VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

DECEMBER 19, 2006

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 19^th day of December, 2006 at 4:19 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Bill Nix presiding.

President Nix: Good afternoon. I would like to call to order the Vanderburgh County Drainage Board, Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:19. Good afternoon, Mr. Jeffers.

President Nix: Oh, excuse me, before I do that, approve minutes, I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Commissioner Musgrave: So moved.

President Nix: Second. All in favor?

Commissioner Musgrave: Aye.

President Nix: Aye.

President Nix: Mr. Jeffers, good afternoon, sir.

Bill Jeffers: Good afternoon, Commissioner Nix, Commissioner Musgrave, Mr. Ziemer and staff. The only drainage plan that remains on our agenda, tabled from last week, is Delaware Trace apartments, which I spelled in a peculiar way on your agenda, I just now noticed, final drainage plan. It was Commissioner Musgrave’s concern that we table this and re-examine, briefly, some, but in detail, some particular items to ensure that everything that was indicated, promised, or otherwise needed on the plans, appeared on the plans, or was accounted for by agreements outside the plans themselves. These are drainage plans. They will be followed by street plans. They will be followed by recorded instruments that dedicate right-of-way, because this is a parcel, this is two parcels rather than a subdivision. So, rather than a subdivision plat, the easements for say, sanitary sewers, etcetera will be recorded in miscellaneous records in the County Recorders office, rather than on an official plat. So, besides these plans, you will later see other documentation that ensures the completeness of the promises that were made. I did some research with regard to the Drainage Board’s concerns about these plans. The final drainage plans that you’re looking at on your table do show a deceleration lane on the east side of Green River Road to enter this project. However, that deceleration lane is one that would be constructed only if Green River Road were not widened. The reason it’s depicted that way is because we do not yet have the Green River Road widening plans incorporated into this plan. Those issues that arise from that can be addressed by your County Engineer, John Stoll, and the design engineer for Pedcorp, who is Matt Wallace from Morley and Associates. However, the drainage associated with that deceleration lane can easily be handled by the storm sewer system that will be installed in Green River Road widening, when that occurs. The promise made to reimburse the county for the cost could be cemented by an agreement signed between you and Petcor, or Pedcor, that they would reimburse you in unit pricing that would be arrived at with your bids for that project. I’ll let John Stoll and the engineer, Matt Wallace address that, but, I did want to let you know that the drainage plans are sufficient and reflect enough detail, as final drainage plans, with regard to the deceleration lane, although the deceleration lane is not the final design. John Stoll has forwarded the widening plans to Matt Wallace at Morley and Associates, and Matt Wallace can address when, and to what degree, he will incorporate those widening plans into his final street plans. I think I heard that Pedcor has spoken with Commissioner Musgrave regarding the promise or the agreement to pay the entire cost of the installation of that deceleration lane at the cost that will be incurred during the widening project. My take on this is that the developer wishes to proceed with at least phase one of the apartments, and a deceleration lane may not be needed, depending on the traffic count for that phase one. So, they may not build the deceleration lane that’s shown on there as a temporary deceleration lane, thereby saving themselves that expense, unless there’s a safety issue that arises after they become occupied. It’s my take that the design engineer, Matt Wallace’s opinion is that the deceleration lane is not needed in conjunction with phase one, but will be needed at full development. Of course, that, the warrant for a deceleration lane is established by traffic counts, etcetera, and, I believe, John Stoll’s word on that would be the final word. Let’s see, so, I’m saying that the county would be well served to obtain a written agreement between Pedcor and yourselves, committing them to pay for the deceleration lane at the time of which it is built. Regarding the sanitary sewer easements promised to adjacent landowners, the drainage plan does not show the sanitary sewer lines that will be laid within the project, because the easements have not been negotiated with the adjacent property owners yet. There seem to be some issues as to where they want to tap in. Until those issues are resolved, the exact location of the easements cannot be shown. I’ll let Matt Wallace explain that, if it needs further explanation. However, those easements will be recorded in miscellaneous records, as I said earlier, and, those miscellaneous records will include exhibits that depict the easements. With regard to the fence along the south property line to separate and screen the adjacent properties, the drainage plan does not depict that fence, at this time. The design engineer told me he anticipates a fence, if negotiations with the adjacent property owner for sanitary sewer easements and connections result in such a fence being requested by the property owners. I do not know at this time whether the property owners have said, “Yes, we absolutely want a fence.”, but that would be the appropriate time for them to negotiate a fence, is when they’re negotiating the easements for the sewer. With regard to the storm water runoff from this proposed project discharging into the properties to the south, specifically Mr. Irwin’s property, and the church property, where it has been a problem in the past. The plans clearly show the acreage within the project that currently discharges to the adjacent property, and it also shows a grading plan that I’ve outlined there where Mr. Wallace’s plan is to raise a berm, ten feet or so inside the property line, in such a way to intercept the water that now flows out between Mr. Irwin’s garage and the church’s classroom. That’s the problem area. It clearly shows two yard inlets into which that water will be directed and then carried into the interior of the apartment project and off into one of the detention lakes. I think I’ve highlighted most of that on your plans. So, that storm water that’s been cause for a problem for Mr. Irwin and the church over the years, as it came off that agricultural field, that has been identified as a problem, and this design addresses that problem appropriately and intercepts it. At Mrs. Musgrave’s request, I reviewed the rezoning minutes and other documents, and those are the issues I was able to identify. If there are other issues, you may identify them at this time. Also in the audience is Mr. Wallace, representing Pedcor, and the County Engineer, John Stoll, if there’s any issues on Green River Road.

President Nix: Appreciate you working with us on this and the time you put in, and also Commissioner Musgrave. Is there anyone here from the, that would like to speak to this issue that’s with us today? If not?

Commissioner Musgrave: Well, I do want to hear from the engineer and also from Mr. Stoll. I know that the acceleration/deceleration lane is something that the covenant that Pedcor filed addresses and gives you the authority to specify, and I know that you haven’t signed off on the building, or the plans that are in the Area Plan office that I looked at. I want to thank, before I forget, thank you, Mr. Jeffers, and Mr. Kilo, who is not here today, from Pedcor, for working with me and Mr. Mills, but I didn’t get a chance to talk to you before the meeting Mr. Stoll, so I apologize for that.

John Stoll: No problem. I did speak to Rick Kilo with Pedcor today about the decel lane. I told him that it would be my preference to have them enter into an agreement with the county to pay for the construction in conjunction with the county’s Green River Road project. He said his initial preference would be to build it with their first phase. I told him, in my opinion, that would be really just money wasted. They indicated that their first phase would likely be open in September or October of next year. We plan to take bids on Green River in January of 2008. So, theoretically, the contractor could be going out there by February of 2008. So, the decel lane would only be in place for a few months before it would be torn out again. So, it would seem like a waste of money. So, I told Mr. Kilo that I thought we should have an agreement where they reimburse the county for the cost, as designed by Morley and Associates, based on the unit prices we receive in our contract. He said he would talk to other people with his organization, and then let me know. In regard to the easements, like you said, I haven’t signed off on the Area Plan Commission permits as of yet, so, I guess, that’s our recourse right now that until we have a final, an agreement to get the reimbursement for the decel lane and we see the final recorded copies of the access easements, then I could withhold signatures on the permit. Like Mr. Jeffers said, I think the decel lane can be designed to where any runoff in the decel lane would go into the drainage system for Green River, and not be any problem whatsoever. That’s probably the more appropriate way of dealing with it. So, I don’t have any drainage issues associated with what they’re proposing. We can take care of that once the design of the decel lane is finished. So, basically, from a drainage perspective, I think we’re covered, as far as the decel lane goes, once we get the agreements in place.

President Nix: Thanks, John.

Matt Wallace: Excuse me, I’m Matt Wallace with Morley and Associates. I’m the engineer of record for this project. One thing I do want to point out while it was still fresh in my mind, regarding the drainage situation for Mr. Irwin’s property, we always turn in a bound copy of the drainage report with calculations to Mr. Jeffers’ office, I’m not sure if you’ve reviewed that or not, in that we did an analysis of the existing conditions, what happens if it were to rain today. In compliance with the ten year storm event, Mr. Irwin’s property would see about 8 cfs of water. That’s eight cubic feet per second. Which is a pretty good amount considering it’s such a small channel. It looks like he hand dug it with a shovel. I’m sure it spreads a lot. I’m sure he very well gets water in, near the house. I’m sure the yard is full of water. It’s probably not a very good site. It’s my understanding that in the spring time his septic system has trouble functioning properly. The post construction, we’re required to go up to a 25 year storm event, which is, you know, more intense rain, and we’re seeing about a quarter of a cfs going to his property after construction. That was just not a suitable place to take water to. So, we totally cut that off, and we’re just going to continue our, that area is quite a bit lower than what the county contours had suggested that it might be when we originally started looking at it, and, so we brought things up to where there’s no direct runoff except from as we come off the property line and mound up, the water that naturally falls on that slope will run back on to him. The width of that, despite it being so narrow, it’s several hundred feet long, it’s going to accumulate to about a quarter of a cfs. So, that, we’re going to cut off his drainage issues. That doesn’t solve a non-functioning septic system, and we are looking at a couple of different ways that we could extend sewer to him and to his neighbor to the south, and we’re not, we haven’t talked to the neighbor to the south. Well, we’ve spoken to the wife, she’s asked us to speak to her husband just to finalize things. We’ve not yet made that contact with him. So, we’re trying to work that out exactly where we would want that sewer to run that would be beneficial to both of them, and be of the less, the least financial cost to the developer. We have the Vectren 100 foot power pole easement going up through there, and Vectren does not like odd angle crossings. So, we have to figure out a way to cross them at a right angle, and not, you know, encumber the least amount of their easement as possible. So, we’re dealing with that, and the sewer is sort of up in the air at this point, but I think we’re pretty close to negotiating that. This property will have an on-site lift station for the sanitary, and, so we need a route for the forced main to pump the sewage back down to a suitable sewer in the Heritage Park Subdivision. That was, really the intent was to approach them for the forced main easement, and it seems to be the general case when we can give them sewer access in exchange for an easement. I think everybody wins in those situations. I think being close to that creek like that, I can’t imagine how anybody has a functioning, even a mounts system, I would think, would be difficult to work properly in the spring time, when there’s heavy rains. Because of there’s so many buildings, it does take time to construct it all, and our plans do reflect the entire project, but they really only have intent to build what they’re calling their phase one, which goes, it’s the first half of the project back to the power pole easement. The drainage facilities have not been designed as a phased construction, so, the drainage facilities would need to be installed as part of the initial thing, but they also need the soil dug from the basins to build up the pads to create building pads, because we are partially in zone A, and mostly in zone B for the first phase. So, I think, they are going to have to build the entire drainage system and get the dirt from the basins to make this work. But, the number of units, I don’t think triggers a turn lane, although the developer really wants to have one. They were volunteering for one before we even looked, we didn’t even do a full traffic study to see if a warrant lane analysis was triggered or not, but they want the turn lane. Personally, I don’t know how quickly they lease out, traditionally one would think that it takes time for a new development to lease out. You know, there’s been several within the county that lease out very quickly. So, I don’t know the number of units and the mix of units, they have one, two, three and four bedroom units within this complex. I don’t know how quickly those lease out to generate enough traffic to really warrant a safety concern. So, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Stoll, that I think it would be a waste of money for them, and I’m not sure if it gets much benefit. Within this property, it looks to me, where their entrance is, is where Green River necks down to just a two lane section. So, it is where cars are having to merge, and I’m just not sure there’s, that they’re really up to speed to make a big safety concern for very long time. I don’t know how many turns per hour we’re going to see to really generate enough, you know, concern. But, they would have to, you know, install a turn lane, and they’re volunteering to do a turn lane. The drainage, I don’t think, is going to impact this plan.

Commissioner Musgrave: Are you saying that you agree with Mr. Stoll’s assertion that a turn lane will be required?

Matt Wallace: I think that once it’s built, yes. But, to build it now, or to build it when their first phase is completed and they’re open for leasing, may be a waste of money to install some temporary asphalt, only to have to have the county include that as part of the demo cost to tear it out to install new pavement. I think it would be better for the owner to have that agreement where, I’m not sure as an addendum or as a change to the plans and they just, the contractor add it on as a unit price thing to install 12 more feet of asphalt, relocate some curb, I’m not sure if there’s any drainage inlets within that area, but they would have to be moved over to the new curb location, and then some additional pipe.

Commissioner Musgrave: Basically, the road will stay as it is until the county constructs Green River Road, and then it will change appearance and width, correct, Mr. Stoll? And he is agreeing.

Matt Wallace: Yes.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, that’s, as long as we all understand that’s the picture that we’re looking at.

Matt Wallace: And, that’s what I would think would be the most beneficial, and, really, the only concern there is would these, would the units being built, would there be a safety concern, and, I guess, that would be something for Mr. Mills to address as MPO Director.

President Nix: Okay, thank you.

Matt Wallace: Sure.

President Nix: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this issue?

Bill Jeffers: Something that crossed my mind as I was listening to Matt Wallace speak about the developers desire to build, at this time only, phase one, but go into phase two and acquire dirt for raising the building pads. Because, phase one is not behind Mr. Irwin or the church, but phase two is, and phase two is going to supply some of the dirt, there will be activity on phase two land adjacent to Mr. Irwin’s property, and as such I would like them to modify their erosion and sediment control plan in such a way that when they initiate land disturbing activities on phase two behind Mr. Irwin’s property to acquire this fill dirt, that they go ahead and build the berm at that point in time. Whether they put the yard inlets in and the pipes to carry the water away from that, or just dig an open diversion channel while it’s under construction before, you know, before it’s turned into apartments. I would like that to be included in the erosion control plan, so that the activity that’s being carried on in that open field, borrowing dirt, will not runoff mud into Mr. Irwin’s property. You know, I don’t want the contractor to say, “Oh, well, we’re not going to put the berm there yet, because we’re not putting the drainage facilities in along that line until phase two.” No, I would like for that to be diverted right away, and he can show that in a modified erosion control plan very easily. So, I would like that, to include those comments with my recommendation for the plans.

Commissioner Musgrave: I’ll make a motion to adopt the recommendation, as well as the additional comments stated by Surveyor Jeffers.

President Nix: Second. All in favor?

Commissioner Musgrave: Aye.

President Nix: Aye.

Bill Jeffers: The only other business that I have today is several claims that I’ve laid in front of your recording secretary for maintenance. They are all for annual maintenance to regulated drains. Most of them in northwestern Vanderburgh County, and a few ditch mowings on the east side in their regulated drains.

President Nix: Thank you, Mr. Jeffers.

Commissioner Musgrave: Move approval of the claims.

President Nix: Second. All in favor?

Commissioner Musgrave: Aye.

President Nix: Aye. Anything else.

Bill Jeffers: No, sir.

President Nix: Also, I guess, at this point we would invite public comment. Is anyone here to address the board at this time? If not?

Commissioner Musgrave: Motion to adjourn.

President Nix: Second. All in favor?

Commissioner Musgrave: Aye.

President Nix: Aye.

(The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Bill Nix                                      Cheryl Musgrave                      Bill Jeffers

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.          Madelyn Grayson                     John Stoll

Matt Wallace                             Others Unidentified                   Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

Bill Nix, President

Cheryl A.W. Musgrave, Vice President

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.