“Did you have a chance to look at the paperwork that I had given you?” Board Member Heimlich asked.


Surveyor Sterrett replied, “Yes, that was the P4. The P4 is not to be signed until all the work is 100% complete. We have 4 sites left before we get 100% completion.”


One of the remaining sites is John Brettnacher who had a problem north of 700 South this spring. He wanted to work on it himself and the tile is evidently plugged (Branch #1 of the Hayes) so all he did was channel around the tile to get water off of it. He called the other day and now wants someone to fix it. Devault Farms was sent the work order to fix it.


Surveyor Sterrett stated he would call the contractors to have the work orders of the remaining sites to check on the progress.


Chairman Schmierer asked if there was anything further for the Drainage Board. Chairman Schmierer then adjourned the meeting.