VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

APRIL 26, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 26^th day of April, 2004 at 6:33 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.

President Mosby: Call to order Vanderburgh County Drainage Board meeting for April 26. 2004

President Mosby: Linda, we’ll let you go from here.

Linda Freeman: Yee-haw! Linda Freeman–

President Mosby: I’m sorry, previous, I need approval of the minutes of the previous meeting from–

Linda Freeman: Approval of minutes.

President Mosby: –March 22^nd and reconvened on April 5^th.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Old business.

Linda Freeman: Okay, old business. We have the contracts for the annual ditch maintenance that was awarded on April the 5^th. We have received some of those, but we don’t have all of those. Basically, I was just going to ask your permission for Madelyn to stamp those when we get all of them for you guys, if that’s–

Commissioner Fanello: Because we approved them in a–

Linda Freeman: Yeah, you approved the bids and stuff–

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Linda Freeman: –for the contract awarding.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion to that effect.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion to stamp contracts as they come in, and a second. So ordered.

Linda Freeman: Under drainage plans, we have Blue Heron Estates, and that’s a preliminary plan. The preliminary drainage plan and report was submitted April the 12^th by Morley and Associates. The plan was reviewed today, April the 26^th by Douglas McDonald in our office. I’ve got a review summary and review comments, if you would like for me to read those into the minutes. It doesn’t look like we have any remonstrators here. Basically, we can forward a copy of the comments to the engineer. Is that fine?

Commissioner Fanello: Yes.

President Mosby: That’s fine.

The following comments from the County Surveyor’s office were to be added to the record per the Vanderburgh County Drainage Board.

1.      Blue Heron Estates, PRELIMINARY.

Preliminary Drainage Plan and Report, submitted April 12, 2004, by Morley and Associates. Plan reviewed April 26, 2004, by Douglas McDonald, Vanderburgh County Surveyor’s Office.

Review Summary

The Preliminary Plan conforms in intent to the county drainage ordinance and the county surveyor’s office endorses “preliminary” approval at county drainage board meeting, April 26, 2004 .

Review Comments:

The following comments will be forwarded to James Morley, at Morley & Associates. In lieu of reading the comments aloud at the drainage board meeting, the County Surveyor respectfully requests the board to enter the comments into the minutes of the meeting, and making the comments available to interested parties.

1) This plan is only preliminary in nature.

2) Other plan sheets necessary to complete review of a final plan, Erosion Control Plan (ESC), and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWP3s) are absent from this submittal.

3) The County Surveyor recommends the final plan and the ESC/SWP3 demonstrate that disturbed land will be graded and temporarily or permanently stabilized as quickly as possible using appropriate control measures and seed mixtures, fertilizer applications, and mulch types and rates of application per USDA/NRCS recommendations for specific conditions at the project site. All disturbed areas that will remain idle for 15 days or longer must be seeded, mulched, or otherwise temporarily stabilized with approved methods by the end of the 14^th day.

4) The County Surveyor recommends the final plan and the ESC/SWP3 demonstrate that all disturbed land be finally stabilized and all permanent management practices installed and operating in accordance with approved designs and with state and local rules before NPDES permits are terminated and local letters of credit released.

5) The County Surveyor recommends the final plan and the ESC/SWP3 demonstrate open, vegetated spaces within the project and adjacent to its boundaries be preserved or established in native trees, native background vegetation, or NCRCS approved grasses, shrubs, and trees wherever applicable to provide natural habitat or corridors, and sight barriers.

6) The County Surveyor strongly recommends speedy and complete excavation and final or permanent stabilization of the detention basins as part of the initial construction phase. The detention basins should be fully operable as a temporary silt control and storm water detention basins before streets are paved and homes built.

7) The County Surveyor recommends the final plan and the ESC/SWP3 include details and specifications for management practices and control measures from the Indiana Erosion handbook and other standard reference manuals for the application of appropriate construction phase and post-construction practices throughout the project site.

8) The County Surveyor recommends that any grassy swale with design grades less than 0.80 % be provided with “at grade” or “subgrade” provisions that prevent chronic wetness. The county surveyor will recommend sufficient retention letters of credit to guarantee final permanent vegetative stabilization of open grassy swales with evidence of chronic wetness.

9) Show design of swales for each segment in change of slope, including width, side slopes, channel slope, erosion control measures, velocities, etc. Show velocities at all discharge points with appropriate erosion control measures from aforementioned reference manuals.

10) Show all pipe designs, including size, material, inverts, elevations, cover, etc., and velocities at discharge points with appropriate erosion control measures from aforementioned reference manuals.

11) Show all pond elevations, pond discharge elevations, etc. on plan view.

12) The County Surveyor will withhold his approval of any subsequent subdivision plat submitted for recording until the ECP/SWP3, and Street and Drainage construction plans for the project are submitted to and approved by the Vanderburgh County Engineer.

Linda Freeman: Then we have Clear Brook Manor, the P.U.D., and that is a preliminary plan that the Surveyor is also....I’m sorry, I didn’t say that on Blue Heron Estates. The preliminary plan conforms in intent to the county drainage ordinance, and the County Surveyor’s office endorses preliminary approval at county drainage board meeting. So, if you guys would like to approve the preliminary.

Commissioner Fanello: For Blue Heron?

Linda Freeman: Blue Heron Estates.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve Blue Heron on preliminary.

President Mosby: I’m going to formally ask first, is there anybody here for Blue Heron Estates?

Unidentified: I am.

Linda Freeman: As a remonstrator?

Unidentified: Oh, as a remonstrator?

President Mosby: Yeah.

Unidentified: Oh, no.

President Mosby: Come on up.

Unidentified: I would be happy to talk, but–

President Mosby: Once you raise your hand, you’re locked in. No, yeah, if there’s any remonstrators. Seeing no remonstrators, I have a motion from Commissioner Fanello.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: And a second from Commissioner Crouch. So ordered. Approval on preliminary.

Linda Freeman: Yeah, and then, like I said, just would like to enter those minutes, or the recommendations and comments into the record. I could give that to Madelyn in electronic format.

Linda Freeman: Okay, Clear Brook Manor, the P.U.D., the plan was submitted April the 8^th by Morley and Associates, reviewed April 23^rd by Bill Jeffers, the Vanderburgh County Surveyor. He’s got a report here, basically, he recommends that the preliminary plan substantially conforms to the drainage ordinance, and that we endorse preliminary approval from the board.

The following comments from the County Surveyor’s office were to be added to the record per the Vanderburgh County Drainage Board.

1.      Clear Brooke Manor, P.U.D, PRELIMINARY.

Plan submitted April 8, 2004 by Morley & Associates. Reviewed April 23, 2004 by Bill Jeffers, Vanderburgh County Surveyor.

Vanderburgh County Surveyor’s Report - April 23, 2004

Title 17, Vanderburgh County’s Land Use and Zoning Code, requires the developer of a planned unit development (PUD) to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and establish common open space.

According to today’s rules and technologies, open space should provide recreational uses, natural resource conservation, storm water quality/quantity control, and curb appeal.

Section 17.32.040(A)(1) requires submittal of a preliminary plan containing information regarding types of land use within the PUD, structural locations, storm water drainage facilities, and other pertinent development details.

The preliminary plan should pass through the Subdivision Review Committee before coming to the Area Plan Commission rezoning hearing. The preliminary plan should be substantially complete in accordance with 17.32.040.

Section 17.32.040(A)(1)(h) requires covenants as a part of the preliminary plan.

Section 17.32.040 advises, “the covenants, to be enforceable, should be made part of the preliminary plan and the detailed site plan.”

By code, the covenants may relate to:

v   “Provisions for the ownership and maintenance of areas held in common” (and presumably the structures established within those areas, including drainage facilities).

v   “Remedies available to the county if deterioration of these (commonly held) areas occurs.”

County Surveyor’s Recommendations:

Due to space restrictions associated with roadways and parking areas in PUDs, the preliminary plan for Clear Brooke Manor should maximize placement of storm water quality/quantity control facilities in common easements and common spaces outside of county-maintained easements and road rights-of-way.

The preliminary plan for Clear Brooke Manor PUD should contain covenants that clearly transfer all responsibilities for long-term maintenance, repair, augmentation, and replacement of the storm water drainage system on the PUD (Homeowners) Association in accordance with “Plan A” provided in Chapter 13.04, Storm Water Drainage Code.

The provisions of the covenants should provide legally binding remedies by which the county is protected from loss, damage, or costs associated with the future ownership, condition, or deterioration of the commonly held and maintained storm water drainage system and the land areas on which the system is constructed.

President Mosby: Is there anybody here, as a remonstrator, on Clear Brook Manor, P.U.D.? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion to approve Clear Brook Manor, preliminary.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

Linda Freeman: Okie-doke, and I’ll make those available to Madelyn and to the respective engineers and developers.

Linda Freeman: Under other business, we have the encroachment agreement for Delta Properties Limited Liability Corporation at Expressway Commercial Sub, Section Two B, Lot 5. If you guys, Madelyn’s got the original. Clearing the crowd.

Unidentified: I’ve got my hand in my pocket.

President Mosby: I was just going to tell you to get with the Surveyor, register your complaints–

Unidentified: I buy more things at auctions like that.

Linda Freeman: Oops!

Unidentified: Thanks.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Linda Freeman: Basically, this is the old Dog ‘n Suds on the west side, and they are going to be encroaching with additional pavement into the drainage easement. So, I think, in order for them to build as they’ve got planned here, I think they’ve got a little bump out in (Inaudible) the building’s bumping out, so they are trying to bump out to make sure they have a way around the building there. I sent a copy of this home for Bill to look at, and he didn’t have any, apparently didn’t have any comment on it. So, I think we’re okay with that one too.

President Fanello: Okay, I’ll make a motion to approve the encroachment agreement with Delta Properties.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: Is there any remonstrators? Seeing none, I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Ashley Place Subdivision.

Linda Freeman: Ashley Place Subdivision, we’re looking at a revised drainage plan for the 36" high density polyethylene pipe. That one I’m going to let, maybe, John Stoll address.

John Stoll: I don’t know if you will recall this issue, but out in Ashley Place there is a large ditch on the southbound (Inaudible) of the subdivision, which is shown in one of those pictures. In that ditch, across two lots, as well as in one area in Vectren’s utility easement, there’s been a 24" plastic pipe installed in the ditch. Previously it was discussed that the 24" pipe was too small to handle the 100 year rainfall event, and that’s basically what’ lead to this plan. The property owners have wanted to see a final solution to the erosion problem that’s continued out there for a number of years, and the property owners that have the existing pipes, obviously, don’t want the pipes removed. So, this latest plan was to remove the 24" pipe on two lots, and replace it with a 36" pipe, as well as replace the 24" pipe in the Vectren easement with a 36" pipe. Then, I assume, the developer will stabilize the ditch banks. That is all reflected in that plan that Linda just passed out to you. When I received a copy of this, I sent a letter to the designer, and the designer is Andy Easley, and the developer is Rick Broerman. I sent a letter to Andy when I saw this plan stating several concerns. I’ve got a copy of it here. I know I’ve got one, I just can’t find it right now. We had asked Andy to provide a bedding detail, which he has since done on the plans. I’d asked about what the intent was in regard to the erosion control fabric, whether or not the material specified would handle the velocity of water that the ditch was designed for. Andy had responded back that it would work. The original plan showed gravel in the bottom of the ditch, and that has since been removed. Let’s see, oh, one of the concerns that I’d identified was that given the fact that that ditch is severely eroded, there is not top soil left on there, so stabilizing that with grass growth is going to be extremely difficult, and his plan did not address doing that, providing any top soil or anything like that. That has not been addressed as of yet. Don’t know what the intent is there. Another issue was the 36" pipe that is being installed on lots 47 and 48. The way the plan was submitted, there was really no good access to that pipe without tracking through other people’s lots, or through the emergency overflow spillway for the detention area in this subdivision. If I’ve got the right plat I’ll show you what (Inaudible) there. The pipe is behind these lots, and this is the large ditch that eventually drains over here, and the emergency overflow spillway actually flows across Eickhoff Road. The only way to get to these pipes would either be through drainage easements located on other people’s properties, or come up through the detention easement. If the county was going to accept this pipe for maintenance, I don’t think that’s an acceptable way of accessing a pipe. I don’t see why, for the benefit of two property owners who don’t want an open ditch in their backyard, why we should obligate the county to run equipment, regardless of the size of the equipment, across other people’s lots. I think that if the county is to accept the pipes, then, as a minimum, the property owners need to provide an access easement. Otherwise, I think they need to maintain the pipes. One other item I asked about, and I didn’t get a chance to talk with Andy this afternoon whenever we talked, but I had questioned whether or not the installation of this new pipe would create any kind of swale that would need to drain across the top of the pipe and down to the existing ditch. If a swale is not created, I guess my concern would be, will water be funneled up towards the patios of these houses? Maybe Andy can address that.

Andy Easley: It’s on the plan.

John Stoll: Oh, did I overlook that?

Andy Easley: The swale.

John Stoll: Okay. I guess, I overlooked that then. That was the comments that I sent to Andy. I don’t know if you heard anything from Bill in regard to that.

Linda Freeman: Bill’s concern was the water heading toward the patios, but if that’s on the, if that’s covered. One of the other things was the pipe will handle the proposed flow rate, but it’s going to have a high velocity coming out. One of the concerns would be erosion control measures that the, you know, with that coming out, possibly like a gabion mattress or something like that.

Andy Easley: We have rip rap. We could (Inaudible. Not at the Mic.)

Madelyn Grayson: Mr. Easley, can you make your comments at the Mic. please, so that we can get them on the record.

Andy Easley: The present discharge has been handled with rip rap. We could have a gabion mattress if that was, you know, strongly recommended.

John Stoll: (Inaudible).

Andy Easley: (Inaudible) that’s not (Inaudible) plan, I don’t think. Here’s the new one. Here, this is supposed to be...see that note?

John Stoll: Will that be offset from the pipe to protect the cover?

Andy Easley: It shouldn’t affect the cover, and it could be offset from the pipe. We’ll put it in (Inaudible).

John Stoll: This cross section (Inaudible) the areas where (Inaudible) open ditch too.

Andy Easley: This is the open ditch. We think that, you know–

John Stoll: This detail’s (Inaudible), this is only for between the pipes and the swales (Inaudible).

President Mosby: Mr. Easely, did you want to address, I guess, the concern of the, I’m reading your comments here about the easement between lots 41 and 42. I guess, you’ve got new, small rubber tread crawler mounted hydraulic excavator/backhoe to be used for accessing large drainage easement. I mean, is there any reason why we can’t get an easement access somewhere near lots 47 and 48?

Andy Easley: Susan Helfrich owns one of those lots, I think it’s the eastern lot, I would think that she might be willing to grant an easement, but I can’t speak for her. I was hoping that she might be here tonight. I think those two owners would probably grant a maintenance easement between their houses. There’s about 10 1/2' between the houses, between those two lots.

President Mosby: Okay.

Andy Easley: I still think that a small, you know, rubber tread excavator, which I’ve seen more and more of them, and they’ve been used on several projects that I’ve been involved with, could get in there if maintenance work had to be done, and it would not damage....there is a, the whole backyard is a drainage easement. Granted, they might have to, if they had to use the existing easements, without a new easement, they could come in from the 25' easement that is between the lots towards the west, and they really wouldn’t damage the yards with that small piece of equipment.

President Mosby: I just say that because I’m not sure we have anything like that at the garage.

Andy Easley: Well, but the county could rent that. There was a day in this county when they didn’t have any, what’s the name of the piece of equipment that excavates ditches?

President Mosby: Gradalls?

Andy Easley: The gradall, when you didn’t have a gradall, and eventually they bought a gradall. They might very well decide that it would be a good piece of equipment to own, but in the meantime, if you had to get a contractor in there for a day that owned a piece of equipment like that. It’s possible. That shouldn’t prevent, you know, talking about maintaining something that probably is not going to have to be, require any work.

President Mosby: Is there any questions?

Commissioner Fanello: I was just going to ask John if you feel like your concerns have been addressed, or do you still have–

John Stoll: If it was installed properly, and an easement was provided, I would be okay with it. The big issue is whether or not the plan is going to be followed, because Andy drew up a plan on this subdivision years ago that’s never been followed correctly. So, if this was followed correctly, it could work, but I would still be reluctant to recommend the county accept that pipe for maintenance, simply because I think if the people want the thing piped, then they should provide us an easement. Previous contractors have gone through the overflow spillway, and they have torn it all up. At one point when the overflow spill way, where it dumps into Eickhoff Road, was originally constructed it had been graded out, they had seeded it and put the erosion control mats on it, but the grass hadn’t taken off, but between the time the grass started growing and the time that the, before we ever got out there again, a contractor had gone out there with a backhoe and they just ruined it. It’s a mess. I don’t want to see the county be in that same position where to maintain a pipe we have to go out and tear up quite a bit of property across several lots. Granted, like Andy said, it probably won’t be maintained, won’t need any maintenance for as long as any of us are around here, but sometime, somewhere in the future somebody is going to get to deal with it. I still think they should provide some easy access to it if the intent is for the county to accept it.

President Mosby: Kevin, can we accept the plan subject to the work being done in the easement from the two property owners?

Kevin Winternheimer: Yeah, as long as you delineate what you want, you can do that. Recognizing that (Inaudible).

President Mosby: Would you be comfortable with that, John? I mean, if we would accept this plan? I mean, you say it’s a workable plan.

John Stoll: Right.

President Mosby: So, if we accept the plan contingent on the work being done as the plan said, and we get an easement from the property owners, is that okay?

John Stoll: If the easement is not provided, then the property owners have to maintain the pipe.

President Mosby: Yeah.

Andy Easley: Or the pipe’s taken out.

President Mosby: Or the pipe’s taken out.

John Stoll: Yeah, if the pipe’s taken out, that’s fine with me as well. But, there again, we’re back to the ditch stabilization issue, which that’s been an on-going problem for a number of years now.

Commissioner Crouch: John, where we looked at it, it is a problem. So, I guess, I just have to (Inaudible).

John Stoll: Andy’s plan does provide the foot plus of cover over the plastic pipe, as is required by the ordinance. The velocities of the water do meet the manufacturer’s specifications for the erosion control mats that he’s using. Things like that, it is an approvable plan, it’s just whether or not it’s followed through and done properly more than anything else. There have been several attempts out there to stabilize that area, and none have been successful at this point. I still think there’s a good possibility that we’ll be talking about this, this time next year, because if those steep banks aren’t addressed with any kind of top soil, then we’ll never see grass grow in it. You can see that from the picture that I circulated a while ago. There’s nothing there for grass to grow in. So, the pipe’s are part of the problem, but there’s still quite a bit of other work that needs to be done on that ditch.

Commissioner Crouch: So, if I’m understanding you properly (Inaudible).

John Stoll: No, I don’t have a problem with this plan. It’s, we won’t release any letter of credit until everything is stable, in a final, finished condition, matching the plan, and having as-builts on the plan. Because that would be required by the drainage ordinance as well. The plan, I don’t see a problem with you approving the plan, subject to following it properly, and the fact that the property owners either need to provide us an easement, or they need to maintain the pipes. Or like Mr. Broerman said, the pipes can be removed.

Andy Easley: I will make every effort to see that we get the two easements, and we, I will talk to the developer, and, if necessary, we will put top soil on the banks, and make a concentrated, sincere effort to implement the plan. All we want is a chance to implement this, and seed it to John Stoll’s satisfaction.

President Mosby: Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Any questions by any member of the board?

Commissioner Fanello: I’m hesitant, but I’m going to go ahead and approve based on John Stoll’s recommendations, and as long as the measurements he talked about are, take place with the easement and the following through with the plan.

Commissioner Crouch: So, his stipulation of–

Commissioner Fanello: Stipulation, that’s the word I was looking for.

Commissioner Crouch: –the conditions are worked out, would all be a part of the record, and that will be a part of what has to be done.

Commissioner Fanello: That would be my motion.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So, I have a motion and a second on a motion that I understand to be that the stipulations that the engineer has put on this plan is that we put the pipe into the plan that we received today, and that we get the easement, and we get the top soil and coverage on the ditch. Did I miss anything?

John Stoll: If the easements aren’t acquired, then we get the property owners to maintain the pipe, or the pipes will not be installed and it will be a grass banked ditch.

President Mosby: Madelyn, you can add that to the rest of my motion. So, okay, I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

John Stoll: We’re not trying to hit John Stoll’s specifications, we’re trying to hit the county drainage ordinance. It requires a stable bank, so, that’s the only thing that we’re shooting for.

President Mosby: I should have stated that, but we rely on you to tell us what all this says. Andy, thank you, and we appreciate it, Mr. Broerman. Thank you.

Andy Easley: Thank you very much.

President Mosby: Okay.

Rick Broerman: Appreciate it.

Linda Freeman: Okie-doke. Thanks, John. Thanks for being understanding with everything that’s going on with Bill, it’s been kind of hectic.

President Mosby: We totally understand.

Linda Freeman: The next item that I had under other business is the Stonecreek Subdivison, Sections One and Six. There is a lake maintenance and storm detention easement that had been given to the county.

President Mosby: Andy, Andy, did you want these back?

Andy Easley: If you don’t want them, I’ll take them.

Commissioner Fanello: I don’t know whose this is.

Andy Easley: I may want one of them, but–

Commissioner Fanello: Who’s is this?

President Mosby: Okay, well, then that’s two different one’s then, I think. Okay.

Commissioner Fanello: That’s John’s.

President Mosby: I’m sorry to interrupt you there, but–

Linda Freeman: That’s fine, I’m trying to get it together myself. Basically, I have a lake maintenance and storm detention easement that was granted to Vanderburgh County, Indiana, and the homeowners association, December 3, 2001, it just came to Bill and I’s attention when we were reviewing some site plans. Basically, we wanted to make sure that this wasn’t giving something to the county that we didn’t really want.

Kevin Winternheimer: Do we want it?

Linda Freeman: Well, (Inaudible) basically, right off the beginning here it says that they are conveying and warranting unto Vanderburgh County, Indiana, and the homeowners association to be formed pursuant to the terms and provisions, but, basically, then if the homeowners association isn’t formed, I guess, that would put it on the county, but, the county didn’t agree to that. I mean, the county hasn’t, there’s no signatures from the drainage board accepting, nor from Vanderburgh County. It was something that we wanted to bring to Mr. Winternheimer’s attention for his review and counsel.

Kevin Winternheimer: Is this something that has to be decided tonight?

President Mosby: I was going to say, why don’t we hold this.

Linda Freeman: No, yeah–

President Mosby: Okay, okay.

Linda Freeman: –it’s something that we wanted to bring to your attention, and then let him have time, so, because they are looking....I’m sorry they’re looking at developing that lot in section six, which is where they’ve got that note.

Kevin Winternheimer: So, is the question whether or not this is valid? Or, what is the question?

Linda Freeman: We were talking about (Inaudible) that this gets (Inaudible) that this would be reconveyed to Jagoe and their homeowners association for section one up here, and that, apparently, they overdug the lake, and then they’ve made an easement on this property on lot one of section six, and granted this to the county, this strip here, as you can see in the–

Kevin Winternheimer: And they want it back? Or want part of it?

Linda Freeman: No, I don’t think we want it.

Kevin Winternheimer: Oh, I see.

Linda Freeman: See, they’re conveying this strip to the county, and it was something that Bill, with everything that’s going on, it was overlooked when he was looking at the plan for this subdivision, and when we noticed it, it was one of those, oops, you know, so, basically, we’re wanting a legal opinion on, you know, that we didn’t, you know, the county doesn’t want anything that they, a lake maintenance.

Kevin Winternheimer: I’ll get with you. This is dated–

Linda Freeman: Yeah, December 3, 2001.

Kevin Winternheimer: –December 3, 2001, so, I assume it can wait a week or two.

Linda Freeman: Yeah, basically, they were looking at, they were drawing up some site plans for this lot, and we just wanted to make sure that the drainage board was made aware–

Kevin Winternheimer: I’ll call you.

Linda Freeman: –and that you could comment on it, and possibly we could, maybe in the May meeting ask them to take that back.

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay.

Madelyn Grayson: You can be pretty sure we didn’t have drainage board on December 3^rd, because they always fall on the fourth Monday, and it shows that they paid $20, if we would have accepted it, there would have been no charge for the recording either.

Linda Freeman: Right, so, it’s one of those things that, they’ve given it to us, but–

Kevin Winternheimer: We may not have accepted it.

Commissioner Crouch: (Inaudible. Mic. not on.)

Linda Freeman: That we, you know, therefore we want, maybe, this changed to reflect that.

President Mosby: Chair would entertain a motion to hold this–

Linda Freeman: Yeah, I wasn’t for any action, just, basically making you aware–

President Mosby: –and have the counselor look it over.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll just make a motion to pass it on to Kevin for review.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion to pass on to Kevin for review, and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Receive petitions, do we have any petitions?

Linda Freeman: No.

President Mosby: Any other person wishing to address the board?

Linda Freeman: No remonstrators or any other person?

President Mosby: Comments, questions or directions?

Commissioner Fanello: I’ve got a direction, motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I bet that ain’t hard to get a second. So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.)

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Suzanne M. Crouch

         Kevin Winternheimer      John Stoll                        Linda Freeman

         Madelyn Grayson           Andy Easley                   Rick Broerman

         Others Unidentified         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

David W. Mosby, President

Catherine Fanello, Vice President

Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.