Get Adobe Flash player

February 6, 2012

 

The White County Drainage Board convened at 10:30 A. M. in the Commissioners’ Room of the White County Building, Monticello, Indiana. Board members present were: Chairman Steve Burton, Drainage Board Member John Heimlich and Drainage Board Member David Diener. Also present were Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Bradley Ward and Drainage Assistant Mary Sterrett.

 

Also in attendance were:

 

Sharon Watson-White County Soil and Water James Britt

Attorney Dan Teder Brian Keene

Wayne Schroeder Dave Kent

Jim Hallar David Lachmund

Unknown Gentleman with Wayne Schroeder

 

The February 6, 2012 White County Drainage Board was called to order by Chairman Steve Burton.

 

The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes from the January 17, 2012 (Tuesday) White County Drainage Board Meeting. Board Member John Heimlich so moved. Board Member David Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Next on the agenda-Waiver Request (2nd) Monticello Offices

 

Surveyor Ward presented a waiver request from Monticello Main Street, LLC for a project on the north half of their property.

  1. South half of Monticello Offices was previously approved for a waiver from the White

County Drainage & Sediment Control Ordinance, November 7, 2011.

  1. Monticello Main Street, LLC now requesting a waiver of the White County Drainage &

Sediment Control Ordinance for the north half of property.

  1. For the record Board Member Diener having lived in the area of the site refreshed the Board

with information. With project Wind Swept after the tornado separated, in that particular area of Monticello, the combination sanitary and storm drains. This has a separate storm drain that takes all the surface water to Marion Street and to the river and there are no drainage issues.

  1. Surveyor Ward has no issues with granting the request for the waiver for this project.

  2. Attorney Teder interjected that the impervious surface is about twelve percent (12%) less than

what is existing. He felt that was a positive for the site.

 

Board Member Heimlich made a motion to grant and approve a waiver to Monticello Main Street

LLC to the White County Drainage & Sediment Control Ordinance. Board Member Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried. Waiver approved.

 

Next on the agenda-Discuss Spraying 2012

 

Surveyor Ward had previously given the Board a list of the ditches that need to be sprayed in 2012.

  1. The Board Members reviewed the list of ditches approximately fifty-one (51) ditches.

  2. Surveyor Ward stated that six (6) contractor will be sent invitations to quote the 2012

Spraying of ditch in White County.

3. Board Member Diener asked about how it was determined of what ditches to spray.

  1. Surveyor Ward explained that the ditches are on a three (3) year rotation for spraying.

But if a landowner asks to have a ditch sprayed that can also be done. Also sprayed are ditches that have maintenance projects to clear brush and trees with in the last year or so.

  1. The spraying of White County Ditches will be advertised in local newspapers after the

2012 Spray Project is let.

 

Board Member Diener made a motion to advertise the Spraying of White County Ditches for the year 2012. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Next on the agenda-J. L. Ackerman Branch # 3 of Branch #1 Drain #501-Regarding Maintenance

 

Surveyor Ward was asked the January 17, 2012 Drainage Board Meeting to do further research on the entire J. L. Ackerman Drain. He is asking for guidance on maintenance on a branch of this ditch.

  1. Surveyor Ward asked if this project needed to be petitioned.

  2. Attorney Loy asked if the drain has a maintenance fund.

  3. Answer: Yes, the drain is on maintenance.

  4. Chairman Burton asked what the estimated cost of the project would be.

  5. Surveyor Ward estimated the project at approximately two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) to

three thousand dollars ($3,000.00).

 

Drainage Board Member Diener made a motion to approve the maintenance project on the Surveyor’s estimated distance and location of the maintenance project of J. L. Ackerman Branch #3 of Branch #1 Drain #501. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Next on the agenda-Approve Petition for Maintenance on the Alva Wortman Open Drain #644

Viewing a computer generated map

 

Surveyor Ward presented a petition for maintenance of the Alva Wortman Open Drain #644 to the White County Drainage Board.

  1. Petition carried by Arnold Dahlenburg.

  2. Drain is located in Honey Creek Township. Approximately two (2) mile west of Reynolds

and one (1) mile south of US Highway 24.

  1. The open ditch is approximately one (1) mile to one and one half (1½) miles in length.

  2. The entire ditch needs maintenance.

  3. There is approximately twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) in the Maintenance Fund.

  4. It will probably need a Maintenance Modification to fund in order to obtain enough money to do the project.

  5. Surveyor Ward stated that DNR is a landowner on the ditch and he will need to contact DNR

regarding permits, etc.

 

Board Member Heimlich made a motion to accept the Petition for Maintenance on the Alva Wortman Drain #644. Board Member Diener seconded the motion. Petition approved.

 

Next on the agenda-Discuss Norbert Pilotte’s Issue with a Private Crossing on the Emmet Rayman Drain #576

Viewing computer generated pictures of the private crossing

 

Chairman Burton stated, “A private crossing on a regulated ditch. The ditch is cleaned under normal maintenance. The landowner has an issue that his private crossing may have been damaged, due to the cleaning.”

 

Attorney Loy replied, “He ought to come to the meeting for starters.”

 

Chairman Burton continued, “For clarifications from my end.”

 

Board Member Diener asked, “Is the damage physical damage to the crossing from the cleaning?”

 

Board Member Heimlich asked, “What is the issue, what was done?”

 

Chairman Burton replied, “His issue is that it has been cleaned to low. It has exposed the foundation and his bridge will be destroyed because it is going to be under cut.” Chairman Burton asked Surveyor Ward if he had been to the location and he replied, yes. Chairman Burton asked the Surveyor how is the elevation. Surveyor Ward answered, “Relatively close to what was proposed within an inch.”

 

Chairman Burton asked, “The elevation that we use is the legal description of bottom of the ditch?”

Surveyor Ward replied, “As far as I can tell, yes.”

 

Board Member Heimlich asked, “There is no damage at this point?”

 

Surveyor Ward replied, “He believes that it is under cut.”

 

Chairman Burton stated, “It is perceived. You can see where we have lowered the ditch below where the foundation was originally.”

 

Surveyor Ward replied, “Looking at that you could say we lowered it two (2) feet below but I do not think that is the case.”

 

Chairman Burton continued, “In one of my responses was that a private crossing that is the individual’s. That is his. That it is not a concern or responsibility of the County.”

 

Attorney Loy replied, “It is his maintenance, correct.”

 

Chairman Burton continued, “I just wanted to bring it out in the minutes that we have discussed this and that we have addressed the issue that it is within say one percent (1%) of legal depth of what that ditch was. That is the legal definition of how deep that ditch would be at that point.”

 

Board Member Heimlich asked, “When was the crossing put in? A longtime ago?”

 

Surveyor Ward answered, “Before the extension of the ditch, I don’t know how long it has been there. It is only twelve (12) feet wide.”

 

Board Member Heimlich asked, “When was that ditch cleaned last?”

 

Surveyor Ward replied, “The early eighties. Jim Milligan was the Surveyor when it was cleaned the last time.”

 

Chairman Burton continued, “Right and there were issues then also, apparently from the history. I was told that the Rayman Ditch was extended from just about this point (showing point on map) on west. A new depth was determined at that time because of the extension of the ditch. This bridge was in there prior to that event. Was that your understanding?” Surveyor Ward replied, “Yes.” Chairman Burton continued, “So the legal description of the bottom was lowered and that is what put us responsible for that.”

 

Board Member Heimlich replied, “So that is when the issue actually originated was in the eighties.”

 

Chairman Burton said, “That is when it became apparent to him that we were endangering the structure.” Surveyor Ward interjected that there is a tree growing out of the foundation. He has a photo of it which isn’t helping the situation.

 

Chairman Burton continued, “Why we are here is to make clear to our council that we were not in violation or infringing on.”

 

Attorney Loy responded, “Not at all. While it is down now I would take some more pictures and document that.”

 

Next on the agenda-David Kent’s Issue with the Victor Tile #595

Viewing computer generated pictures

 

Surveyor Ward presented Mr. Kent’s concerns on the Victor Tile Drain #595

  1. Location of the Victor Tile-East side of Brookston.

  2. The ditch is regulated to Moots Creek.

  3. The issue is where the tile leaves and goes into the ditch the tile is partly submerged in the

water.

  1. The ditch is on the Lehe property and runs through a subdivision. The Carter factory is

there.

  1. Surveyor reported that the ditch needs to be dipped but not completely through the

Subdivision.

  1. Surveyor Ward’s opinion is to dip on Lehe’s property and that could take care of the

issue.

  1. Approximately three or four hundred (300-400) feet will need to be dipped to get grade

to lower the water.

  1. There is money in the Maintenance Fund to pay for the project.

  2. Surveyor Ward is to contact the Lehes about project.

  3. Mr. Kent asked about the trees south of the fence line.

  4. Surveyor Ward replied that would be costly to remove all the trees (woods) and a

Maintenance Modification would need to done to pay for that big of project.

  1. Suggested by Board to start with what was presented. Check the grade and the fall to see

what needs to be done and how far. Return to the Drainage Board with that information and then talk about going further south.

 

Next on the agenda-Set Rates for E.H. Johnson Drain #549 Maintenance Modification

 

Surveyor Ward presented information for the Maintenance Modification of the E. H. Johnson Drain #549.

  1. Pending maintenance project.

  2. Drain is located south of Reynolds.

  3. Approximately one and on quarter (1¼) mile needs cleaned. This cleaning would

include a branch.

  1. Project would include repairing six to eight (6-8) outlets.

  2. Maintenance Fund currently has three thousand dollars ($3,000.00).

  3. Estimated cost of pending project approximately four-teen thousand dollars

($14,000.00).

  1. Surveyor suggested raising maintenance assessments to seven dollars and fifty cents

($7.50) per acre for three years. That would bring in about forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500.00).

 

Board Member Diener made a motion to raise the Periodic Maintenance Assessment of the E. H. Johnson Drain #549 to Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($7.50) for Three (3) years only then return to the old rate of One Dollar ($1.00) per acre with a Five Dollar Minimum. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Next discussion-Big Creek Drain#508 Maintenance Project

 

Surveyor Ward presented to the Drainage Board more information on a maintenance project on the Big Creek. He stated that five (5) contractors were sent invitation to remove a log jam and a beaver dam with no contractors responding to the invitation.

  1. Surveyor Ward was contacted by Dale Kelly. Mr. Kelly having an interest to look at the

project.

  1. Mr. Kelly estimated he could do the project for twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00).

  2. The twelve dollars thousand ($12,000.00) does not include repairing any wash outs.

  3. Included in Mr. Kelly’s estimate was dredging a small part of the channel.

  4. Attorney Loy said that if his proposed estimate was acceptable he could perform the work.

  5. Attorney Loy also informed the Surveyor he would be free call other contractor to see what

they would estimate the project cost.

  1. Attorney Loy asked about evidence that invitations were sent. (There is a black folder in the

Big Creek Drain file labeled Maintenance Project 2012 with that information.)

  1. The project quotes were to be opened at the December 5, 2011 Drainage Board Meeting. (See

Drainage Board Minutes on that date for documentation.)

  1. The Drain Board also suggested if a contractor was removing the log jam and beaver dam it

might be a good time to address other issues that are at the site. Since the location is difficult to reach.

 

Board Member Diener made a motion to contact other contractors regarding estimate of cost for

removing the Big Creek log jam and beaver dam. Then use best judgment for awarding the project. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Wayne Schroeder spoke regarding the J. Crowell Drain

 

Wayne Schroeder as bought land that is drained by the J. Crowell Drain. He is being charged maintenance assessments and he would like to have better drainage for the land.

 

  1. Location of drain-Springtown through Idaville.

  2. A fifteen inch tile is two thirds (2/3) under water.

  3. A portion of the tile downstream is in Carroll County.

  4. Mr. Schroeder feels that the downstream issues needs to be addressed before the tile holes and

work upstream are addressed.

  1. Surveyor Ward talked about a maintenance project that is being done in White County water-

way and the location of that project.

  1. White County does have a letter from Carroll County waiving their rights on the White

County project only.

  1. White County has the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Fund. The collected funds are sent to

White County.

  1. To do a project downstream in Carroll County, White County would have to have a letter

from Carroll County waiving their rights or the possibility of a Joint Board.

  1. Where the tile enters the creek, in Carroll County, is where the tile outlet is two-thirds (2/3)

full of water.

  1. Mr. Schroeder feels part of the creek bed needs to be dipped.

  2. Questionable if the creek is regulated could be DNR.

  3. Mr. Schroeder told of numerous tile holes, tiles filled with sand, air wells full of water and

standing water.

  1. Need to contact Carroll County regarding this issue.

  2. Mr. Schroeder was told DNR needed to be contacted regarding their involvement with the

creek in Carroll County.

  1. Surveyor Ward said he would talk to Carroll County about this issue.

  2. The Drainage Board advised Mr. Schroeder the first issues are to see how far the drain is

regulated. Also what DNR’s involvement is with the creek in Carroll County.

 

Chairman Burton then adjourned the February 6, 2012 White County Drainage Board Meeting.

 

COMPLETE DIGITAL MINUTES MAY BE HEARD IN THE SURVEYOR’S OFFICE