Get Adobe Flash player

February 21, 2012 (Tuesday)

 

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 Shirley Keesling

Doug Philbrook Marcy Philbrook

Jeremy Scheitlin Norbert Pilotte

Tom Blackman

 

The February 21, 2012 (Tuesday) 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 February 6, 2012 White County Drainage Board Meeting. Board Member John Heimlich so moved. Board Member David Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Next on the agenda-John A. Washburn Drain #598 Maintenance Modification Hearing

 

Surveyor Ward presented the White County Drainage Board a Maintenance Modification to the John A. Washburn Drain #598. The rates were previous set by the Board at seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per acre and ten dollars ($10.00) minimum for five (5) years. Then return to old assessment rate of two dollars and fifty cent ($2.50) per acre and five dollars ($5.00) minimum. There are no minimum assessments at this rate. (No landowners of record present at this Hearing.) There were no remonstrances or objections to this Maintenance Modification schedule.

 

Chairman Burton presented the following:

 

THE WHITE COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD HAVING HEARD AND CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE AND ANY OBJECTION SUBMITTED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE CHAIRMAN WOULD NOW CONSIDER A MOTION FINDING THAT THE CURRENT ESTIMATE OF MAINTAINING THE JOHN A. WASHBURN DRAIN #598 IS INSUFFICIENT AND THAT THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERIODIC MAINTENANCE OF SAID DRAIN SHOULD BE INCREASED AS PROPOSED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.

 

BOARD MEMBER DIENER SO MOVED.

BOARD MEMBER HEIMLICH SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO RAISE THIS MAINTENANCE TO SEVEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($7.50) PER ACRE AND TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) MINIMUM FOR FIVE (5) YEARS. RETURN TO OLD ASSESSMENT RATE OF TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($2.50) PER ACRE AND FIVE DOLLARS ($5.00) MINIMUM. THE WHITE COUNTY DRAIANGE BOARD BY A VOTE OF THREE (3) IN FAVOR AND ZERO (0) OPPOSED NOW HEREBY ADOPTS THE SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS AS ORIGINALLY FILED HEREIN OR AS AMENDED. THE WHITE COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD ISSUES ITS WRITTEN FINDINGS AND ORDER DECLARING THE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE MODIFICATION SCHEDULE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS ESTABLISHED, A COPY OF WHICH WILL BE MAILED TO ALL OWNERS AFFECTED.

 

Next on the agenda-Approve a Petition for Maintenance on the William Hickman Branch of the

F. M. Coonrod Drain #526

 

Surveyor Ward presented the Petition for Maintenance on the William Hickman Branch of the F. M. Coonrod Drain #526.

l. Petition carried by Mr. Frank Zakrajsek

2. Petitioners asking to have the ditch cleaned.

3. Drain approximately one and a quarter (1¼) mile in length.

4. The drain is located one and one half (1½) miles southeast of Buffalo, Indiana.

5. Larger water shed due to the fact the Hickman is paid by the F. M. Coonrod Drain.

 

Board Member Heimlich made a motion to accept the Petition for Maintenance on the William Hickman Branch of the F. M. Coonrod Drain #526. Board Member Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried. Petition approved.

 

Next on the agenda-Girtz Industries Requesting a Waiver from the White County Drainage Ordinance

Viewing a previous plan for the site

(Jeremy Scheitlin representing Girtz Industries)

 

Surveyor Ward presented to the White County Drainage Board information on Girtz Industries.

  1. Addition to current facility.

  2. The addition would be 120’ x 130’ to the building.

  3. The new addition will sit on already existing compacted stone.

  4. Mr. Scheitlin stated that part of the water is going to the existing pond with the parts going

to the South and parts going North out letting directly into the tile, then into the lake.

  1. Chairman Burton asked if the water from the new addition would do the same. He ask if

everything currently at the site meets the demands of the Drainage Ordinance.

  1. Surveyor Ward could not answer the question because what was put in was prior to the

Drainage Ordinance.

  1. Chairman Burton questioned if it is Grand fathered in.

  2. Board Member Heimlich stated that there are no drainage issues at the site.

  3. The addition will not be changing the amount of impervious surface.

  4. Not increasing the flow area just replacing with the building.

 

Board Member Heimlich made a motion to grant a waiver to Girtz Industries for their building project. Board Member Diener seconded the motion, Motion carried. Waiver granted.

 

Next on the agenda-Lakewood Estates Subdivision-Shirley Keesling

(Mrs. Keesling present)

 

Surveyor Ward presented a letter and drawing from Milligan Surveying to the Drainage Board.

  1. Mrs. Keesling’s home is on Lot 1 of the Lakewood Estates Subdivision.

  2. Mr. Milligan’s paper work date 2-14-2012 stated:

RE: Lakewood Estates Subdivision:

The drain pipe under LR 14 W will control the rate of runoff from the subdivision. The swales are designed to hold the runoff from the subdivision until the water in the side ditch recedes to allow the swales to drain. The water will not get high enough to run over LR 14 W. There is only about 2 acres in this watershed and no water comes off of the adjoining property.

  1. Much conversation on the issue of how to get the water to the lake between Mrs. Keesling and

the Board.

  1. Concerns on creating water issues on Arrowhead Road.

  2. Concerns of running more water to the County Cub Golf Course.

  3. Concerns for drainage for undeveloped Doctor Bougher property that adjoins Mrs. Keesling’s

property.

  1. Concerns for water standing over the all roads in the area.

  2. Mrs. Keesling was advised to have a complete drainage plan with calculations for her

Subdivision that can be reviewed by the County Engineer.

 

Board Member Diener made a motion not to grant a waiver to the Lakewood Estates Subdivision

from the White County Drainage and Sediment Control Ordinance at this time. A plan needs to be presented to the White County Drainage Board so as not to create a drainage problem in the future. The Drainage Plan to be reviewed by the White County appointed Engineer. Motion seconded by Board Member Heimlich. Motion carried. No waiver granted.

 

Surveyor Ward updated the White County Drainage Board on some ongoing projects.

 

  1. Dennis Sparks will be doing the Big Creek Project. His charges will be less than four

thousand dollars ($4,000.00).

  1. The Errol Westfall Ditch has been dipped. Still needs to be leveled.

  2. The Joseph Kellenburger Tile has been put in.

  3. A petition for Reconstruction on the Ida Lahr Tile has been sent to Gordon Denton.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Philbrook from the audience were in attendance asking for guidance on a drainage issue with their property. Property address: 10869 South Lehe Road

 

  1. Location of property-Prairie Township, North of Brookston. (Lehe Subdivision 2)

  2. Mr. and Mrs. Philbrook’s home and property has flooded three (3) times since 2007.

  3. Have talked to Mr. Lehe, previous County Surveyor and County Highway Department

regarding this issue.

  1. Water comes off Lehe’s field then over on the Philbrook property.

  2. Can’t sell the home.

  3. Insurance company is dropping their insurance.

  4. Had a private contractor come in a dig a swale around his property.

  5. Property flooded again after the swale was put in.

  6. Mr. Philbrook feels if he was allowed to put in a larger pipe under the road it could help with

the flooding.

  1. Lehe road was a private road but has be chip and sealed which raised the road and now a it is

a County Road.

  1. Chairman Burton is familiar with the site. He explained the location of the property to the

other Board members.

  1. Chairman Burton told the members there is not a County Tile in that location.

  2. Mr. Philbrook wanted to know if bigger pipes could be put in and also on his neighbor’s

property.

  1. Mr. Philbrook wanted to know if Lehe’s could be held accountable for any of this problem.

  2. Chairman Burton explained to the Board Members the route the water takes.

  3. Chairman Burton explained that the Board’s jurisdiction of what they can or cannot do.

  4. Attorney Loy spoke to the Philbrooks, “The jurisdiction of the Drainage Board is limited by

statue. They are created by statue and they are limited in their jurisdiction. The Board does not get involved between the landowners and their drainage. There are exceptions to that but what I’m hearing thus far that does not apply. This is not a regulated drain issue regulated by the Board. However there is this drainage of the road matter which can be readdressed. I think through the Highway Department. Hopefully there is a common sense salutation to it that will alleviate the situation. Most people would think that the White County Drainage Board has jurisdiction over all drainage issues that anybody has, that is not the case. But that is no sign that they can’t facilitate a solution.”

  1. Chairman Burton said that he would see that they were put in touch with B.J., the interim

White County Highway Department Head.

 

Mr. Norbert Pilotte was next to speak on his private crossing on the Rayman Ditch

Viewing picture taken by the White County Surveyor

 

Surveyor Ward stated, “Mr. Pilotte is in here again to discuss his private bridge crossing on the Rayman Ditch. We discuss this at the last Board meeting.”

Chairman Burton asked, “Did you have a chance to look at those? What we discussed at the meeting?”

Surveyor Ward answered, “I discussed with him that the Drainage Board and the Surveyor are not responsible for private crossings. What we discussed in the meeting.”

Chairman Burton asked, “Did you take a grade out there?”

Surveyor Ward answered, “It was reasonably close to what it was proposed to be dug. (Specifications) Within a few tenths. It was a little bit deeper on the east side than it was on the west side. That was probably to let it washout which is typically done with bridges or pipes. To let the silt wash out from underneath the crossing. Since you can’t really get in there with a backhoe.”

Chairman Burton asked, “Question, Mr. Pilotte?”

Mr. Pilotte responded, “Yes, my question is the fact the water ran across the top of them abutments until the late seventies when they extended that ditch of mine, then they cut it down. Jim Milligan put the piling in there because it was dug under the abutment and destroyed my bridge at that time. It cracked some of the supports they staked. They dug it out again this last time and now the pilings are……so they dug it lower than they did the last time. Water use to run across the top of them abutments. I help build that bridge and I know how it was built.”

Chairman Burton replied, “You understand that what Brad (Surveyor Ward) just talked about? That even though it was just cleaned and you are saying the pylons are exposed. The ditch was dipped to what our regulations state for that ditch there. Part of that was when you put the bridge in there they had not extended it. When they extended the depth out it changed the depth at that point and became a new bottom.”

Mr. Pilotte said, “That is when you under mined the bridge. Jim Milligan said you did. All I am asking for is some assistants to help. I drove over that bridge with trucks until 05 when I quit farming. I never had a problem. This year it went down. I was out there yesterday, it is going down! It is going down!”

Chairman Burton asked for assistance from Attorney Loy on the response of the responsibility of a private crossing.

Attorney Loy responded, “Maintenance of a private crossing is the responsibly of the landowner served by the crossing. If there is going to be a replacement or rehabilitation of a private crossing in the course of maintenance or a reconstruction project the County may include that as part of the maintenance or the reconstruction cost, your option. Purely from what you are talking about here the starting point is the landowner is responsible. Are you saying that it was part of the 1980?”

Mr. Pilotte answered, “It was in the 1980s sometime……when it started having problems.”

Attorney Loy asked, “I take it there is no planned reconstruction.”

Chairman Burton replied, “We just cleaned the ditch over a year ago and that is what he is saying that when we cleaned the ditch and brought it back down to what we referred to as our official drain.”

Mr. Pilotte injected, “It has went below what it was in the eighties.”

Chairman Burton continued, “When we added on the ditch it got lower because in the ditch extension we created a new legal bottom.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “It destroyed my bridge is what it done.”

Attorney Loy asked, “What do you want done?”

Mr. Pilotte answered, “All I am asking is your assistance in taking it out of there and a pipe put in.”

Attoney Loy replied, “Put a pipe in?”

Surveyror Ward said, “A culvert.”

Chairman Burton replied, “A new crossing.”

Attorney Loy stated, “You are permitted if you want to but you don’t have to.”

Board Member Diener asked, “I got lost, did you say in the eighties that this additional foundation or footing was done by the County then? Did you say that?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Mr. Milligan drove that piling in there when they extended the ditch.”

Surveyor Ward said, “That is sheet metal. (Viewing pictures)”

Attorney Loy asked, “That was part of a project?”

Surveyor Ward replied, “They did a reconstruction in 1980 and I don’t know all the details as to why that piling was put in. If it was put in after the fact.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Because you could see under the footers of the bridge.”

Surveyor Ward continued, “Because you could see under the footers of the bridge.”

Mr. Pilotte added, “That is why they put it in and it held. Now the piling is lying over and in a year’s time it will probably be laying in the bottom of the ditch.”

Chairman Burton asked, “You drive grain trucks, combines and stuff over this now?”

Mr. Pilotte answered, “I did until I quit farming in 05 that is when I quit going over it with a truck. Now the only way you can get out of there with a truck is going out through somebody else’s property. There is a tank car across the property east of where our off set is at. Since then that is where they have been going out. He didn’t want to drive across that bridge.”

Attorney Loy asked, “I take it you own the land on both sides of the crossing, right?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Yes.”

Board Member Heimlich asked, “How big of pipe would it take?”

Surveyor Ward answered, “I don’t know at this point.”

Mr. Pilotte answered, “Probably sixty (60) inch.”

Surveyor Ward answered: “Probably five (5) feet.”

Attorney Loy asked, “How old is the bridge?”

Mr. Pilotte responded, “Forty-one. The date is right in the bridge, I helped put it there.”

Attorney Loy replied, “It was put in forty-one. It is an old one. It held up pretty good.”

Mr. Pilotte said, “You see those rocks they come off a rock pile, someone pushed them in the ditch. They were not there a year ago.”

Chairman Burton said, “We don’t assume any responsibility…..we have our legal guide lines.”

Attorney Loy replied, “You may, I would want to know cost and plans.”

Chairman Burton asked, “What the cost of new culvert would be plus the removal?”

Surveyor Ward replied, “I have no idea off the top of my head, I will look into it. Especially the removal.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Sixty (60) inch corrugated pipe is fifty-three dollars a foot.”

Chairman Burton said, “We will have to look into it.”

Surveyor Ward replied, “I will see if I can come up with some numbers on cost for the next meeting, on cost.”

Chairman Burton said, “Brad (Surveyor Ward) will do some research on removal and what a culvert would cost to have it installed, ok?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Ok.”

 

With nothing further for the White County Drainage Board Chairman Burton adjourned the February 21, 2012 Drainage Board meeting.

 

 

 

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