Get Adobe Flash player

March 5, 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 Bill Schroeder

Herman Schroeder Mike Schroeder

Norbert Pilotte Art Anderson

Russ Sickler Jim Overbeck

David Kent B. J. Propes

Ron Allen



The March 5, 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 February 21, 2012 White County Drainage Board Meeting. Board Member David Diener so moved. Board Member John Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.


Next on the agenda-Open the Quotes on Crowell-Wells Maintenance Project


Surveyor Ward presented to the Board the quotes for a maintenance project.

l. Attorney Loy asked if the time had expired for submission of quotes. Answer per Surveyor, “yes”.

2. Four (4) quotes were solicited.

3. Two quotes were received.

4. JVS revised his quote while in the Surveyor’s Office this A.M.; he had not understood the scope of project. He thought the project was longer in length. After a conversation with the Surveyor he understood what was to be done.


Quote as follows:

Dennis Sparks and Son Excavating: $7,600.00

JVS Excavating: $2,100.00


5. Surveyor’s estimated cost of project: $4,500.00

6. Project to include: Re-grade the water way, take the willows out for about eleven hundred (1,100) foot.

7. Dry bottom water way with a tile under it.

8. Project located in Carroll County. From Springtown Road to the County Road.

9. Both contractors quoting the project have talked to Surveyor Ward regarding the scope of work.

10. Chairman Burton asked that JVS be made clear to the scope of work that he quoted.


Board Member Heimlich made a motion to accept the Maintenance Quote of JVS Excavating of Two Thousand and One Hundred Dollars ($2,100.00) for the Crowell-Wells Project. Board Member Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried. Quote accepted.


Next on the agenda-Approve Petition for Reconstruction on the Ida Lahr Drain #556

(Viewing a computer generated map)


Surveyor Ward presented the Petition for Reconstruction of the Ida Lahr Tile Drain #556 to the White County Drainage Board.


  1. Petition requested by Robert Thompson.

  2. Petition carried by Gordon Denton.

  3. The Ida Lahr is an all tile drain.

  4. Location of drain explained to the Board. Range Line-300 East-Chalmers Black Top.

  5. Most of the water shed signed the petition.

  6. Four hundred (400) foot at the outlet has already been replaced.

  7. Size of tile eighteen (18) inch at the outlet down to a ten (10) inch.

  8. Mr. Denton feels that a lot of the tile is quartered.

  9. West side of County Road 300 does not drain well.

  10. Tile is approximately two (2) miles in length.

  11. Surveyor roughly estimated the cost of just the tile to be about one hundred and fifteen

thousand dollars ($115,000.00.) That would not include labor or engineering.


Board Member Heimlich made a motion to accept the Petition for Reconstruction on the Ida Lahr

Drain #556. Board Member David Diener seconded the motion. Motion carried. Petition approved.



Next on the agenda-E. H. JOHNSON DRAIN #549 Maintenance Modification Hearing


Surveyor Ward presented to the Board that previously the Board had set the rates at seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) an acre and a five dollar ($5.00) minimum. This rate will be for three (3) years, then return to the old rate.

  1. One (1) land owner, Robert Kelly, called the Surveyor because he thought he was assessed to

much. He was assessed on approximately 37 acres. Mr. Kelly’s feelings were that Morning Song should be paying higher maintenance because they have more run off. Looking at the water shed map the Surveyor showed that all Mr. Kelly’s acres do drain in to the E. H. Johnson Drain.

  1. Current rate of assessment is one dollars ($1.00) per acre and five dollar ($5.00) minimum.

  2. Herman Schroeder, Bill Schroeder and Mike Schroeder were attending the Hearing because

they are landowners being assessed on the E. H. Johnson Drain. The Schroeders talked about what kind of maintenance needed to be done to the ditch. Dredging to the bottom and their sewer pipes that could be under water.

  1. Herman Schroeder thought the ditch would be dug deeper than it was before. Chairman

Burton explained that by specification for maintenance it would dug to the orginial bottom only.

  1. Board Member Heimlich stated this is going to be done under Maintenance. If the depth was

going to be changed it would have to be done as a Reconstruction.

  1. No written objections. No other comments.


Chairman Burton presented to following:










Next on the agenda-The Errol Westfall Drain #651-Ron Allen


Surveyor Ward presented to the Drainage Board the following:


  1. The Errol Westfall Drain has just been cleaned.

  2. Ron Allen is present to ask that approximately the first two hundred (200) feet of the open

ditch closed in and replaced with tile. This would allow him to get his field equipment into his field easier. Mr. Allen is here asking permission to do this.

  1. Surveyor Ward explained the location of the project to the Board.

  2. This project would be approximately less than one half (½) mile of tiling.

  3. The outlet that comes in under the road is twenty-one (21) inch culvert.

  4. Mr. Allen is purposing a twenty-four (24) inch culvert.

  5. The County Regulated Tile is a fifteen (15) inch according to the Surveyor’s paper work.

  6. Location of the tile to be put in would be at approximately 200 East and 500 North.

  7. Ron Allen will cover the cost of putting a twenty-four (24) inch pipe in so the open ditch can

be closed.

  1. If granted permission to close the end of the ditch Mr. Allen would be putting in a twenty-

four inch tile. After his project is completed the responsibility of maintenance of the drain would fall back on the County Regulated Drain. The new tile drain must meet the specifications of a County Regulated Drain.

  1. There are at least three field tiles that run in that section of ditch that need to be connected to

this new twenty-four inch tile.

  1. Mr. Allen said that he understands that he would be paying the expenses to do this project.

  2. The Surveyor and Mr. Allen have talked to neighbor Kenny Latta and they both stated he has

no problem with this being done if the tile was up sized.

  1. Mr. Allen shared with Surveyor Ward that he was going to hire West Central Water

Management as the contractor for this project.

Board Member Diener made a motion to allow Mr. Allen to close that portion of the Errol

Westfall Open Ditch and replace it with a twenty-four inch tile. Provided it meets the specifications of the County. The existing tiles must be properly connected so that it does not infringe on any other property owners. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.


Next on the agenda-Discuss Better Water Building Project

(Viewing GIS)


Surveyor Ward presented to the White County Drainage Board that Better Water is adding an

addition to their current building. Surveyor Ward was given a building permit application from the Building Department asking him to sign off on County tiles and open drains in the area of this property. The question for the Board is should Better Water have a drainage plan.

  1. Better Water is located on Luse Road and Airport Road.

  2. Proposing an eight hundred (800) square foot addition. Doesn’t activate the Drainage


  1. The proposed addition’s run off would all go west to the ad-joiner’s property.

  2. All downspouts on the roof just surface drain off into the yard.

  3. Do they need a Drainage Plan?

  4. The existing building was there before the Drainage Ordinance went into play so they

didn’t have a drainage plan then.

  1. Where they are building now is on grass so the run off does go onto the neighbor.

  2. A building permit has not been issued, waiting for the Surveyor to sign off on the


  1. No County Drains in the area.

  2. Water runs down the side ditch on Airport Road until it gets to about the airport then

into a catch basin.

  1. Board Member Diener asked, with the airport expansion and Luse Road being closed

does that have an effect on this drainage? The answer was the water would still go there unless the Airport has put tile in.

  1. Surveyor explained the location of the property that would be affected by the run off

from Better Water.

  1. Board Member Heimlich stated the issue is that all the water is running off on the

neighbor now.

  1. Attorney Loy spoke, “You may invoke the previsions of the Drainage Ordinance if you

wish. It is not triggered by the square footage but you can if you want to require a drainage plan.”

  1. The issues you get into with a drainage plans that requires a plan being submitted. There

is a fee involved and the County appointed Engineer must review the plans.

  1. Talk of the expense of a drainage plan to the property owner.

  2. Much talk of how the landowners would access their properties when Luse Road is


  1. Board suggestion: Better Water should redirect the water to the east in order to be a good



Board Member Diener made a motion in lieu of a drainage plan that Better Water provides drainage to the east and if the Surveyor feels that is adequate let them get their building permit. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.


Next on the agenda-Big Creek Drain #508-Art Anderson

(Viewing a computer generated map)


Surveyor Ward presented Mr. Anderson’s issue to the Drainage Board.


1. Surveyor Ward and Mr. Anderson met at the site of the issues.

2. Surveyor Ward discussed location of problems on Art Anderson’s property.

3. There is a wash on the north bank of the ditch of on Mr. Anderson’s property which is depositing sediment on the south bank.

4. The ditch was dredged sometime in the 50’s. The big flood of 1958 took out the ford and the bridge that allowed the farmer to get to his property.

5. There is also a large wash on this ditch where it goes through the property of Mr. Anderson’s brother.

6. Mr. Anderson talked about how the ditch has changed over the years and how much damage was done by the 1958 flood. Now it is starting to cut into the field.

7. Mr. Anderson feels all the damage was caused by the original dredging in 1954 or 1956.

8. Chairman Burton asked if that part of the ditch is regulated. Surveyor Ward replied that it is regulated.

10. Discussed the removal of the log jam and beaver dam that Contractor Sparks is removing from the ditch downstream from Mr. Anderson’s issues.

11. All of these issues are difficult areas to reach in order to do repairs.

12. Chairman Burton asked Mr. Anderson what he was asking the Board for. His reply was to fix the wall where ditch is washed out and you really need to replace the bridge.

13. Chairman Burton said there are two points, the corners should be manicured.

14. Much discussion on how the ditch has changed, how to repair, how to even get to the sites to do repairs and the cost of the repairs.

15. The maintenance fund has about sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) in it at this time.

16. Mr. Anderson also brought up about the bridge on the Chalmers Black Top on the west side the pillars are probably in need of repair. Mr. Anderson thinks this issue needs to be checked.

17. Chairman Burton asked Surveyor Ward to look into the above issues and see if he could get some numbers together and on what may or may not be possible. The north wash being the priority on doing repairs to the numerous washes that are on the Big Creek Ditch.

18. The Schroeders had talked to the Surveyor about putting stone-concrete-rip-rap in the corner of the Big Creek Ditch to repair a wash that they have on their property. This concrete will be used by the contractor to repair the wash. The Surveyor will send a work order to DeVault Farms.


Next on the agenda-Emmet Rayman Drain #572-Norbert Pilotte-Issue with Private Crossing


Surveyor Ward stated, “Next you have the Emmet Rayman Drain. Norbert is here to discuss that again. I came up with a rough number. Depending on how much work had to be done to tear out the concrete bridge. About fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) just a ballpark. If you had to haul it away, there are some variable there. That was just rough numbers. That includes the pipe cost. I think the last Board Meeting they said that it had to be a five (5) but it should be a seven (7). That is what the two (2) east and west are five (5) foot pipes. It needs to be a least seven (7), eight (8) would probably be better. The two landowners to the east and west have seven (7).”

Chairman Burton replied, “Again this was talked about the last meeting. You did do a little research on this bridge from past records?”

Surveyor Ward replied, “Yes, do you have copies of those minutes?”

Chairman Burton answered, “Right.”

Attorney Loy asked, “Are those minutes from 1980 and 1985-1986?”

Chairman Burton replied, “Right and that kind of answered some of the questions that were asked at the last meeting that were in the minutes. One thing from the last meeting if you would. I would like to clarify our Attorney reference to responsibility of private crossings. The term “may” the County may.”

Attorney Loy replied, “May, as part of the maintenance or reconstruction project “may” included the cost but assessed against the landowner.”

Chairman Burton asked Mr. Pilotte if he could hear in the back. Mr. Pilotte was seated in the back of the room. Mr. Pilotte replied, “Barely.”

Chairman Burton continued, “That was something I was basing my decisions off of is to answer the question. Is it the County’s responsibility to repair or replace crossings that is the question that I’m asking.”

Attorney Loy replied, “The threshold question is does it have to be replaced? Does the County want it replaced? The Law is very clear and again it is just what I said the last time. The replacement of a private crossing when necessary can be accomplished in a reconstruction or a maintenance project. But the estimate for the cost of the replacement is assessed to the land that is serviced by the crossing.”

Chairman Burton asked, “The water shed or that land owner?”

Attorney Loy answered. “No, that land owner.”

Chairman Burton asked, “That land owner?”

Attorney Loy answered, “The land owner pays for it. It was my recollection from reading those minutes this isn’t the first time this request has been made.”

Chairman Burton continued, “From what I’m familiar with and from what he is reading there if you would like to have the crossing replaced. The County would assist you with in replacing it but the cost of that replacement would be your responsibility. Am I correct?”

Attorney Loy replied, “Through assessments. You may it is permissive it is not required but you may assess it against all land. But the starting point is that it is assessed against the land that is serviced by the crossing.”

Chairman Burton stated, “That is how I’m viewing it just how our counselor has presented it.”

Norbert Pilotte spoke, “Reconstruction is what caused the problem to start with in eighty-five (85).”

Board Member Diener asked, “Did you get a copy of the minutes from July 1st, 1986 when you first came to the Drainage Board. You told them that their reconstruction damaged your bridge. They told you that the bridge is your responsibility and they would not participate in funding it.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “I don’t know….Jim Milligan drove pilings down there.”

Board Member Diener continued, “Without sounding mean spirited you are looking for someone to replace your crossing at their expense as opposed to your expense.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “All I’m asking is to share the expense.”

Board Member Diener continued, “To share expenses. That must have been what you asked for twenty-six (26) years ago. Because in the minutes it said at that time the abutments were cracked and you felt it was the County’s responsibility to replace it. They told you then that it was not.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “I never asked them to replace it. I asked them to fix it. They did and it held. It stayed until you cleaned it out again and it went down deeper. Deeper than the last time. It is three and one half (3½) feet deeper than what it was, where the water use to run.”

Board Member Heimlich asked “The dredging was in eighty-five (85)?”

Surveyor Ward replied, “I think they did the reconstruction in 1979 or 1980. Must have been late eighties. There was a Board Meeting held September 9, 1980.”

(At this point the Board Members are viewing copies of the minutes from 1980 and 1986. Copy of those minutes in the Emmet Rayman Ditch file.)

Board Member Heimlich reading from the above minutes. Mr. Pilotte’s objection from September 9, 1980 minutes as follows:


Bob: Three people filed for objections. One was from Norbert Pilotte. Apparently he is not here.


White County Drainage Board,

This letter is to inform you that I believe I have been over assessed on my share of the

Ditch. I do not intend to pay to clean the other sections of the ditch. I cleared the brush and trees from my 80 rods and maintain brush and weed control yearly.

I see by the assessment there has been no allowance what so ever. I do intend to fight this matter until it is resolved.

Also the matter of my bridge being washed under and left to settle; from the ditch being dredged deeper through the years. Norbert Pilotte


Jim: We will take care of that bridge, it will be under paying.

Bob: Will you pass that down.

Jim: And I think probably, he has a legitimate gripe. He probably should get some relief on that,

on his brush assessment.

Don: That was agreed that we would reimburse or take care of the brush situation.

Jim: He doesn’t have any now, because he does maintain it himself.

Don: Consideration is always taken on this brush thing.


Board Member Heimlich stated, “It starts out we will take care of the bridge but I don’t understand under paying.”

Board Member Diener stated, “I think the under paying had to do with that Mr. Pilotte objected to paying because he had cleared the ditch on his eighty (80) rods of property. So what they were going to do was assess him at a lower amount since he had cleaned that area. So, I think paying was the correct term.”

Board Member Heimlich said, “It starts out that he will take care of that bridge, I don’t understand.”

Board Member Diener replied, “Which may have been what he is talking about if they did a repair then but that was in the minutes of 1980. Then he came back again in 1986 for more repairs. That is the only thing you can get based on the time frame. Maybe they did something to repair it once and then because they refer to a five year period.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “They never did anything, only the one time.”

Board Member Diener asked, “Would that have been in eighty (80) or eighty-five or eight-six (85-86)?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “I would say eighty-five (85).”

Board Member Diener replied, “I understand, I have trouble remembering yesterday.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “That was a long time ago.”

Board Member Diener continued, “It appears in the minutes in eighty-six (86) they sort of turned you down. But it looks like in the eighty (80) minutes they agreed to do something to help you.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “That is when they drove the piling in.”

Board Member Heimlich replied, “So in the 1980s is when then drove the piling in.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “When the extended the ditch is when they drove the piling in.”

Chairman Burton stated, “Which would have been eighty (80).”

Board Member Heimlich replied, “That makes sense then.”

Board Member Diener continued, “From the time frame. Part of this issue, the elephant in the room, is that you can say this is something that happened in nineteen eighty (1980) and they tried to help you. In nineteen eighty-six (1986) they turned you down and you are back in two thousand and twelve (2012). If we start going back and repairing every crossing of private owners that has a problem from thirty (30), forty (40) or fifty (50) years ago we are setting a precedent that is going to be very difficult to follow.”

Mr. Pilotte said, “Water use to run across the top of that abutment and did for years. I said, like I told you the last time, I helped build that bridge. I know when it was put in there. I know where the footing was at and the water ran over the top of them until they did the reconstruction. That is when they first dug underneath and they drove the piling.”

Attorney Loy interjected, “The Law hasn’t changed it is still the owner’s responsibility.”

Chairman Burton replied, “Which after they reconstructed it we had a new legal description of where the bottom of that ditch was and that is what we are going by. That is how it was cleaned a year ago was by the current description of that ditch. That is where I said we had Brad go out. Check the depth there to see if it was in reasonable description of what the bottom of the ditch was. Brad was satisfied that it was properly cleaned to what we determined is the legal description of that.”

Mr. Pilotte stated, “The bottom of that ditch right now, because I measured it too, it is three and one half (3½) foot deeper than it was.”

Chairman Burton replied, “Well, we cleaned the ditch.”

Mr. Pilotte said, “You reconstructed it, when you added the extra mile on is when you dug it down.”

Chairman Burton continued, “That became the new bottom, there is no old. The number you are referencing to is not the current description of the legal bottom of that ditch. That is what I’m going with today that is within legal, not legal, that is within reasonable cleaning depth when it was cleaned a year ago of where it should be.”

Mr. Pilotte continued, “The piling stayed up there straight. I was still driving my trucks across in 05 when I quit. It sure didn’t look like then what it does now. The piling is going over. Until this was cleaned out the piling stayed straight. It is not anymore.”

Chairman Burton asked for advice from the Board at this point saying, “My feeling is that I am going off past precedents is that private crossings are the responsibility of the landowner. We have had a history of to where we have replaced them. As council has suggested they have been replaced and that particular landowner has reimbursed the County for the replacement of that crossing. That is where I’m going to make my judgment from. I will ask for additional comments either for or against.”

Board Member Diener asked, “Is that what you would like us to do is replace the bridge and then assess you for it?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “All I ask is you help share the expense of putting something else back in where I can get across to farm the other side of my farm.”

Board Member Diener asked, “By share the expense are you asking us to pay part of the expense?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Yeah, because of destruction of property.”

Attorney Loy stated, “I am just the Lawyer, I am not a voting member. The County did not destroy any of your property.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “They under mined it. If I go out a dig under your barn and it falls in, I can go out and do that then, I would not be responsible for it?”

Board Member Diener said, “I could see several recourses against you for the damage you did to me.”

Mr. Pilotte continued, “You damaged me, you are not responsible for that, same difference.”

Attorney Loy replied, “No, the short answer to your question is no, but I am just the lawyer.”

Board Member Diener continued, “If we didn’t have in the minutes record of this issue existing twenty-six (26) years ago and you asking for the same thing then when it was denied I perhaps could have some sympathy.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “They fixed it. They fixed it when I asked them.”

Board Member Diener replied, “That was thirty-two (32) years ago. I mean at some point in time you have to assume responsibility for your crossing. As every other landowner in the County has to assume responsibility for their crossing. Mr. Allen this morning he is paying to put in a tile to create a crossing for himself. He is paying for that, he didn’t ask us to pay for it. He could have and we would have said no. I think that is where we are at now. We can have sympathy for your issue but we are not responsible for private crossings.”

Attorney Loy asked, “Have you consulted with an Attorney of your own choosing? I suggest doing that.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “I think I will. If that is the way you are going to be.”

Board Member Heimlich asked, “I guess I don’t understand where you said the County fixed it before. But something has happened now that we need to fix it again?”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “Because they removed more dirt this time and pulled it away from the piling so the bridge has settled down and pushed the piling. That is why I am saying you fix that.”

Board Member Heimlich said, “That gets back, the dredging now is the same as back in the eighties.”

Mr. Pilotte asked, “How come in the last year the piling has laid over? Just in the last year.

The piling stayed straight all these years and now it is laying over at a forty-five (45) degree angle.”

Board Member Diener answered, “It was not straight in nineteen eighty (1980) and it wasn’t straight in nineteen eighty-six (1986) or you wouldn’t have been here then. When you say it was straight all these years, I am sorry.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “I said they drove the piling in back in the eighties after you reconstructed and lower the bottom of the ditch. Jim put the piling in there and it held the bank and kept it from washing out underneath.”

Board Member Heimlich asked, “That was in eighty (80) or eighty-one (81) right?”

Mr. Pilotte answered, “No, in eighty (80).”

Board Member Heimlich replied, “Then you were in eighty-six (86) asking for repair again.”

Mr. Pilotte answered, “They only repaired it once.”

Chairman Burton stated, “I think we just need to give him a decision and that is going to be it.”

Board Member Diener said, “I would make a motion that we appreciate his problem but it is his problem it is not our problem. So, I would deny relief or request for repair. I think what he is asking for is for us to fix his crossing that is the initial request.”

Mr. Pilotte stated, “Assist.”

Board Member Diener replied, “Assist, we can assist. We can actually do it then you will be assessed for it. Which I don’t think that is what you want.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “That is not what I want.”

Board Member Diener made a motion to deny relief, request for repairs, or assist in repairing Mr. Pilotte’s private crossing. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Mr. Pilotte asked, “So are you going to tell me what have to put in there then?”

Surveyor Ward answered, “Yeah, I will tell you.”

Mr. Pilotte asked, “If you can’t help me how can you give me the order to do it?”

Surveyor Ward answered, “You can leave the bridge in there, I guess.”

Mr. Pilotte asked, “When it blocks the water then what?”

Attorney Loy replied, “Then that is your responsibility to unblock it. The Law is very clear. I am not making this up and neither is the Board. I am not trying to be rude at all. What we are telling you is what the Law is.”

Mr. Pilotte asked, “I don’t believe the Law says you can destroy people’s property or undermine people’s property.”

Attorney Loy continued, “As Mr. Diener pointed out that is the same thing you said in nineteen eight-six (1986). The Board at the time said and accurately so said that the damage whatever you want to describe it is just normal wear and tear of the drain. This is how these drains-ditches do this. It is the same augment that you made in nineteen eighty-six (1986). The Law has not changed the Law is still the same; it is your responsibility for your crossing maintenance. If it falls in and blocks the… are not the only person that has a private crossing across regulated ditches in White County.”

Mr. Pilotte replied, “No, there is one on both sides of me.”

Attorney Loy stated, “I don’t know how many there are but there are a bunch of them and everybody maintains them. If they become blocked it is that landowner’s responsibility to clear it. That is reasonable and that is the Law.”


Next item discussed-a Possible Drainage Review on the Lehe Property


Surveyor Ward asked the Board about the possibility of waiving a Drainage Review on the Lehe property. He had a call from the FBI builder, Brian Culp asking if there was a need for a drainage review.


  1. The Lehe’s are going to put a pole building on their property.

  2. Location of project 1150 South.

  3. Unknown time frame when it will be built.

  4. Building would be approximately 100’x100’ with approximately an acre of stone.

  5. Lehe’s own the one hundred and sixty (160) acres around were the building would be


  1. When the Drainage Ordinance was adopted number five (5) was kind of the definition of

a waiver. The landowner owning the surrounding land and the drainage will only affect that landowner.

  1. A waiver could be granted for this project.


Next to speak-David Kent-Victor Tile


David Kent was at the meeting to check on the progress of the Victor Drain that he has asked to be cleaned.

  1. Surveyor Ward is working on it.

  2. He has been in contact Tony Cain to do the work.

  3. Surveyor Ward needs to contact the Lehe’s about getting across their property.

  4. Mr. Kent wanted to know if the project would go all the way to creek.

  5. The Surveyor said he didn’t think so, just far enough to get the tiles out of the water.

  6. The legal description of the Victor Drain goes all the way to Moots Creek.

  7. Will need the get a petition on the project if work needs to be done further because of cost of removing numerous trees, etc.

  8. Mr. Kent asked about spraying the ditch, straightening out the ditch and removing the


  1. Chairman Burton told him let us work on the dipping out first and see what happens.

  2. Mr. Kent had a second question on this tile. The same tile on him is quartered and

requires frequent repairs.

  1. Mr. Kent would like a new tile put in that area if some good tile could be found to hook

into with the new.

  1. Mr. Kent gave the Board a drawing of the area that he thought was in need of a new tile

on the Victor Drain.


Next to speak-Herman Schroeder


  1. Mr. Schroeder was under the impression that the Dieter Ditch was on the agenda.

  2. The petition for maintenance has been approved.

  3. The Dieter Ditch is on the Surveyor’s list of future maintenance projects.

  4. Time element of the project being let will probably be with in the year.


Next to speak-Drainage Assistant Sterrett


Drainage assistant Mary Sterrett asked the Board for permission to return County Line Tiling/Excavating performance cashier’s check in the amount of $18,250.00, on the Kellenburger Tile. Work has been completed and eighty-five percent (85%) of his contract has been paid. The other fifteen

percent (15%) will be held for sixty days. The Board gave permission for the cashier’s check to be returned to County Line Tiling/Excavating.


Chairman Burton adjourned the March 5th, 2012 White County Drainage Board Meeting.