VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

FEBRUARY 5, 2008

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 5^th day of February, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Troy Tornatta presiding.

President Tornatta: Well, I guess, we’re going to open up the Drainage Board meeting, without our Drainage Board Chair. I guess I’m the Chair. He’s the man. Without our Surveyor. 5:54, February 5, 2008. We’re waiting on our Surveyor. There he is.

Commissioner Korb: Don’t tell me you got a Coke. Don’t even tell me you went to get a Coke.

Madelyn Grayson: A diet, caffeine free Coke.

President Tornatta: No endorsements please.

Commissioner Korb: And you didn’t bring enough to share, obviously.

Bill Jeffers: Would you like one?

Commissioner Korb: No, I’m good.

Bill Jeffers: Anyone else?

President Tornatta: No, no, we’re good.

President Tornatta: Do I hear a motion to approve the last meeting’s minutes?

Commissioner Korb: So moved.

President Tornatta: A motion, and a second. So ordered.

President Tornatta: Bill?

Bill Jeffers: Good evening. Your first drainage plan is Northgate Subdivision. It’s on your desk, marked up in yellow. That would be it. It’s a very simple, three lot subdivision located north of Mill Road, east of Mesker Park Drive. Out there on Kramer Lane. Up on your screen we see lot two, lot one, lot three. Because it’s three lots, it’s a major subdivision and requires drainage board approval. The only issues that came up, because the lots are all two and a half acres or larger, was from a neighbor who was concerned about preserving the natural watercourse that runs through lot two, and I’ve marked that up in green. From the southwest corner you can see the trail running through here to midway across the north line, then it runs off down through a waterway. They want to preserve that and make sure that if someone puts a driveway across it, it doesn’t divert the flow over to these existing residences. So, I ask that the engineer for the developer show pipe sizes, which are marked there in yellow on your sheet, shows 18 inch pipes required if a driveway crosses that watercourse and gives an approximate location, or a pretty precise location as to where to put them. Over here on notes, on the side of the plat that will be recorded in the Recorders office, are a series of directions given to the contractor to preserve the natural surface watercourse, etcetera. With that, the plan comports with the drainage code, and I ask you to approve the plan for Northgate Subdivision.

Commissioner Korb: So moved.

President Tornatta: Second, and so ordered.

Commissioner Korb: Bill, do you want these back?

Bill Jeffers: I’ll pick them up here in a second.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: The other drainage plan for today is called Harbour’s Edge phase two. This is an existing subdivision located just outside the Knight Township levee on Waterworks Road, across from the Waterworks. There were some lots contemplated to be used for either condos or apartments, at one time. They’re reconfiguring those lots for a different market use. That’s all it amounts to, but it required a revision of the drainage plan, a couple of new pipes, a couple of new open water courses. All the water still goes directly into the Ohio River. There’s no need for detention. It’s just a formality to bring, to modify the original plan and bring it up to date. I ask you to approve it. I believe this is in the area that’s going to be annexed by the city, but it’s still in the county at this time.

President Tornatta: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: They use the same requirements as we use for their drainage plans. So, there would be no difference whether it were reviewed by the City Engineer or the County Surveyor. It would still be reviewed under the same requirements. A representative of Cash Wagner Associates who designed the plan is here if there are any questions. Otherwise, I ask the County Drainage Board to approve the amended plan for Harbour’s Edge phase two.

Commissioner Korb: So moved.

President Tornatta: Second and so ordered.

Bill Jeffers: I’ll pick those up at the end of the meeting, and put them in our files.

Bill Jeffers: Our next order of business is the hearing for the Dennis, Conway, Wazny petition to remove an obstruction in a drain or watercourse. I’m looking for my copy of my notes, because I know you want me to read every word of them.

President Tornatta: You gave them to me, but you could do that off the top of your head.

Commissioner Korb: How did that go?

Bill Jeffers: How did what go?

Commissioner Korb: The meeting.

Madelyn Grayson: We’re going to have it right now.

Commissioner Korb: Oh, we’re having it right now?

Bill Jeffers: We’re going to have it right now, and you’re invited.

Commissioner Korb: I’m yippy skippy. Oh, this is where you said bring your lunch. Is that what you said?

Bill Jeffers: I said pack your lunch.

Commissioner Korb: Got it, okay.

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir.

Commissioner Korb: Dang it.

President Tornatta: Then don’t read everything.

Bill Jeffers: Okay.

President Tornatta: Because I’ve read it.

Madelyn Grayson: I’ll second that.

Bill Jeffers: Good. A petition was submitted to the County Drainage Board, and a petition and subsequent investigation by the County Surveyor, his report, this hearing, your findings, your determinations, and your final order will all be in accordance with Indiana Code 36-9-27.4, removal of obstructions in a mutual drain or natural surface watercourse. In case anyone would like to read through that, it’s available on line under Indiana Codes. In this case, the petitioners are Gerald and Linda Dennis, 2740 Anthony Drive, here in the audience tonight; Clark and Linda Conway, 2724 Anthony Drive, also here in the audience tonight; and Patty Dee Wazny, 5725 Caesar Court. If you’ll look at your map over here, you can see the location of the Wazny, Conway and Dennis properties. They are the petitioners. The respondent is Tim Harris, 2701 Pine Tree Drive, Evansville, Indiana. The Harris property is located north of the petitioners. The grade is downhill in this direction, to the south and along the property line to the east and into Oak Ridge Subdivision. The petition is attached to the report. In the back, notification of the petitioners and the respondents were properly notified by the County Auditor, and the County Auditor received all four return receipts, which are also on file, and copies attached to the back of this report. In the petition, the petitioners allege an obstruction of a natural surface watercourse or drain on the Harris property consisting of overgrown bushes and vegetation, the removal of which will cause better drainage of the petitioners property. I’ve included for you definitions of a natural surface watercourse, the statutory definition. The statutory definition of a drain, so that we’ll know what we’re talking about. The statutory definition of obstruction, which essentially is a condition or materials that exist within or near a drain and prevents or impedes the flow of water through the drain. Obstructions include those that are created intentionally, or those which occur naturally or are created unintentionally. So, it could be either. I show you a clip from the statute that says that the County Surveyor shall promptly investigate whether the alleged petition exists. I will tell you that the County Surveyor did investigate the site, and found an area of open drainage, or a waterway, meeting both definitions of a watercourse, in particular in this area. Coming down the hill from Ward Road it is more of a watercourse. As it proceeds through the Harris property, especially as it exits and, again, or continues running eastward in this area, the channel gets deeper, and it fully meets the statutory definition of a drain. Skipping along here, the County Surveyor also reports the existence of an obstruction, according to the definition of the statute of this waterway, and it does consist of materials and conditions as alleged by the petitioners, and existing at the location alleged in the petition. Okay, appended to the report, or your earlier report, and viewable on the screen here today are photographs taken January 28, 2008 by the County Surveyor of the drain. We can look at those now. A series of photographs. Okay, this photograph you’re looking uphill towards Ward Road, and you can clearly see a channel between this line of trees and these little pine trees. I’m calling this a watercourse, because it meets the definition of a watercourse.

Madelyn Grayson: Does that help or not?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That scared me. I thought the storm was here.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, number three, now I’m standing in the same position I was when I took the previous picture, but I’m looking downhill towards the corner of Mr. Harris’ property, and you can see the watercourse starts becoming a little bit more well defined as it approaches the property line. On the right hand side of the picture is the Wazny property. This property over here is a neighbor of Mr. Harris and the Wazny’s. Okay, let’s go to page four. Picture four, just another closer view of the same thing. Picture five, as we approach that grass clump you saw in the previous two pictures, you can see that the trail, the defined trail of the water, the path of the water encounters this overgrown brush right here and next to the Vectren electric transformer box. That’s where it encounters the obstruction. Okay, next picture, is looking between the clump of grass. Now, I’m looking into the Wazny property. We were previously looking directly into this clump of overgrowth. Now you can see that the direction of the water has been diverted by this clump of overgrowth and kicks out and runs south, rather than continuing to run east. This is the area where Wazny is petitioning you for relief, so that the water will follow it’s previous path rather than jumping out onto her property.

Commissioner Korb: So, Bill, is it going from right to left, or left to right?

Bill Jeffers: It is going, it used to be going due east, now it’s kicking out and going southward.

Commissioner Korb: And, I know that, but on, I don’t have a compass there. So, I’m looking at the clump of grass on the–

Bill Jeffers: Go back to four. Okay, it was going due east.

Commissioner Korb: Right.

Bill Jeffers: And when it gets to this point right here, it kicks out to the right–

Commissioner Korb: Got it. Okay.

Bill Jeffers: –behind this clump of grass–

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Bill Jeffers: –then it’s going down through–

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: –this is the watercourse that the petitioners are asking you to amend.

Commissioner Korb: Is that, has that been cut? Or is that just naturally–

Bill Jeffers: That just naturally–

Commissioner Korb: Laid down?

Bill Jeffers: –created it’s own pathway--

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: –leaving it’s previous course.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: Number seven shows the overgrowth in more detail. Number eight, the watercourse previously traveled through this area of overgrowth, essentially in this direction, which is eastward. Okay, next picture, now I’m standing below, again, looking uphill, and you can clearly see the well defined channel. This is the Harris eastern property line. Looking into the overgrowth from the opposite direction that we have been looking, you can see that the channel exists back in the Harris property, but it’s overgrown. Now we’re in his neighbors property where it’s maintained, and you can clearly see a well defined channel. Number ten, there is, that’s how it would look if it were cleared of it’s overgrowth. This is the neighbors yard downstream of, Mr. Harris’ yard is up here. This is the neighbors yard. Then, the last picture, let’s just skip to the last one, I think, well, we can go to number 12. Again, we’re back where it kicks out. This is just a closer view. It’s coming out from behind that clump of grass and running first through Wazny, and then through the Conway’s down through here. You can see a new pathway it’s taken because it can no longer go through its previous course. Then the last picture, number 13, is a close up of one of the petitioner’s property where it’s gouged out a pretty good eroded pathway. That’s basically their complaint, that they would like to put the water back in its previous course so that they can fill in this erosion and it won’t happen again as it winds its way down uncontrollably through their yards.

Commissioner Korb: So, Bill, as we’re looking at that, that’s our clump of decorative grass there, the saw grass, I guess, to the left?

Bill Jeffers: Right. Yes, sir.

Commissioner Korb: And, this is the overgrowth to the right?

Bill Jeffers: This is where the water should have gone–

Commissioner Korb: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –it previously went, according to the petitioners. Historically it went, it continued from here on down.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: But, now its kicking down and its coming out–

Commissioner Korb: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –and it’s coming down through the petitioners property and gouging out its own channel now. Okay, so that takes care of what I saw. I’m sure the petitioners have their own pictures of water, because it wasn’t raining this day. They have told me that huge amounts of water come through their yard, that they would prefer to go down the historic waterway. Okay, I’m saying in my report that due to the length of time that the obstruction has existed on the Harris property, in the form of overgrowth, the County Surveyor cannot determine, specifically, the size, shape or condition of the drain prior to the occurrence of the obstruction. Because it happened several years ago, conditions have compounded. I cannot determine specifically the exact date at which the alleged obstruction began to occur, or at which the occurrence came to the degree that was found aggravating by the petitioners. I’m sure it happened over a long period of time. I mean, we can look at those trees and figure out what kind they are, and say, well, this one probably is ten years old, maybe 12 years old. This clump of rose bushes probably didn’t get that way over less than ten years time, etcetera. Why is it important how long it’s been there? I can only say that the applicable statute became effective in 1996. So, if it’s of greater age than 1996, you might want to take that into consideration. Also, Mr. Harris, I believe, from evidence I’ve been able to ascertain, did not come into possession of the property until much more recently. So, we may want to hear from Mr. Harris as to what condition it was in when he purchased it. The board may wish to consider that information before making a decision. The board also, obviously, would like to hear testimony from the other parties. So, I’ll cut mine short here. There are other clips from the statute that I believe are pertinent to your decision, and we can go over those as the hearing proceeds.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me.

President Tornatta: Sure.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Mr. Jeffers, probably the board would take this under advisement after they hear all the testimony that’s to be heard today. I would think that the matters that we want to hear testimony about have to do with whether this is a drain or a watercourse for one thing. Number two, whether it was intentional or unintentional. Then, number three, whether, in your opinion, I guess, the, depending on the findings, whether the action sought by the petitioners will, in fact, improve the drainage and not cause undue harm to the property of the respondent. With all of those things in the record, then all the various things the Commissioners need to do, I can advise them on that, under the law. But, I think those are the factual determinations that need to be made. That’s my suggestion anyway.

Bill Jeffers: I think you’re exactly right. You’ve hit three or four nails right on the head. Those are the things you need to know before you can make your findings and your determinations. In particular, whether it was intentional or unintentional, and whether it’s a drain or a watercourse at any specific spot, because that will determine who fixes it and who pays for it. I believe, as Mr. Ziemer is pointing out, you may extend this hearing to any day or time in the future, and, in the meantime consult with the petitioners, the remonstrators, I mean, the respondent, the County Surveyor, etcetera, in your way towards making a final decision. I’ve noted that on the last page of this report, those things. But, I would encourage you to listen to the petitioners testimony at this time so you have all of that on record.

President Tornatta: Thank you very much. At this time we hear from the petitioners. If you would come up here and state your name and your address, please. Take your time.

Gerald Dennis: Hi, my name is Gerald Dennis at 2740 Anthony’s Drive. I live on the far east end of where everything kind of drains down to. Technology is great, about ten years ago we couldn’t have done this. We have a CD that our neighbors took that shows a lot of the water as it comes down through the path that was created by the obstruction. I also have some hard copies if you would want to take a look at those as well.

President Tornatta: If you wouldn’t mind, you can bring those up now, and then we’ll wait for those other pictures to come through.

Gerald Dennis: (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

President Tornatta: Okay.

Gerald Dennis: Bear with us here. This is kind of a dark day, we had a storm come through, so we did have a lot of water that came down.

President Tornatta: If you could hit those lights, it’s fine with me.

Gerald Dennis: This is looking from the back of the Conway’s property, which is just west of ours. It’s looking east. There is an access road, a utility access road on the far right side. There is a drainage ditch that runs along there, and at the bottom of that ditch, I believe there’s either a pump station or a pump lift, I’m not exactly for sure. Again, this is the water build up as it comes along through the Conway’s property, branching out from what has been dug out. There’s a ditch there, and as this water comes down the ditch it is eroding the dirt away from several mature trees, exposing the root system.

Commissioner Korb: When you say dug out, you don’t mean man made dug out? You mean naturally dug out?

Gerald Dennis: Naturally dug out, yes.

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Gerald Dennis: Again, the water flow as it’s coming down bringing debris with it from the obstruction. More of the same. That’s from, at the very top of the obstruction looking down towards east of the affected properties. That’s right at the obstruction that Mr. Jeffers has pointed out.

President Tornatta: Okay, now what is, to the left?

Gerald Dennis: I believe–

President Tornatta: How long has that been there?

Gerald Dennis: I’m not for sure how long that has been there. I believe Mr. Harris’ neighbor planted that to help control some of the water coming to his property. I believe, this is looking–

President Tornatta: Well, that is some type of utility.

Gerald Dennis: Yeah, Mr. Jeffers pointed that out. That is inside the obstruction.

Commissioner Korb: Inside the saw grass?

President Tornatta: Yeah, okay. Now, my question is was that before the saw grass, or was that after the saw grass? Or, were they both developed at the same time?

Gerald Dennis: I believe that’s after the saw grass. This was taken just recently, but the obstruction occurred prior to the saw grass. The neighbor to the west of Mr. Harris planted that to help control some of the water going into his property. That, I believe, has increased the flow of water to our property.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

President Tornatta: Right, and, I guess, what I’m trying to figure out is another view of that shows there are some wires coming out of that. For instance, it would appear to be a cable wire for cable t.v. or something of that nature.

Gerald Dennis: Yes, there is–

President Tornatta: Or an access line.

Gerald Dennis: – access for utilities along the property lines. There are overhead cables that I think Vectren maintains. I believe some of the cable companies as well. Maybe even a phone line.

President Tornatta: And, you don’t know when those were placed there?

Gerald Dennis: No, I sure don’t.

President Tornatta: Because, if I could borrow our Surveyor for just a second. Would that have been an impediment in the waterway?

Bill Jeffers: In that previous dark picture on the stormy day, you were looking at the back side of this grass clump. The pole, with all the conduit coming down the pole and underground–

President Tornatta: But, that waterway would be to the left of that?

Bill Jeffers: It would be to the right of this picture here. We’re, that picture was taken by someone standing over about here. Just looking, you know, into–

Commissioner Korb: So, it’s going in there and turning right, right, Bill?

Bill Jeffers: It’s over here.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah.

Bill Jeffers: He was standing behind that, you know. Now you’re back over here on the opposite side.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, and that clump of rose bushes right here, and there’s a transformer right there, there’s a (Inaudible) right there.

Commissioner Korb: Right.

Bill Jeffers: So–

President Tornatta: So, in no way–

Bill Jeffers: –now I’m going to go back to the other side of this clump of grass that’s over here. Okay, the water should be going straight ahead through here.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: But, a combination of hitting all of this stuff over here, it’s turning and going to the right.

President Tornatta: Okay, but that transformer we believe was there?

Bill Jeffers: I would say the transformer’s been there a good 12 to 20 years.

President Tornatta: And, as you would–

Bill Jeffers: This pole behind the clump of grass has been there, well, I could look, since you will probably continue this hearing, I will go get the date off the pole. Those poles are stamped with a date.

President Tornatta: Well, I guess, my question is, do you believe that either one of those two articles have caused this problem?

Bill Jeffers: This did not, this didn’t help a bit, and, I would say if there was any trenching between the pole, when they installed the conduit, if that conduit happens to be connected to this unit over here, whenever utilities trench back and forth across a waterway, they do damage and cause obstructions. So, it could be a combination of utility activity trenching across this watercourse and over to this box. Plus the overgrowth of the vegetation. I mean, it’s never as simple as one thing or the other. It’s always a combination.

President Tornatta: What would allow them to put that box close to a natural waterway, I guess, is what I’m looking at?

Bill Jeffers: There was a utility easement there. See, okay–

President Tornatta: And, who does that serve?

Bill Jeffers: –let’s go back to Knob Hill Subdivision was platted at a time when there weren’t separate drainage easements and separate public utility easements, back in the 60's, 70's whatever. They would have just platted a public utility easement down through here and said it was for the purpose of all public utilities. That would be sewer, water, electric, cable, if they had it, and surface water drainage. So, all utilities were crammed into a 12 foot easement, and often times the underground utilities severely interfered with the surface water drainage. So, what gives them the right to make these installations? It’s a public utility easement.

President Tornatta: Uh-huh.

Bill Jeffers: What we’re trying to determine, is this a mutual drain that was established for the purpose, to serve all these properties? A mutual drain definition, “an open channel that serves two or more properties, common drainage”. If that was the intent of that open watercourse, then it is a drain. We can get into that later. How it became obstructed, I’m saying it happened historically over a period of time. It is accumulation of what the petition identifies overgrowth of vegetation, and, obviously, some other incidental happenstance.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: When you say incidental happenstance, do you mean, perhaps, the transformer box sitting there?

Bill Jeffers: Perhaps.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I think that’s very important, because what we’re trying to find whether or not the petitioner is causing the obstruction. Obviously, the petitioner can’t control whoever put the transformer box in there. So, anyway, that’s just another factor to be considered.

Bill Jeffers: That’s another factor to consider. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent had any control over the utility companies. I can’t tell you how many different utilities are underground at that point. I can tell you what’s above ground, and we’ve seen that.

President Tornatta: But, I mean, to just kind of cut to the quick here, if the vegetation were not there, it seems to me, no matter that box or whatever, there would be a flow through that area. Compounding the problem is the vegetation.

Bill Jeffers: Correct. Yeah, vegetation–

President Tornatta: Because the natural flow was not to do a zigzag–

Bill Jeffers: Right.

President Tornatta: –through these people’s backyards.

Bill Jeffers: Correct.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: And, that’s what we’re trying to determine. The vegetation, is it significant enough of an impediment to impede the full flow of water? And, does its removal, would its removal constitute, or cause better drainage of the petitioners property? My experience is, whenever you have vegetation to this extent located where the watercourse should be, or in the watercourse, every fall, as the water comes down from Ward Road, it brings leaves with it. Those leaves accumulate at this point, and they become soil, over years, they decompose into soil, and that builds up, and after a period of several years of build up, then the water kicks out and finds a more easy path.

President Tornatta: Anywhere in this line, from top to bottom, or from, I guess, it would be, what west to east?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir.

President Tornatta: Anywhere in that line do we have anything close to this type of vegetation overgrowth? Or is this just subject to this one area? Have we had any problems in that line, except this area?

Bill Jeffers: Okay, that’s two questions. We have had many problems since 1996 between Ward Road and Oak Ridge Subdivision. But, if you look at this, you can see that the watercourse is fairly clear up here by Ward Road. These trees here, you saw that in a previous picture, they were off to the side, and only when it comes to this point is there vegetation growing right smack dab in the middle of the watercourse. So, to separate the two questions, yes, there’s always been problems of excess water coming down through here. The county tried to fix that between ‘96 and ‘98 with some improvements on Ward Road. There’s still a significant quantity of water coming down through here–

President Tornatta: But, is it causing the same type of problem? I mean, is it leaving the channel and making its own waterway?

Bill Jeffers: It leaves the channel up here at Mr. Tabor’s house. We can’t scroll that way can we? Yeah, we can, okay. I believe Mr. Tabor lives either, I think he lives in this house. Mr. Bell lives in this house. That water cuts behind Mr. Bell’s house either here or here and comes down to the road. Mr. Tabor has had a problem. We tried to solve those problems back in ‘96 to ‘98 by increasing the pipe sizes up on Ward Road and taking more of that water due south along Ward Road. That was a County Engineer’s project. But, you still have all this significant acreage up here contributing water down into this watercourse. This is Knob Hill. Okay, so, yes, to answer, there are other places where it kicked out when it got too deep for the watercourse, and, specifically, at Mr. Bell and Mr. Tabor’s property. Then, it had a pretty good channel until it gets down to where the channel is overgrown.

Commissioner Korb: So, where exactly are we trying to get here tonight with the petitioners? What are you requesting? Do you want to have the vegetation cut down? Do you want to have Mr. Harris pay to fill in the gulley? Where are we going with this?

Gerald Dennis: Well, actually, what we are asking for is a permanent solution to the obstruction. To have that removed out, to return the natural flow of the water to that drainage area, so they can go straight shot down from Ward Road all the way down to that pump or lift station.

Commissioner Korb: Okay, but we understand from what Mr. Jeffers just said, there is no guarantee that if those obstructions are removed, that that will happen, correct? Did I hear you say that, Bill?

Bill Jeffers: If the vegetation were removed, and the channel were restored to its previous condition–

Commissioner Korb: It would make a lot of improvements.

Bill Jeffers: –it would improve the situation. It would lessen the amount of water that kicks out–

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: –and goes across the petitioners property. During extremely heavy rainstorms like we may have had today or tonight, you would still have some overflow, unless you made the ditch two feet deep. I don’t think we can make the ditch two feet deep on account of the utilities.

President Tornatta: Mr. Dennis?

Gerald Dennis: Yes?

President Tornatta: Are you in search, and, of course, I’ve read this a few times, but are you in search to have the respondent pay for any of the fillage on your property at this point?

Gerald Dennis: That’s something we haven’t discussed, but we wouldn’t expect him to repair our property. We just want the obstruction removed so that it does go back where it was.

President Tornatta: Right.

Gerald Dennis: The petitioners had discussed amongst themselves on ways that we could remedy this situation; pea gravel, PVC pipe and dirt, but that’s not stopping the actual formation of the water through our properties. That’s just creating a place for it to flow.

President Tornatta: I understand. Okay, and, now I’m trying to formulate this, and we haven’t talked to the respondent, want to do that, but one of the things that I wanted to make sure is, if it, you know, if the respondent decided that, he took it upon himself to take a measure to make a channel, just where you all would sit, if that were one of the outcomes. Obviously, there are several outcomes that we can look at today, but just finding that out. I think I know what you want, you just don’t want a reoccurring problem.

Gerald Dennis: Right.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

President Tornatta: Anything else that you want to add? Did you need to see these?

Commissioner Korb: No, I’m good.

Gerald Dennis: Is that enough photos?

President Tornatta: Do you need these back?

Gerald Dennis: Um, can I?

President Tornatta: We’ll enter them in the record. So, they will be a public record, if that’s okay?

Gerald Dennis: Okay. We could even make a copy of the disk, if you would like.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Gerald Dennis: I don’t believe you saw all the slides.

President Tornatta: Do you want a copy of the disk?

Madelyn Grayson: I don’t know that that’s absolutely necessary. If you want to submit one for the record, I would be glad to incorporate that.

Commissioner Korb: I mean, I get the picture. You get the picture.

President Tornatta: If that’s it, we appreciate, any other comments from the Conways or the Waznys?

Linda Conway: I might just (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

President Tornatta: Come on up. Sure.

Linda Conway: (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

President Tornatta: Hold on a second. We need you up here.

Linda Conway: You were talking about a ditch.

President Tornatta: If you can give me your name and address first.

Linda Conway: I’m sorry.

President Tornatta: That’s okay. That’s alright.

Commissioner Korb: You don’t do this all the time. That’s okay.

Linda Conway: Linda Conway.

President Tornatta: Linda is here with Clark?

Linda Conway: Uh-huh.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Linda Conway: You had mentioned, this is the back end of our property, the Conway’s, and we have cleaned, had that all cleaned up just recently all the way up to, you know, where the–

President Tornatta: Obstruction.

Linda Conway: –obstruction is. So, you know, it is pretty defined, it doesn’t look real defined here, but it is a pretty defined ditch that we have.

President Tornatta: Yes.

Linda Conway: So, and you can actually see the water running through there, so.

Commissioner Korb: And, that’s before we get to the obstructions, right? The obstructions are–

Linda Conway: The other side of–

Commissioner Korb: This is after the obstruction?

Linda Conway: Uh-huh.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Linda Conway: Yeah, I just wanted to bring that up.

President Tornatta: Okay. I’ve tripped over that ditch 50 times. So, I’m aware of this area. This is old stomping grounds here. So, yeah.

Clark Conway: We can move forward on the slides, if you would like.

Brenda Jeffers: Okay.

Clark Conway: There’s a good photo there of the runoff. I can honestly say, excuse me, when we moved in 14 years ago, I can remember distinctly the amount of the runoff, the actual what I call the ditch was no more than a handful. I mean, it was that shallow, but over the course of the years, 14 years we’ve been there, with the obstruction growth and the amount of rainfall and the erosion, it started to cut a path through our yard. It’s basically severed our yard in half. So, we have almost one acre in the backyard, and when I go to cut on the riding lawnmower, I actually have to take it around the ditch into either the Dennis’ yard or our neighbors on the left to cross over the ditch, unless I just want to drive through it. But, it’s a good foot, almost a foot deep now in 14 years. I really think that’s what we’re looking for, as far as neighbors, is to remove the obstruction where the natural waterfall, water flow comes from the top of the hill. As Mr. Jeffers said earlier, they did some pipe rework up, and it is, Knob Hill, the actual movement of the water from Ward Road, from west to east, that is a steep area until you get to our back yards and then it levels out. Then, once it hits that obstruction, it just goes straight into the backyards. I think, I know you’ve seen the photographs, but it’s a swamp anytime we get some major rain.

President Tornatta: I would like to kind of clarify, I mean, obviously, there are some other contributing factors. There’s been a lot of development in that area. A lot more houses than when it was intentionally set out to have that kind of shared waterway. So, you know, would just like to reference the fact that, although it’s increased every year, maybe not as much rain drain off from other houses that weren’t there 14 to 18 years ago, back when it was less developed. But, so noted.

Clark Conway: Thank you.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just if I may ask a question? I don’t think we’ve heard, Bill, you can correct me if you think I’m wrong, I don’t think we’ve heard any evidence from the petitioners as to, number one, is the obstruction on Mr. Harris’ property? Has that been established?

Bill Jeffers: Um–

Madelyn Grayson: Bill, before you answer, can I change the tape?

Bill Jeffers: Sure.

(Tape change)

Madelyn Grayson: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: I did not survey the property while I was out there, but I did find some t-bar fence posts that marked property corners, and just eyeballing it, I would say that the watercourse that we’ve shown you in the pictures, the original watercourse, and the obstruction in the form of the overgrown vegetation is largely on the respondents property. As alleged by the petitioner.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, and then my second question, I guess, is we haven’t heard any evidence as to whether that was intentional or whether it happened over time. For example, did someone see the respondent go out there and plant the brush? Or did he put the brush in to try to divert the water from his property? Or, I don’t know, there’s been no testimony at all about any of those things, and I think that’s important for the members of the Drainage Board to hear something on that.

Bill Jeffers: From my observation, I can safely speculate, because the vast majority of the overgrown vegetation that I viewed was natural, native species. They weren’t ornamental trees, they weren’t the kind of trees you get at Combs Nursery. They were the kind of trees that grow up when a yard is left untended. Multiflora roses, sassafras, brush, the kind of things you find along untended tree lines. But, you can get the testimony of the respondent as to what he bought when he bought the place, and what he left, or what he planted.

Commissioner Korb: I’ll be right back.

Bill Jeffers: Going for that Coke now?

Commissioner Korb: No, I’ve had too many today.

President Tornatta: When we’re talking about, could you go over one more time the natural, or intentional obstruction?

Bill Jeffers: Okay, this is taken from the applicable statute;

“An obstruction means a condition that exists within or near a drain, and prevents or significantly impeded the flow of water through the drain. The term includes the presence of one or more objects inside or near the drain. A quantity of material inside or near a drain, or damage to a drain that prevents or significantly impedes the flow of water through the drain. Obstructions include those created intentionally, and those which occur naturally or are created unintentionally.”

Now, the way we have interpreted that since 1996 on several of these hearings and decisions, was that those materials could be deposited by man, dirt dumped into an open drain because the guy didn’t like that ditch there. That would be intentional. The other objects in this case are utility objects. They were placed there intentionally, but certainly not by the respondent. The overgrowth of vegetation, from what I’ve viewed, and purely objectively I’ll say, or subjectively I’ll have to say, it looks like unintentional, natural overgrowth just left to grow. But, it still constitutes, in my interpretation of the statute, an obstruction. But, it’s up to the board to decide, after hearing everyone, whether it was intentional or not.

President Tornatta: And, if, although it could be natural, is it considered intentional if the respondent does not keep the waterway?

Bill Jeffers: Now you’re into a legal interpretation that I can’t give you a ruling on, or an interpretation of. It hasn’t been interpreted that way before.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: What was your question?

President Tornatta: I said, if it’s a natural factor, trees, brush that obstruct the natural waterway, is it the respondent’s position that they should take care of that, to clear the waterway, and make that flow?

Commissioner Korb: Do you mean the petitioners?

President Tornatta: Then is that considered intentional?

Bill Jeffers: Is neglect intentional?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, well, let me ask a question–

President Tornatta: A better way to put it.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –different from this one, let’s just assume that there is a ditch running north and south and that it runs through ten people’s properties, and for the water to flow through that ditch it has to be unimpeded. If my neighbor stacks bricks in that ditch up to the top of it, that’s going to impede the flow of water from his property to mine, and the water, I guess, might, over time, go in some other direction.

Bill Jeffers: We have had that happen. Exactly.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, and that clearly would be intentional.

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Alright, let’s say that brush grew up in my neighbors ditch, do people have an obligation, in your opinion, to keep their ditch on their property cleaned out so that it doesn’t stop the flow of water? I mean, I’ve seen a lot of ditches, when I grew up out on Kratzville Road we had ditches, and we had to mow them, or sickle them, which they used in those days instead of weedeaters, and keep the high grass out of them so that the water would continue to flow that way. I think we expected the people who lived upstream of us and downstream of us to do the same thing. That was just cleaning out your ditch. Is that something that the respondent hasn’t done? Or is it something else?

Bill Jeffers: Well, is it something that this respondent has not done? Yes. Is it something that the previous owner of the respondents property did not do? You’ll have to ask him.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: He may have bought it that way. All I can tell you is that, yes, customarily, or traditionally we think people should keep their ditches open. It’s a common ditch, it’s a mutual drain, it serves 20 properties, as in Mr. Ziemer’s example, all 20 property owners should keep their ditch open for the benefit of all 20 properties. It doesn’t happen. There are ditches all over the county where people just neglect to keep them open. They cause problems all the time. That’s why in 1994 when we wrote the drainage ordinance all new subdivisions that came into being after 1994, one of the requirements is that the waterways be maintained in a condition like a lawn.

President Tornatta: So–

Bill Jeffers: As you saw below this one, that person maintains it as if it were his lawn.

President Tornatta: But, going off of the direction we’re leading, who’s responsibility is the obstruction clear out? I mean, the ditch cleaning, the obstruction clear out, who’s responsibility would it be if it were–

Bill Jeffers: If it didn’t come here tonight?

President Tornatta: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: The property owner.

President Tornatta: Or the respondent, in this case?

Bill Jeffers: They are called the respondent in this case.

President Tornatta: In this case?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir.

Commissioner Korb: Can we hear from him now?

President Tornatta: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: Sure.

Commissioner Korb: Please.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I have one more question before we do that. I’m just trying to help you with your record.

President Tornatta: I understand.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: As you know, it’s your decision, but I want to see that we have a full record before us. We haven’t heard any, any testimony as to what it might cost to remedy this problem. To me that means something about brush growing up in a ditch, I don’t know, probably I might get out there and pull the brush out of the way, and I’ve solved the problem, and that didn’t cost very much money. Unless you’re going to pay me my per hour charge as a lawyer.

Bill Jeffers: And, it’s about the same for an excavator, 150 bucks per hour.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: But, in that case, we’re not fighting over very much, and maybe we can even get the people to talk to each other and resolve it that way. Anyway, we’ve heard no testimony about what the cost of curing this obstruction might be. I think that’s important.

Bill Jeffers: Right, $150 per hour, plus disposal of the residue.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: How long?

President Tornatta: He said about, his estimate was–

Bill Jeffers: One day.

President Tornatta: –is that all?

Bill Jeffers: I think it could be done in one day, but the problem would be cutting the trees down. You’re going to have to bring in a separate company, possibly–

President Tornatta: His number was $10,000, as an estimate.

Bill Jeffers: Well, that was a high estimate, yes. We did one on the east side, it turned out to be $8,800 in 1998. Very similar.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: How big are the trees? I thought we were talking about grass?

Bill Jeffers: I would say 12 inches in diameter or less. Some of them four inches, some of them eight inches.

President Tornatta: Alright, let’s hear the respondent.

Bill Jeffers: The one on the east side had three willow trees all less than 18 inches in diameter, and it was $8,800.

Tim Harris: Questions?

President Tornatta: Your name and address, please.

Tim Harris: Tim Harris, 2701 Pine Tree Drive.

President Tornatta: Okay. By no means are we against you, we just want to hear from you.

Tim Harris: I know. I understand. I’ll give you a little history. I bought the property in 1983, that bush was there in 1983. Now, if my neighbors would have come to me and talked to me about this, instead of us having to come down here, it probably would be a different story. But, go ahead, do you have any other questions of me? I mean, I haven’t done anything.

President Tornatta: No, and, I guess, the thought is that it’s, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not that you haven’t done anything, it’s if you had the opportunity, would you be willing to make that drain back to whole as if it were a natural waterway?

Tim Harris: Yeah. I don’t, that grass that’s shown there, that’s on my neighbor’s property. I don’t know if that’s hurt or helped since he planted that. Now, that was, he put it in intentionally. What you’re not seeing is, you’re seeing it in the wintertime. I’m not entirely sure that, you know, it’s that ugly. It’s a wild bush. It’s not something that was intentionally planted.

Commissioner Korb: Tim, how big is that area there? Is it that big?

Tim Harris: Well, it was a fence row. If you look down that, from day one, actually the neighbor on the other side of that has that fence row. You know, it’s a 300 foot lot.

Commissioner Korb: Uh-huh.

Tim Harris: So, it’s quite a ways back. You know, you’re seeing it with all the leaves down and everything else. That part of the ditch shouldn’t be a problem, as far as, you know. I don’t think I should have to go in there and cut all those trees down though, just to get the water flowing. That ditch is between those trees. Those trees are not actually impeding the ditch there.

Commissioner Korb: That was going to be my question. I mean–

Tim Harris: It’s just right there at that one point. I mean, we’re fussing over–

Commissioner Korb: Because it seems like–

Tim Harris: I talked to an excavator, and he said he could probably do it in a couple of hours.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah.

Tim Harris: But, obviously, I wish they would have came and talked to me about it first, which is very disappointing.

Commissioner Korb: Here’s a question. Obviously, the saw grass has got to go, because, well, I mean, it cuts right through there. That’s, to me, that’s where the first obstruction is, because it goes straight towards there and then hangs a right.

Tim Harris: Hangs a right, right after that saw grass, which is not on my property.

Commissioner Korb: No, so–

Tim Harris: And, the other point about the transformer, it’s been a problem since SIGECO put that transformer in. So, you can’t go digging around there much, because there is underground wires there. So, that’s all got to be figured out.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Tim Harris: So, you know, this problem’s been there for years. It’s not like this cropped up over night.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Tim Harris: I guess, my only point is, it’s not that big a deal really. To come down here for two or three hours and waste everybody’s time over.

President Tornatta: In fairness, whatever the disconnect is, sometimes that’s what we play–

Tim Harris: I know.

President Tornatta: –as the connecting body. You know, maybe one thing, and, Mr. Jeffers, could you pop back up here? I enjoy seeing you.

Bill Jeffers: Jeff, he’s doing this to me now. Don’t blame me later.

President Tornatta: Okay. What would be the opportunity if you were to start, between the time that we make a decision, and as we’ve done at some point, you come back with an agreement, before we make a decision, but what would happen if you worked with the respondent on a waterway or waterway plan, and were able to take that back to the petitioner, they might have to do some type of modification to their side as well, but you put that in that plan, and if everybody’s agreeable, a time table when the respondent would take care of his side and when the petitioner would take care of their side, or vice versa, and then bring that back to us just for approval?

Bill Jeffers: We can try that again. We tried it last year. I was supposed to come back in November and tell you how it went there on, what was the name of that one?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And it worked.

Bill Jeffers: They went away, and then I got a letter last week that says nothing’s happened. But, you know–

President Tornatta: Yeah, but the deal on what will happen–

Bill Jeffers: –that has nothing to do with this fellow, you know, and the other folks.

President Tornatta: But, that will affect the remonstrator, or the respondent at that point. I mean, that can all be remedied as well.

Bill Jeffers: Yes, if that’s the pleasure of the board, when I come back, I’m going on vacation Friday, and I’ll be back the following Friday, I will get with Mr. Harris’ excavator, I will get my own excavator, Naas Brothers, or Mark Naas and Son, and we will go out there and look at this and come back to you at a subsequent continuation of this hearing, if that’s what you wish, with some sort of plan to move that water through there, and let you know what it’s going to take. If that’s what you want to hear.

Commissioner Korb: Here’s my question. Go ahead, Mr. Ziemer.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I just want to ask, we do need your professional opinion on this, is this a drain or a watercourse?

Commissioner Korb: I’m thinking it’s a watercourse.

President Tornatta: I guess, we would have to go look it up, would we not?

Commissioner Korb: We could google it.

Bill Jeffers: Well, no, the statutory definition of a drain is, a natural, or artificial open channel, you know, where you can see a channel. It meets that. Whether it’s man made or natural. It carries surplus water. It does that. It’s located on two or more tracts of land that are under different ownership, that’s the case, and was established by the mutual consent of all the owners and was not established or made subject to any other statute. I mean, if it meets that, it’s a drain.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, that’s a drain. What’s a watercourse?

Bill Jeffers: Much simpler. An area of the surface of the ground over which water from falling rain or melting snow occasionally and temporarily flows in a definable direction.

President Tornatta: This would be a drain.

Bill Jeffers: So, that’s more or less a meandering, low area of water.

President Tornatta: Okay, now, while you’re on vacation, and I’m glad you’re getting away, hope you enjoy that.

Bill Jeffers: You’ll be glad not to see me next week, right?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: There’s no meeting next week.

President Tornatta: That’s right.

Commissioner Korb: Poor planning on your part, Jeffers. Poor planning on your part.

President Tornatta: And your birthday, right?

Bill Jeffers: Correct, next Tuesday is.

President Tornatta: In the meantime, if the respondent and the petitioners would get together and find out a way to make this happen, and present that to you, are you acceptable of that?

Bill Jeffers: Absolutely.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: That is truly the intent, this is all just legal language–

President Tornatta: Yeah, I understand.

Bill Jeffers: The true intent by the legislator who did this was to take these things out of civil court, and put it into a venue where people can agree to get it done between themselves.

Commissioner Korb: Sure.

President Tornatta: Okay. Go ahead.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah, thanks. The Dennis’, the Conway’s, and the Wazny’s, is Patti Dee here? There you are, okay. What happens if we can shave this thing off here, dam that up over there, because see that’s how it’s running, dam that up, and get this thing going that way, and we dig a channel, basically through that thing of trees, is it your desire to see that whole patch of woods come down? Or do you care as long as there is a natural water flow through there? I’m just asking.

Patti Dee Wazny: I don’t care.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Patti Dee Wazny: As long as the water–

Commissioner Korb: Flows.

Patti Dee Wazny: –flows, and doesn’t make me have to go through two yards to (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

Commissioner Korb: Okay, Conways?

Tim Harris: I’ve got a letter from Steve Parker, the neighbor to this side, he doesn’t believe that this is going to solve the water problem, because there is a garden planted in this ditch about four houses up, and other things, and he lists it. I didn’t spend any time looking at this to be honest with you.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Tim Harris: He did, he thought it was important, because he’s trying to, you know, fix the other things. If you want to see it, I can give it to Bill, or whatever, but there’s other issues.

President Tornatta: You can submit that.

Bill Jeffers: I’ll take it and look at it. Do you have a copy of it?

Tim Harris: No, I do not have a copy. He gave it to me this morning.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, I’ll get a copy from you here in a minute. In the past these things have ballooned into neighborhood–

Commissioner Korb: Fights.

Bill Jeffers: –yeah, and you’ve been there.

Commissioner Korb: Oh, yeah.

Bill Jeffers: Out in your neighborhood.

Commissioner Korb: Right, and that’s why I almost said, okay, how was the food fight between the neighbors, because I didn’t know they were here, so, I’m glad I didn’t say that.

Bill Jeffers: These neighbors are civil.

Commissioner Korb: Right.

Bill Jeffers: Okay? What I’ve found in this situation is to try to hone in exactly on what the petition identifies as the obstruction, and not to expand out into every neighbor out here’s issue. Because I’ve already had real issues up the way, long standing issues up towards Ward Road that have never been resolved–

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: –and I don’t intend to expand this–

Commissioner Korb: To that.

Bill Jeffers: –hearing into, back into history. I’m honing in on what the petition specifies as the obstruction. I went out there and verified that it does exist, and, you know, I might go 75 feet this way and 75 feet this way, but I’m certainly not going to go all through the neighborhood looking for more problems.

Commissioner Korb: Well, my thought is if we can get this thing trimmed down, I don’t care if we delete part of it, because it’s obviously not all in the way, but then dam that up and then get ourselves a natural watercourse going down through there, and I think that we need to obviously call the utility folks so we don’t rupture something and go through there like that.

Tim Harris: Right.

Commissioner Korb: Then badda bing, badda boom, we’ve got ourselves drainage.

Tim Harris: Yeah, I don’t–

Commissioner Korb: I mean, if you all are agreeable with that, my thought is, let’s make that dog hunt. Is that okay with you?

President Tornatta: Hold on, hold on, we have to have, no, we can’t do that.

Commissioner Korb: Why?

President Tornatta: We have to have our Surveyor look over what plans that they want to do before we go through with this process. So, we can’t do that. We will have, they will have to get together in the week, which will take longer than that, and they will have to submit some type of proposal to our Surveyor, and then he will have to come to us with approval of that plan, and then, and only then will they be able to go and go through this process. But, I won’t, there’s no way that I’ll be acceptable of just ad hoc going through there with a trencher and going through that. There’s stuff that needs to be developed, and you guys need to talk about it, come up with a plan, submit that to the Surveyor, or get the Surveyor involved, and at that point it comes to us very clean.

Commissioner Korb: Well, that’s kind of what Bill said. He’s going to meet out there with Tim and his excavator, and he’ll get out there with his, and see what it’s going to take to trench through there, because from what I’m hearing–

Tim Harris: I don’t know what it’s going to take.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah, the neighbors are saying they don’t necessarily want that woodsy thing to disappear.

President Tornatta: No, and that’s fine, but that’s why they’re going to try and get together. If it falls through that they can’t get together and talk about things, at that point, then we’ll have to go to another direction.

Commissioner Korb: But, if they were just all nodding their heads, yeah, that’s okay we can live with that. Did I just miss something? Or, am I okay with that? So, I don’t think we need to make this complicated. If Bill’s okay when he gets back from vacation–

Bill Jeffers: That’s fine. Look, basically what we’re doing is we’re jumping ahead of where your attorney was steering you.

President Tornatta: Right.

Commissioner Korb: I’m just trying to stay away from another three hour meeting that’s not really necessary.

Bill Jeffers: Right, okay. But, since we’re jumping ahead, there is a point at which you find whether an obstruction exists, and you will probably find that it does exist. Then you determine whether it was intentional or unintentional, and you determine whether it’s in a drain or watercourse. If you were, hypothetically, to determine that it exists in a drain, and it was unintentional, then you could authorize the petitioner, the County Surveyor, and the respondent, according to the statute to all work together and the solution that’s arrived at would be paid by all those properties benefitted. That’s why your attorney’s trying to get us to the point, is it a drain, is it a watercourse? If it’s a drain, and the removal of the obstruction from the drain would benefit all the properties that are sitting here tonight, and the obstruction occurred unintentionally, then all the properties served by the project share in the cost.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: And you can tell all of us to work together to do it. Then, Mr. Tornatta’s concern would be addressed as well. I’m going to look at the plan, and bring it to you and tell you, yes, it will work, or, no, it won’t.

Commissioner Korb: And, we need that, because there’s no sense in doing the work if it won’t work.

Bill Jeffers: So, if you want to bypass, or, if you want to suspend making all the findings and determinations and just tell me to go ahead and do this, that’s what I’ll do.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I think that’s what they’re saying, and, no need to make the findings, if, in fact, the parties can agree on a way to solve this problem.

Bill Jeffers: And, we did that last year.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And, we did that.

Bill Jeffers: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: So, that, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that procedure. So, what I understood was that Mr. Harris would get together with his estimator, and you’ll get together with your estimator, and look at what does it take to have that drainage reversed?

Bill Jeffers: Then you’ll have two ideas, two prices, they might be the same, and then we’ll present that to the group and see what they think.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: See what they think, yeah.

Commissioner Korb: The group meaning the Dennis’, the Conway’s–

Bill Jeffers: Everyone involved back here behind us, and they say, well, that’s too much money, we’ll look at doing it a way without having to remove as much trees.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah, and I’m really sorry. I don’t mean to be critical when I say this all, I just, I think it’s about talking to each other. If you’ve done that before, I’m sorry I didn’t catch up on that. But, from what I’ve–

Tim Harris: We’ve never spoken on this issue.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah, so I’m thinking, okay, you ask the question do I think this was intentional? No. Do I think there’s an obstruction? Yes. So, I mean, that’s fine, do I think we can resolve this? Uh-huh. I really do, without spending a ton of money and everybody else’s time. I just think that, obviously, Tim has said I’m willing to talk to them, they haven’t talked to me. Maybe they have and we’re not aware of that, I don’t know, but they seem like reasonable folks. No one is getting, beating on anybody’s desk. This has been one of the more pleasurable long, elongated meetings I’ve been to, but, jeepers, if you can go on vacation and come back relaxed, tanned and ready, get together with them and come up with the estimate, let’s see if we can just do this.

Bill Jeffers: If I’m not tan when I come back.

Commissioner Korb: Well, I’ll have to get some sunglasses on so I’m not having this whole glare thing off of your forehead.

President Tornatta: You’ll be a year older.

Commissioner Korb: I don’t mind coming back and going through all this stuff again. I really don’t, but is it really necessary? We’ve got a drainage problem. I can’t, Tim, I can’t address this guy’s garden four houses up, I don’t really care about that.

Tim Harris: I don’t care either.

Commissioner Korb: Those aren’t the pictures I’m looking at. Let’s make this thing so it flows straight through there and we’re good.

Tim Harris: That letter is not to lay any blame on anybody.

Commissioner Korb: No, I don’t take it like that.

Tim Harris: I think what Steve Parker was saying in that letter is, is this really going to solve the problem? Which he addressed earlier. Is this really going to solve the problem for the whole? Now, if we fix this thing and there’s water laying in the yard, then we really haven’t accomplished anything.

President Tornatta: But, it does accomplish the volume of water that would be in their yard, and I think that’s the main purpose. Can I get a motion to continue this to the, Bill, are you okay with the 19^th, or do you need it past that?

Bill Jeffers: That’s fine.

President Tornatta: The 19^th is a rezoning.

Commissioner Korb: So, you all can get together between now and then?

President Tornatta: So, if we do this, it will–

Bill Jeffers: That’s pushing it, but I’ll see what I can do.

President Tornatta: Do you want to do it on the 4^th? No rezoning that day.

Bill Jeffers: Great.

President Tornatta: March 4^th. Okay, if we can come to terms with March 4^th.

Commissioner Korb: And if you all even decide to do this yourselves, I’ll come out and help you dig with a shovel. We’ll just have to get the Courier & Press out there, because Troy and I ain’t comin’ out for free. It’s going to be, look what these Commissioners are doing, working together to dig a ditch.

President Tornatta: I make lemonade.

Tim Harris: (Inaudible) out there?

Commissioner Korb: You know, I don’t know. No, but, you know, thanks for being so reasonable, all of you. I think we can make this work. I really do.

Bill Jeffers: I will say, all of the Commissioners were out in their hip boots on Ward Road in 1996, I guarantee ya, all three of them.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Tim Harris: It’s been an issue, I mean, the hill’s too big. I mean, the water–

Commissioner Korb: It just runs off of there.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The County Attorney was not there, right?

Commissioner Korb: I don’t have hip boots.

Bill Jeffers: He wasn’t as pro-active as our current County Attorney.

Commissioner Korb: I move we continue this thing. Are you all okay with that? Do you feel like you’ve had any resolution here tonight? That’s what I’m after. Yes or no?

Linda Dennis: I hope it’s to the point where (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

President Tornatta: You’ll have to come up to the–

Commissioner Korb: I am so sorry that the government is so cumbersome like this, that you have to speak into a microphone.

Linda Dennis: My name is Linda Dennis, and I live at 2740 Anthony’s Drive.

Commissioner Korb: Great.

Linda Dennis: When we first went and talked with Patti Wazny, Geri and I, and Linda, I think, went and talked to Steve, and I was told that people have talked to you about this obstruction, and that it was said, absolutely not, we’re not taking it down.

Tim Harris: Never.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah, you know–

Linda Dennis: Then, I know that you talked to Steve after you got the notice, if I would have thought you were approachable, we would have approached you, but I didn’t want to end up with a conflict.

Commissioner Korb: Here’s my only response to that, we’re in politics–

Linda Dennis: Yes.

Commissioner Korb: –we prefer to call ourselves public servants, it doesn’t sound as sleazy, and people say stuff about us all the time that is flat out not true.

Linda Dennis: Right.

Commissioner Korb: And, that’s, obviously what this was. Tim is willing to work, as long as we can bury the hatchet and go forward, we’ll do that. I hope you all can. Because you all seem reasonable on both sides of the aisle.

Tim Harris: Can I ask one question?

Commissioner Korb: Sure.

President Tornatta: Hold on, hold on. You’ve got to come up.

Madelyn Grayson: We