Get Adobe Flash player


August 19, 2002 Tape #016

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 Ronald A. Schmierer, O. D. “Bud” Ferguson and John C. Heimlich, Attorney George W. Loy, Surveyor Dennis W. Sterrett, and Secretary Romana Kiser in attendance.


Others attending the meeting were Marlin Hunt, Willadean Delaney, Mark and Chris Heiny, Joseph H. Hines, Wayne & Becky Hunt, Pauline Andrews, Leta Tam, Claude Butt, Joanne Hall, Ralph Hall, Tim Hall, Verne Wilson, Jerry E. Ruch, Robert L. Mitchell, Jeff Bonnell, Alice Hare, Ted Ward, Steve Rosentreter, David Tolley, Patti Tolley, Bob Roth, Don MacOwan, Gary Cosgray, Mike McLeland, Tony Cain, Larry Downey, Charlie Mellon and Engineer David Finley of Samuel L. Moore & Associates.


Chairman Schmierer opened the Reconstruction Hearing on the Carter-Hines Drain project in Cass Township, White County, Indiana. He stated that after several meetings this meeting today is to get the project started to we can get some quotes and get it done. He said there are several landowners here that have been wanting this done for several years and we are finally going to get there.


Engineer David Finley reviewed the plans for the project for the large group of landowners who were present. Mr. Finley stated, “I work for Samuel Moore & Associates and we are the design contractor for the project. Essentially what we are planning on doing is reconstructing the Carter-Hines drainage system starting at County Road 600 North and we’re going to be going up the main stem past State Road 16 and around to where it joins the Moss and Delaney Branch. We are doing the Moss and Delaney Branch to here (indicated on map) and Branch 1 of Moss and Delaney over to County Road 1400 East and a little bit up along the side of the County Road. We’ll be doing Branch 1 of the Carter-Hines all the way up to County Road 1450 East. And then, Branch 1 of Branch 1 past County Road 1450 East and a little bit past State Road 16. Altogether, we are going to be reconstructing seven lineal miles of drain, about six and a half of that is going to involve some kind of excavation, and nearly all of it is going to involve some level of removal of trees or brush from the banks of the channel. Parts of the drain have, especially down close to County Road 600 North you have thirty inch trees growing down in the channel, a lot of very heavy vegetation in the area. You also have, going on up on Carter-Hines on Branch 1 by CR 1400 and 1450, there’s quite a bit of debris and brush to be removed from the channel. We’re going to be doing that and we are also going to grade the channel and try to maintain consistent downward slope from the top of the project down to County Road 600. I will say that we have looked at the structures, the culverts that are in the system, and tried to minimize as much as we could in the design of the project the replacement of culverts. Anything that wasn’t judged adequate for a ten year flow is on the list to be replaced. Beyond that, anything that wasn’t absolutely necessary was left in place. There are two structures that we are going to replace just so we could meet grade and have a consistent slope going through, otherwise if we didn’t have to do that, we didn’t do it. The other thing we did in the design of the project was to attempt to minimize the amount of excavation required. We tried to go down as little as possible. We just recently completed a project on Ackerman Drain where we ran into a problem with a layer of fine, the contractor called it sugar sand, and we had some problems with sluffing on the ditch banks. We’re trying to avoid that by keeping our depth of excavation to a minimum, just what it takes to get the water to go downhill. As far as which side we are going to work on, what we are planning on doing is having the contractor contact the property owners in the project and coordinate with them. So, there’s nothing in the plans that says ‘you work from this side of from that side’. All it does is say the contractor is supposed to be contacting you and coordinating with you which side he works on and where he stacks the debris, where he puts the spoil, all that kind of stuff. The only thing, it says in the plans that he is going to comply with your wishes as much as he can as long as it doesn’t make a hardship on him in executing the project. In a nutshell this is what the project is going to be.”


David Finley continued, “Cost-wise, total cost of reconstruction, not including structure replacement, those will be paid for either by the State (SR 16) or County Roads or property owners who have to get a field crossing, the cost of the project totally is $156,000.00 plus or minus and comes out to a per acre assessment in the watershed of $12.71. What I would like to do at the conclusion of the meeting is, I’d like you to have the opportunity to look at the plans. The one thing we were not able to address in the design was the elevation of your tile outfalls. I know there are two people I have talked to that said their tile outfalls are partially or totally buried along certain parts of the ditch and we want to make sure that we are excavating enough, even though we are trying to minimize how much we are excavating, we want to make sure we’re doing enough that the tiles are going to be open and free when the project is done. So we would appreciate if, if you are concerned about that, if you will come and see me. We have the plans here, we’ll put them up and take a look at it and make sure we are doing for you what needs to be done. That’s the project. At this time I would be happy to entertain any questions you might have.”


Larry Downey asked what the difference is between the number of acres in a tract and benefited acres. David Finley answered that the benefited acres are the acres in the watershed. He said the assessments were handled in the Surveyor’s office. Surveyor Sterrett looked at the assessment letters and Mr. Downey was asked to come to the Surveyor’s office for further explanation.


Claude Butt asked what is the extent of the brush removal and what is the cost of the brush removal. David Finley answered that basically what we are doing, we are going to cut down all the trees. Claude Butt asked, “Both side?” Mr. Finley answered, “Both sides.” Chairman Schmierer stated, “We will take down the trees that are in the way of the ditch on both sides, but we’ll clean one side. We can leave one side of the ditch untouched as long as the trees aren’t a hazard to the ditch. You know what I’m talking about, we have done that before. We don’t rake the ground off, we don’t do that. We have too many guys that like the conservation part of it so we don’t do that.” David Finley replied, “Ok.” Chairman Schmierer stated, “If we do leave it, it has to be back out of the way of the ditch. It has to be so the tree doesn’t fall down in the ditch, it has to be back out of the way of the ditch.” David Finley stated, “We are talking about twenty feet from top of the bank at this point in the design. There’s places where there are fairly shallow roots and trees are falling into the ditch all the time and we are trying to eliminate or minimize that.”


One landowner asked if there is maintenance on the ditch now. The answer is yes. She asked why all the trees and stuff is grown up. Chairman Schmierer answered that it hasn’t been maintained. He said, “Spraying hasn’t been done on it. The ditch we just reconstructed, we sprayed when we got it done to try to stop this. That’s what we’re trying to do with all of this reconstruction.”


Claude Butt stated that his question didn’t get completely answered. He said, “If I understand, both sides would be cleaned back. One would be twenty feet and the other is going to be cleared to get the digger through there.” Chairman Schmierer indicated that was correct. Claude asked what is the cost of brush removal? David Finley answered, “Right now we are looking at a total cost on seven miles at about $44,700.00, that’s round numbers. The cost estimate is not that tightly figured out. We look at what contractors have charged in the past. The cost is an estimate. When the project is done, your assessment is based on the actual cost of the project. We tried to estimate it just a little high so you wouldn’t get a shock when the final bill came through. We try to give you some reality, hopefully some relief when the final bill comes through, hopefully when the final bill comes through it won’t be quite as high as we’re saying it is going to be.”


Steve Rosentreter asked, “The maintenance money that we have here, none of that will apply to the reconstruction?” Chairman Schmierer answered that we haven’t put any of it towards reconstruction. He said the reason why we didn’t is that when we had the landowners meeting last time it was discussed that there is a lot of brush on (south) beyond CR 600 N that needs removed and we are planning on using a portion of that to do some removing of brush on that area. He said we will probably come back and do it in the spring, we agreed to that at a landowners meeting.


Don MacOwan asked, “What are you going to do about this on down where it goes into the lake on down this way. You’re shoving all that water down faster naturally. You get it all cleaned out and the stuff down here at the other end it’s the same old story there’s never money in the fund to do anything about it.” Chairman Schmierer said, “There is money in the fund to do something about it or it could’ve been included in this. You’re going to have to explain to me where you’re talking about.” Don MacOwan explained, “The same one that goes down through Billy Geier down on SR 39 and wraps on around and goes north of the Zion Bethel Church, down in that way.” Chairman Schmierer said he thought that was cleaned about eight years ago. He asked how far down they went with that. Someone answered that went to CR 550.


Board Member Heimlich stated that it may not be regulated all the way down on that end. Patty Tolley stated that DNR owns part of it and you can’t touch it. Board Member Heimlich stated that a lot of times the last portion before it gets into the lake isn’t regulated.


Down MacOwan asked, “How do you get assessed on this where you have wetlands that you can’t do anything with, how do you get assessed on that?” Attorney Loy asked, “Do you have designated wetlands in the area that are being assessed?” (Mr. MacOwan said that is correct). How many acres?” Mr. MacOwan stated he has nine. Attorney Loy stated we would have to check on that. Mr. MacOwan said they are on a contributory (Riffel Drain) that dumps in to the Carter-Hines. Attorney Loy asked him to stop in at the Surveyor’s office after the meeting so Attorney Loy and the Surveyor could take a look at it. Attorney Loy said, “I’m not saying that it is exempt but we can at least take a look at it.”


Claude Butt said, “I want to go on record, and I think some of my neighbors do, too, that we’re opposed to having to pay for brush removal on that particular stream. The reason being down where I come from we take care of our ditches. In that territory it looks like they have been neglected for fifty or sixty years. One of the best resources they have. You talk to an agronomist, the best return on your money is drainage to make you land work for you. They haven’t recognized that resource. They basically have abandoned it and didn’t take care of it and now we have to pay a penalty for a welfare project. I don’t think it is right. The ultimate solution would be that the landowners pay for their brush removal for the ditch that goes through them.”


Wayne Hunt stated, “I’ll agree with that. Our ditches are all cleaned down on the Hines Ditch and I went up there with the County Surveyor and that is a mess up there. It hasn’t been cleaned for thirty or forty years. We shouldn’t have to pay for that. That’s not part of our deal.”


Mark Heiny stated, “I’m forty-two years old and if that brush is older than me how could I have cut it?”


Gary Cosgray asked when was the ditch cleaned the last time. Chairman Schmierer thought it was in the thirties, maybe 1938. Gary Cosgray said no, it was cleaned when he was a child in the 1950’s or early 60’s. He said he was nine or ten years old, he grew up on that ditch and they cleaned one side of it off then.


Claude Butt stated that they hadn’t waited for the County to take responsibility for maintenance. David Finley stated in the future they need to ask the County to clean it out of maintenance money. He said that is the whole purpose of the Ditch Act to begin with is so that the property owners on the ditch in common work together on the maintenance. He said he understood that they bore the cost of that themselves, but that really is why you pay in to the maintenance fund and when you have a problem you need to deal with the County. Claude Butt said the maintenance funds didn’t exist back when this problem started and people should’ve had the foresight to take care of their situation.


Boyd Criswell asked how far back on the branch ditches (that aren’t being done in the project) are going to go. David Finley answered, “What we have in the plans, we aren’t going to go up those ditches hardly at all. We are going to put down filter fabric and rip rap create a hard point so they won’t erode back. I think what we’ll do is we will give the contractor his option to either build those rip rap hard points so they won’t erode or else we will let him do what they always do, what they would rather do, go ahead and dredge up that branch to a certain distance so it doesn’t just drop off. To answer your question how far, I wouldn’t have an answer for you at the moment.


Mr. Criswell stated that Branch 3 was petitioned to be cleaned and they took it off the project. He said it backs up on his land sometimes two hundred feet or more, his beans were planted late and they still drowned out. Chairman Schmierer stated he did not know that Branch 3 was petitioned and taken off, it still might be on file and we still might be going to work on it as a separate deal. Mr. Criswell asked if the rest of the people on the ditch were going to pay for that ditch when it is cleaned. Chairman Schmierer stated, “All the branches are assessed on the Carter-Hines.” Mark Heiny explained that Mr. Criswell is asking if he petitions his ditch next year, are all of the people involved in this project going to be involved in his project. Chairman Schmierer stated, “What we have done in the past before I ever came on the Board, when it was worked on the last time George Milligan was the Surveyor at that time, what was done was everybody on the Carter-Hines paid for it. You paid up there on what was done down here and now they’re paying down here on what’s done up here. Everybody on the ditch has always paid on the total.” Mark Heiny asked, “On the branches too?” Chairman Schmierer stated yes. Mark Heiny said, “When they did branch work down there we got billed for that?” Chairman Schmierer said, “I’m sure, some of that branch work was done under maintenance.” Someone spoke up and said the landowners paid for some branch work they had done last year themselves.


Gary Cosgray reported that after the completion of one ditch project (Burget Branch 5 and Nancy Hall Branch 2) that landowners were to stay ten feet back from the ditch bank and they are not doing that, everybody is right back to the top of the bank. Someone asked who is supposed to grass it. Gary Cosgray said that the landowners are supposed to, it was in the deal that way, it wasn’t the contractor. Mark Heiny said he has not done that. Gary said that the Board said they would have to be told if it wasn’t done so he was telling them now that it hasn’t been done. He suggested this fall the Board go out and take pictures, whatever you have to do, to see what they have done, to correct this. Mark Heiny said his grass just looks like beans. Gary Cosgray said that’s why we cleaned the ditch and we don’t want to have to do it again, if everybody would stay back off the top of the ditch and not farm down in the ditches. He said it just silts back in, that ditch is going to be a mess again back up at the end where you boys just farm right across that little waterway at Mackey’s. Boyd Criswell said that has all been reconstructed this last year. Gary Cosgray asked if they grassed it in. Boyd Criswell said not yet, we haven’t had time.


Mark Heiny asked, “You’re saying that all branches that contribute into the Carter-Hines Ditch are being paid for by everybody involved.” Chairman Schmierer said, “Everybody is paying on this one here, everybody paid before and everybody is paying now, that’s the way they’ve always done it.” Mark Heiny said, “I feel like we have two projects going on under one here. We discussed that the last time.” Chairman Schmierer said he knows we did. Mark Heiny said, “Two-thirds of the cost if the Main and one-third of the cost is those branches.”


Joe Hines asked if this included the Burget ditch. Conversation between Mr. Hines and Mr. Finley is inaudible. See Tape.


Chairman Schmierer stated that the reason we figured the project, branches and main, all together was to try to get it done. Mark Heiny said, “You’re telling me down the road if we come in and petition our branches that everybody involved in this whole project is going to pay on those petitioned branches.” Chairman Schmierer answered that is what we have been trying to do. Mark Heiny said, “I don’t have a problem with it there, but if we come down a little later down the road and I have branches that need done, that we do it under that assumption.” Chairman Schmierer said, “I can tell you we can do that, but I might not be here when you need it done.” Mark Heiny said the understands that.


Verne Wilson asked who decided that everyone who drains into the Carter-Hines basin is responsible for all these ditches? He said, “I would think that wherever you drain into, from there to the outlet which would be the lake, would be where you are responsible for. Up until about the last ten years the branches did not pay on the Carter-Hines. So about ten years ago somebody changed that idea, whether it was you guys or the State I don’t know.” Someone asked, shouldn’t we all pay for the Main?” Verne Wilson said, “You should pay for the Main from where you empty in to it, why should we pay for the Main way up in Cass County?” Discussion between Wilson and Heiny inaudible at times, see tape.


Mark Heiny said, “Here’s how my vote is, my vote goes that we all pay for the Main, all the acres that drain into a certain branch get assessed to that branch, instead of al of us paying for each branch we pay for on our own.” Verne Wilson said, “That doesn’t benefit us down there on the other branches. I’ve got three branches that goes through me. I pay all three branches on to the Carter-Hines.” Mark Heiny said, “He’s telling us that we helped pay for your branches.” Chairman Schmierer said, “When they did the work on the Carter-Hines on the lower end everybody on the drain paid on it.” Verne Wilson said, “That’s true, but that was only done within the last ten years. Prior to that the branches wasn’t involved, they were on their own.”


Boyd Criswell said, “Last fall we paid for our down ditch and the acres that drain in to it helped pay for it, but the Main ditch we didn’t pay on.” (That was the Burget Branch 5 and Nancy Hall Branch 2 project. They were separated out and put on separate maintenance at that time. Then it was done as a maintenance project.)


Doyne Nethercutt spoke, “Gary Cosgray just said that the ditch branch that goes up through me isn’t included on that map. I didn’t catch it. It starts a little bit north of CR 600.” Chairman Schmierer said that is Branch 3 and you’re right, it is not included. Gary Cosgray said if you’re going to do it why not do all the branches now and not come back and do it five years from now. Another landowner answered that it would cost too much money. David Finley said he couldn’t tell them why Branch 3 was not included. Chairman Schmierer said that Engineer Frauhiger and Surveyor Raderstorf went out and worked on this and the costs just kept getting bigger and bigger sot hey stopped with this. He said let’s face it, this is a very large project and it has needed done for some time.


Boyd Criswell and Doyne Nethercutt both stated that they signed to get Branch 3 cleaned. At this point Secretary Kiser stated she thought that Branch 3 was on a separate petition and she went to the Surveyor’s Office records and presented two separate petitions. Chairman Schmierer explained that there is one for Branch 1 and Branch 1 of 1 filed in 1998 and that is the one we are working on now. He said the separate petition for Branch 3 was filed in 1999. He said we probably should’ve included Branch 3 in the project. He said they will try to get it worked on as quick as we can. Chairman Schmierer said, “Now, we can either sit back and do nothing or we can move forward.”


Claude Butt asked David Finley, “What is the estimated life of this project when it is once done, and second part, will the fact that things aren’t done downstream shorten the life of it?” David Finley said he would answer the second question first saying, “If we don’t get to the downstream reaches on the south side of CR 600 North within two or three years you’re going to see some back up in the ditches on the north side (of CR 600 North). That’s going to create some problems in the long run. The life expectancy of the project? Not something I am really able to answer with any real certainty. It depends partly on how often the County comes out and maintains the ditch before things get our of hand.”


Chairman Schmierer stated, “One of the things we will do with it, as long as I am here, we will spray it. We’re spraying every year. Denny (Sterrett) and I went out his spring and we actually tried to sight see the majority of the drains in the County and we have a good spray program. We started it in the last three or four years. If you spray it, it’s going to last a lot longer. If it is in muck, we can’t do anything about that, we can’t control that.”


Claude Butt asked if the commissioners don’t take an interest in maintaining the drains, is there any legal way the landowners can be forced to get out there and keep his drains cleaned. Chairman Schmierer answered that there is no way. Chairman Schmierer said, “Going back to what Gary Cosgray was saying, in a landowners meeting we agreed that they were going to sow the grass back and stay ten feet off of the ditch (Burget Br. 5 & Nancy Hall Br. 2) It can’t be enforced unless we are notified. Legally we have a seventy-five foot right-of-way from top of bank on both sides of that ditch. I can take you to some counties where they do not farm seventy-five feet of that ground on top of the ditch. I’d hate to see that have to come to that in this county, but there are counties, Jasper County is one of them, you don’t farm. You can drive along side their ditches any place you want to drive, you don’t farm up to that ditch.”


Claude Butt said he thinks we need to have the vision that if it is not taken care of by those people up there we are going to be right back in the same situation a few years down the road. Chairman Schmierer said that it WILL be sprayed, there’s no sense doing it if we aren’t going to maintain it.


Board Member Heimlich told Claude Butt, “Claude, it needs to be done out of maintenance. And you said what if you have some commissioners that aren’t interested in it, then I think that is up to you to come and MAKE them interested in it. That’s the way to get it done. The problem with, and I sympathize with what you’re saying about the cost being unfair to the people that have cut their brush or sprayed it and maintained their part of the ditch, but at this point I don’t know how you correct that in a project like this. You say well, a stretch of ditch that hasn’t been maintained, make that landowner pay for the brush removal. The problem is, you may be penalizing the guy that has the ditch going trough him whereas there could be 300 or 400 acres back there that drain right through him to the ditch that you’re not making them responsible for. That’s why is has to be done as a group, and that’s what the Court Drain laws are for, is how they’re supposed to work. You see what I am saying?”


Claude Butt answered, “I think so, but I personally have gone out and manned the chain saw myself and fired up the sprayer and I knew it wasn’t going to get done unless I did it myself or I stopped by the Surveyor’s office and made a request.” Board Member Heimlich said, “And what you SHOULD do is when you do that keep track of your hours and turn that in and legally if there is a maintenance fund there you could be reimbursed for that.” Mr. Butt said he understood that but he wanted to be a stewardship of his resources, Board Member Heimlich said, “I understand that but that’s the way to make it fair. When you do the work on your property to turn in the bill then the people who aren’t doing the work are helping pay for that.”


Chairman Schmierer stated, “Claude, when you came to us with the ditch you are talking about (Cartmell) and explained that you were going to go ahead and do it. You guys worked together with yourselves and that’s ideal, but you’re not going to get that all the time. Another thing, we have caught a lot of guff because we have raised maintenance fees, but there were maintenance fees of 35 cents and there’s maintenance fees for 15 cents an acre and you don’t hire much done for 35 cents or 15 cents an acre. So, we’ve raised them and there’s maintenance money in this drain to work with.”


Claude Butt stated, “The reason for maintenance fund is to solve this very problem.” Chairman Schmierer said, “Right, you shouldn’t have this problem.” Attorney Loy stated that if you intend to do work on the drain you must contact the Surveyor in advance of doing it and he can verify that there is work that needs done. Chairman Schmierer said to make sure there is maintenance money there.


Doyne Nethercutt asked, “Back to Branch 3, I don’t mind paying on this that you’re talking about, but will we be paying double when they do go back and clean ours out then it it’s not cleaned this time?” Chairman Schmierer answered, “You’re paying on the Main now.” Mark Heiny said, “We’re paying on the Branches, too. There’s about five or six branches there.” Doyne said, “If they don’t clean ours we won’t have any good of it until it IS cleaned. Then do we have to pay for it ourselves then or will all of the whole system again pay for part of ours?” Chairman Schmierer stated, “All we’re cleaning is Branch 1 and Branch 1 of 1…discussion amongst several inaudible See Tape… Chairman Schmierer asked how long it would take to put Branch 3 on? Attorney Loy stated, “You could approve this project and do that as a separate one.”


Jerry Ruch stated, “If these branches are dammed up we know that eventually that is going to break through and come on down, they’re going to wash down bad.” Chairman Schmierer asked, “You don’t think the netting and rock will do anything for them?” Jerry Ruch said he thought it would for a while but it will wash out. Mark Heiny asked what happens when they want to clean out their branches that have rock and netting. Chairman Schmierer said they’re not trying to dam them up, just hold them in place.


Claude Butt asked what kind of depth is being removed? David Finley answered that it varies a lot. He said, “There are areas where we don’t do anything and going to be areas where we go three or four feet. So, if you have a specific area you are interested in, I’d be glad to show you the plans.”


Chairman Schmierer explained that we can’t lower it too low or the banks will cave in. That’s one of the reasons we are not lowering it any more than we have to, just to get the flow and keep from cutting the banks any further than we have to.


Boyd Criswell said, “Two years ago we cleaned my home ditch and the neighbors and all of us petitioned it and we paid for all of it. Now last fall we did this other ditch and neighbors went together and they paid for it. We clean out this here Branch 3 we’re going to have to pay for all of it and these other guys are getting their ditches and I’m helping pay for them. My theory is if you’re going to clean one you clean them all.”


Discussion on the cost of reconstructing the branches followed. See Tape.


Discussion amongst the Board followed. Board Member Heimlich thought it would be fairer and cleaner for everybody to separate the branches out. Inaudible, See Tape.


Board Member Heimlich asked David Finley how hard it would be to break the cost of the Branches out. David Finley said it would not be hard to do at all. Board Member Heimlich said he thought that might be the way to do it, to avoid problems later on with the other branches. Inaudible discussion.


Chairman Schmierer explained the decision of the Board. He stated, “You have Branch 1, it is probably a third of the project, and the (other) Branches. We are going to have Samuel L. Moore & Associates come back and break it out and have your Carter-Hines Main Drain, your assessment for it and a separate assessment on your Branch 1 and your (other) branches. Then when we come along and do Branch 3 and any other Branches the Branches will pay for their own. You are going to get assessed twice. If you’re on a Branch you are going to get assessed for the Branch and you’re also going to get assessed on the Main. So, he’ll have it ready for us, we’ll have the meeting here in two weeks and we’ll have the new assessment and that’s the way we’re going to pass it. From now on, if you want do the Branches, the Branch 3 coming up, you’ll pay for Branch 3 yourself. But you’ll pay on the Main Carter-Hines right now. Everybody that’s on the Carter-Hines, if their Branch goes into the Carter-Hines, they’ll pay on the Carter-Hines but the Branches will be separate. So, we’re just continuing this Hearing for two weeks until they can get the figures out for us to get the Branches broke out.”


Attorney Loy stated, “This still is one project. I think what the commissioners (Drainage Board) are talking about is changing the method by which the assessments will be made you’ll be continuing this Hearing.” Chairman Schmierer said, “Right, we are going to leave the project the size it is so we can get it done. We want to get it done. So we’re going to change the assessment of the Branches on to the Branches and then leave the assessment on the Main.” Attorney Loy stated, “The Hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 3, 2002 at 10:30 A. M. and you need to put that in the form of a motion.”


Claude Butt asked what the terms of payment? Chairman Schmierer answered that you can pay it over five years with a ten percent penalty.


Verne Wilson said he wished it would tell what the cost per acre would be instead of the percentage on the assessment letter the landowners received. Board Member Heimlich said, “Their estimate here figured out to $12.71 an acre, now when they re-do if, if you have a Branch that is getting done that estimate for you is going to go up. If you have a Branch that is not getting done, it is going to go down.”


Board Member Heimlich made a motion to continue to Reconstruction Hearing on the Carter-Hines Drain to Tuesday, September 3, 2002 at 10:30 A. M.


Attorney Loy said that new assessment letters need to go out immediately. He decided that a letter informing the landowners of the continuation of the meeting and the recalculating of the assessments would be acceptable and need to go out immediately.


Chairman Schmierer called the Drainage Board meeting back to order. Surveyor Sterrett reported that Jeff Bonnell of Pine View is requesting permission to encroach on the County right-of-way of the Walter Diener Branch of the Esther Fraser Drain in Honey Creek Township to erect a new sign for Pine View. Board Member Heimlich seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.


Cliff Martin was on the agenda but did not appear. Surveyor Sterrett stated that he thinks Steve Brooke, White County Highway Superintendent took the pressure sprayer back up to the problem area by Monon Park on Friday and got them all together and they decided what they’re going to do. Chairman Schmierer said he saw the guy this morning and he told him they got it opened. At this point the discussion amongst Attorney and Board nearly inaudible, discussing how assessments on the Carter-Hines project will change and what sort of landowner letter to send out. See Tape.


Chairman Schmierer adjourned the meeting.