VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

JULY 26, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 26^th day of July, 2004 at 7:41 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.

President Mosby: I would like to call to order the Vanderburgh County Drainage Board meeting, July 26, 2004.

President Mosby: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Commissioner Crouch: So moved.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: First we have Havenwood Meadows, section two and section three final plan, Hillsdale Road, quarter mile east of U.S. 41, major residential subdivision plan.

Bill Jeffers: On both this subdivision and the Spring Lake Valley, which is the second subdivision, because the, we’re in a transitional period between the state rule that governs erosion control, etcetera, and the local MS4 operator, John Stoll, taking over later this year, we haven’t really gotten to a point where all our plans mesh together in a logical way. We’re getting one interpretation from the state, another interpretation here locally, etcetera. I don’t want to go into any great detail, but Havenwood Meadow, section two and three final drainage plan presented on behalf of Elpers Development, Incorporated, by Sitecon, Incorporated, the consulting engineer, essentially complies with the local drainage code. There will have to be some certain details of erosion control, some certain details... a street plan has already been approved, but some things may have to be incorporated in at the office level, not requiring board approval. Unless they represent substantial modifications, I would bring them back here, but, otherwise, they will just be incorporated in over the next development period. The County Surveyor recommends approval of the final drainage plan for Havenwood Meadows, sections two and three.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: Next we have Spring Lake Valley, section one, final plan, Mohr Road between Darmstadt and St. Joe Avenue, major residential subdivision plan.

Bill Jeffers: Again, with the same comments, although this particular plan is going to require some details sent to and approved by the Corp of Engineers, it does not have an approved erosion control plan by SWCD at this time, but that’s pending. Some of those details may, again, change details here, mostly with regard to outlet of pipes, whether they’re going to use a rock chute, or a rock mat or what have you. Some final grading details along the east line of the subdivision will have to be presented and approved to the Building Commissioner because they lie within a flood plain, and I want those details to be incorporated into this plan. All that can be done in the office. Again, the plan substantially complies with the county’s drainage code, and would otherwise be immediately approved, but we’re still trying to mesh those street details, and erosion control details, etcetera into this plan at a later date. The County Surveyor recommends approval at this time.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators for Spring Lake? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: Next, Fed Ex site plan, VIP on state road 57, requests variances from code requirements.

Bill Jeffers: The drainage plan for Fed Ex distribution center in the VIP Industrial Park, the plan itself complies with the drainage code and the approved plan for the entire park. That’s already been approved at site review, as customary. What I have this on the agenda for is that I was told by the developer’s consulting engineer that may be here tonight to request this variance, they didn’t want to pave the bottom of the ditches. Is there someone here representing Fed Ex for that request?

Jim Morley, Jr.: That would be me.

Madelyn Grayson: Jim, do you have an extra one for the record? When you’re finished?

Commissioner Crouch: You can have mine.

Madelyn Grayson: Never mind.

Jim Morley, Jr.: What you see in front of you is part of the on-site drainage, draining the parking lots and everything, nothing public, in public right-of-way or anything like that. I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not, Bill. It has less than a .8 percent slope. Your drainage ordinance requires anything with a .8 percent or less to have a concrete ribbon in the bottom of them. Generally, these swales, I mean, we see a lot of concrete ribbons inside of a subdivision or something where they carry water across different people’s lots and stuff like that. This is all on site to this particular development, and the developer at the Fed Ex facility is asking to have that concrete waived. The concrete ribbon requirement waived. In truth, if the concrete ribbon is not there, the only one that would ever, I mean, if anyone could be damaged it would be Fed Ex, the people asking for it. I don’t see that it’s a problem, but it’s different than what the code requires, so, that’s why we’re here tonight.

Bill Jeffers: The County Surveyor’s comment is that the code does require the concrete ribbon. It’s used for two purposes, it establishes the grade on a flat ditch, so that if that ditch is every silted up, a person could go out there with a square point shovel and simple scrape off the concrete ribbon and re-establish the flow line. So, you know where it is. The second reason is because it addresses chronic wetness. In a ditch that’s so flat sometimes you have standing water, and this acts as a trickle ribbon for low flow. The water will run down that ribbon instead of standing in the grass and killing the sod. That’s been a long standing requirement, since 1994, part of the drainage code. When we say Fed Ex, that’s fine you can say Fed Ex, that’s the person that’s asking, supposedly, but in actuality what we have here is a leasing corporation that came in and bid against other companies, local companies, who we have always asked to comply with the code. The local company lost the bid to an out of town company, the out of town company is asking for this as an economic, for economic reasons. They don’t want to pay several thousand dollars for a concrete ribbon, and thereby making their bid more attractive. If Fed Ex comes in and they experience chronic wetness, they are going to ask why we didn’t enforce the code, or subsequent owner. I might ask the same question. Therefore, the County Surveyor does not recommend the variance, but you may, as the board, do as you wish on individual cases. The code does allow you to make discretionary decisions on an individual case by case basis.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators, or anybody that would like to speak to this variance? Seeing none. Does the chair have a motion?

Commissioner Fanello: I would make a motion to accept the Surveyor’s recommendation without the variance.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: Does that mean I have a motion to deny?

Commissioner Crouch: Did you make a recommendation?

President Mosby: I think I have a motion to deny.

Bill Jeffers: You can always make your motion in the affirmative and vote however you wish.

President Mosby: It’s that or just not have one.

Commissioner Fanello: That is correct. It’s all in how you word it, I guess.

President Mosby: So, it’s dies for lack of a motion. I don’t know. Do I not have a motion? I’m waiting.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to deny.

President Mosby: Okay, I have a motion to deny.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Next item is Crowne Ridge at the northwest corner of Kansas Road and Green River Road. It’s under construction, this is a modified final plan to move the storm water discharge pipe to avoid a city water line. Perfectly legitimate, submitted by Morley and Associates on behalf of Bruce and Bob Hatfield, operating as Baywood Development. They went to put in a pipe, hit a water line. It needs to be moved. It has been taken to Herb Butler, the engineer at the Water Department and Gary Leek at the Water Department, and I believe John Stoll had some forewarning on this, and is awaiting a set of plans. With that, the County Surveyor recommends the modification to the final drainage plan for Crowne Ridge, so long as it conforms to the County Highway Engineer’s recommendations for street plans.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators? Anybody that would like to speak to the petition by Crowne Ridge? Seeing none. Chair would entertain a motion.

President Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

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

President Mosby: Next we have the ditch maintenance claims.

Bill Jeffers: I’ve laid on your table a mess of ditch maintenance claims. They are out there mowing, spraying and otherwise completing the projects in accordance with the contracts. All of the paperwork is attached, and the County Surveyor recommends approval of those claims at this time.

President Mosby: Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: Encroachment agreements.

Bill Jeffers: I would ask Madelyn if there are any encroachment agreements coming forward?

Madelyn Grayson: None.

Bill Jeffers: Or easement dedications?

Madelyn Grayson: No.

Bill Jeffers: Petitions to remove obstructions may be coming from the floor, or coming from the Auditor’s office.

Madelyn Grayson: None from the Auditor.

Bill Jeffers: Any petitions by individuals to remove an obstruction from the floor?

President Mosby: I’ve got one right behind you.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, and that’s Mr. Bob North. He may also want to speak under others wishing to address the board, unless he has actually filed a petition with a $100 check. Either way, he’s welcome to speak.

President Mosby: He has not. Okay, then we’ll go ahead and no petitions received.

President Mosby: We’ll go with others wishing to address the board. You can come forward.

Bob North: Good evening. My name is Bob North. I’m a property owner residing at 4707 St. Joe Avenue. With the recent rain event that we had on the 17 ^th of July, my neighbor and I both experienced major flooding of our property and our houses. The purpose for being here tonight is to ask for relief from the property owner known as Vintage Park, which is directly due south of us. The owner has built up a three lot parcel piece of property, and I can’t give you exact dimensions or the vertical elevation of the property, but I can stand out in certain parts of it and it is equal to my height. We had, what, two feet of water? Mr. Smith who resides at 4703 St. Joe Avenue, his whole house was flooded. I had to have the fire department get me out of my house, so. Some of the points that I would like to make are right on the top here. We’re claiming that, excuse me for speaking in that so close, but the Vintage Park owner has deposited materials into the flood way, obstructing the natural watercourse, which has caused flooding of our individual properties as well as our dwellings. We claim that this did not exist prior to build up on this property. There is a bleeder ditch directly due east, which runs on the back end of our property, and it serves to drain the water out. It’s a very small ditch. It wouldn’t handle the volume of water that we had. Had the land not been built up so high, it would have all, my claim is that it would have drained throughout the whole property, like if you were in a tub. Rather than our two pieces of property being flooded, it would have dispersed equally over the entire property. I notified the property owner, Mr. Johnson, midday about a problem. He did come out and assisted Greg with the problem that he had. I really did not talk to Mr. Johnson other than that. We are concerned because we came about a year ago and expressed concern about building, depositing materials, this is a flood way, and there’s a flood plain, and there’s some dispute about where it all is. It’s platted out on the maps, but unless you live there you don’t know how the water flows. So, our fear is that our property will not appreciate, we’ll have a difficult time selling it, we may have disclosure problems due to that fact, and we’re going to have continued losses, personal property losses. So, we’re looking for some kind of relief. I’m not sure, I’m not familiar with this process, I’m new to it, but that’s why I’m here. There’s mention in some of the correspondence that I’ve had with Mr. Jeffers, and I must thank him for all his assistance, that if they grade the swale, which runs the north line of the property, that would help with drainage. Well, I have to disagree because the swale is five feet below in certain spots of where the water would run across the flood plain. So, I don’t know that that would help. It drains nowhere, it goes back to the creek, but it doesn’t drain to a storm sewer in front. Finally, if you look at the pictures, the pictures clearly show the flood even that we had. Mr. Smith’s property is on the third page, and the flood was 382.4, .6 something like that. It actually flooded to the top of St. Joe Avenue, which was right at that measurement too. There’s another page further in the back that just shows the extent of the flooding. So, had that water been able to flow south, like it normally would have, our properties would have been flooded, but our houses probably wouldn’t have been. So, thank you, that’s all I can say.

President Mosby: Are there any questions?

Greg Smith: My name is Mr. Smith and my property is directly north of Vintage Park. I wanted to tell you that I had six inches of water in my house, and 15 inches of water in my garage, which cost me $15,000 last year to build. I don’t know what the answer is, but I would appreciate you all looking into it for us. We’re just two property owners there. I’ve lived there for seven years and the water never came nowhere near my house. When I first moved there, the first question I asked Susan, Mr. North’s wife, had the water ever come up there, and she told me no. She’s lived there approximately ten years. Before Vintage Park starting filling in that was a cornfield. You know, water would flow off towards the creek. I just feel that was part of the problem that caused this. Maybe not all of it, because we did have a substantial rain. He was required, I guess, to put in an erosion control device around the sewer, which I have a ditch in front of my property, and Mr. North does too, and that kept that water from going down that sewer. You know, the erosion control thing is probably this high, and it backed the water up into the ditches, because of that it would not go down that sewer. It kept the water from going down there. I think this is part of what caused it to come up into our houses. Thank you very much.

President Mosby: Is there any questions?

Bob North: If I may, I would like to ask, on here, I’m not aware of a fee for petition to modify. I’m not familiar with that. I did ask that we, let’s see, petition the Drainage Board to remove remedy and alleviate the obstruction. So, we are asking for action. I don’t know what I need to do.

President Mosby: Right. Bill, does he have to come to your office to do this?

Bob North: If I might ask one other question, Bill had so kindly referenced that there are state and local rules administered by the IDNR and the county Building Commissioner. I don’t know what those are, and I don’t know how they might help us.

President Mosby: Okay, that’s what I’ll have Bill address.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, I’ll try to address most of the comments, that I can. Mr. North is claiming that it’s possible that the Vintage Park owner has deposited or caused deposits of fill in the flood way. That needs to be determined by Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, who’s been notified, and I have the e-mail that went to both Jim Hebenstreit and Marv Thompson in that department. Marv Thompson replied last week, I believe on Wednesday, that he would forward that to the southern sector inspector from IDNR Division of Water to come down and look at that. Further, the approved drainage plan, approved by this board a couple of years ago, or last year, the County Surveyor insisted, and Mr. Easley who developed the plan clearly showed that there would be, where the flood way lay on that property, and there were notes and narrations to the extent that no fill shall be placed in the flood way. Furthermore, the plan stated that the flood way would not be disturbed, that it would be left natural. I believe John Stoll asked that any drainage improvements that connected to the roadway, or any other utilities that were punched into the property would be bored underneath the road and not disturb St. Joe Avenue and not disturb the flood way. So, that flood way was, extra care was taken to protect that flood way from any fill or disturbance in the drainage plan that you approved last year. There is a surface watercourse across Mr. Smith and Mr. North’s property. That surface watercourse does drain both their properties free of all standing water, as witnessed when I went out there on Sunday following the flood. There was no standing water on their property, it was drained off by that watercourse. The drainage plan that you approved last year specifically prohibited any change in that watercourse, either on their property, or on Vintage Park’s property. That watercourse was to be left as it exists or improved across Vintage Park. It couldn’t be obstructed or moved. In addition, there would be an additional swale on Vintage Park’s side of the property line that did the same thing. So, that it also intercepted any water coming off of Vintage Park, but should the watercourse on Mr. Smith’s and Mr. North’s property ever become obstructed by anything they or subsequent property owners did themselves over there, there would be another watercourse on Vintage Park’s property that would serve the same purpose, to convey all storm water from both properties to the creek, as it does now. That also takes care of the bleeder ditch comment by Mr. North, that’s to be left as is, or improved. Mr. North claims the fill raised the flood elevation. That needs to be determined again by IDNR, Division of Water. Those comments also have been conveyed to Mr. North by a Thursday e-mail, extensive e-mail that I have a copy for the record. That that has to be determined by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Mr. North and Mr. Smith were both previous remonstrators on the drainage plan that this board approved for Vintage Park. I’ve made comments on that plan. I’ll make further comments that state law allows fill in the flood plain to the extent that that fill does not raise the flood elevation greater than 15 hundredths of a foot. Whether or not it raised it to that elevation must be determined by the Division of Water again. There is calculations showing that it wouldn’t submitted with the plan. You voted on a plan and approved a plan that indicated that there would be no additional increase of elevation due to this fill in the flood plain. That fill only covers a couple of acres, and, of course, the watershed is several square miles in size. So, it had a minimal effect, on paper, by those calculations. There has been substantial correspondence between the Surveyor and Mr. North. Mr. North continues to disagree with the drainage plan, of course, that’s his privilege, and he and Mr. Smith both seem convinced that what’s being done on Vintage Park has caused the problem, blocked drainage to the creek, and raised the flood elevation. Again, that is their conviction, and the County Surveyor would have them take up those issues with the Division of Water, who has been notified and all the e-mails that have been sent to Mr. North have been sent to the Division of Water. Mr. Smith says he had six inches of water in his house. I believe a check of his house, which I can have our crew perform at Mr. Smith’s, with Mr. Smith’s permission, to determine the elevation of his house, the finished floor. But, I would say his finished floor elevation is below flood elevation of 382. Federal flood elevation, federal flood plain maps clearly show 382 feet above sea level to be the flood elevation on that property. I believe this house is below that, because it was built before 1979 when the requirement to elevate above was passed by the federal government and state government in ‘81. Mr. Smith says he has 15 inches of water in his garage. I know for a fact his garage is below flood elevation, because we did shoot that. His allegation is true. There was approximately 15 inches of water in his garage. That garage was built, according to Mr. Smith, in 2003, it should have been built above flood elevation. It is below flood elevation. Mr. Smith feels the fill is part of the problem, again, that’s his determination, and that can be addressed to the Division of Water. The sediment fence was placed around an inlet in the right-of-way for St. Joe Avenue because Rule Five requires it, requires a sediment control measure to be placed around there while that construction is going on. I don’t think a silt fence is the appropriate measure. It is in the right-of-way for St. Joe Avenue, and you and the County Engineer can order it removed. It was constructed in such a way, and was substantial enough that water stacked up to go over top of it, and did back water up, and does represent an obstruction to that inlet. If you wish, I would say an appropriate measure should be placed around that inlet or no measure at all. That goes back to what I was saying earlier in the meeting that we don’t always agree with DNR, or their measures. I will, okay, as to, I also included this in my memo to Mr. North that there is a state statute that allows him to petition the Drainage Board to order the removal of an obstruction to a natural surface watercourse, which he is convinced has happened there, after he requests the owner of the property to remove that obstruction. That’s what the statute says. If he requests Mr. Johnson to remove that obstruction, and there’s no action taken, he can file a petition with you, like everyone else has done that’s done that. It costs $100 to file the petition. That was a determination made by the board before any member of this board sat on the board to discourage frivolous actions, and to pay for the cost of the hearing. Mr. North can do that. He can join with another property owner and do that $50 each, then we’ll take up that hearing. I’m discouraging him from doing that because I don’t believe a natural surface watercourse has been obstructed. I do believe a drain has been obstructed by the erosion control measure. I do not believe that a natural watercourse has been obstructed. I do think there’s a possibility that there’s some fill laying in the flood way, and I have asked the inspector, through Mr. Hebenstreit and Mr. Thompson, to come down and determine that. I also included in my rather lengthy e-mail to Mr. North, I have answered, I think, every question that was in his e-mail to me. It is substantial, and I submit it for the record. I ask Mr. North to continue to communicate with me if he feels I have not adequately addressed his concerns, and that the County Surveyor joins with him, his wife, and the rest of government, and all the people of Vanderburgh County in hoping that such a natural disaster never happens on his property, or any other property in Vanderburgh County again. If he doesn’t feel that he has had everything adequately addressed to continue his inquiries and comments. So, I submit that for the record. If anyone would like a hard copy, I will provide it to you. Otherwise, it will be available in the Auditor’s office.

President Mosby: Are there any questions of Bill? I think the first thing I heard is chair would entertain a motion to have the silt fencing removed from the drain. I guess it’s a beehive in a ditch, right?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, it’s an unattended beehive blocking one of your roadway drains. Something better is certainly available.

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

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So, I have a motion and a second. I’ll say so ordered. Who do we contact? Does this go to John?

Bill Jeffers: Your Highway crew could go out there and do it. Or if you want my crew to do it, I’ll do it. Either way.

President Mosby: Would you have to notify–

Bill Jeffers: I’ll go out there with Mike Wathen–

President Mosby: I was going to say should we–

Bill Jeffers: – us two will do it.

President Mosby: Why don’t we have you and Mike go out and do it. That a way Mike will be aware of it.

Bill Jeffers: I’ll do the pointing, and he can do the jerking. How’s that?

President Mosby: If you need assistance, Dennis is right down the road.

Bill Jeffers: I’m sure I could go get somebody from the County Garage that would be happy to participate. I would say that the property owner needs to mow that ditch. I’ll be happy to send them a letter to that effect.

President Mosby: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: I think the property owner needs to notify that there may be some fill in the flood way, and he damn sure better get it out of there before DNR shows up down here, or he’ll be in court with them.

President Mosby: That’s fine.

Bill Jeffers: I’ll be happy to send that letter. I think you have two men and their families that suffered loss and have a great anxiety that it may happen again, or are convinced that that fill has caused this. I’m not as convinced as they are, but I would say that they should definitely pursue this through the Division of Water. The Corp of Engineers has already been out there the very next day after I sent them the e-mail. By the way, I sent the Corp of Engineers these same e-mails, and a representative from the Newburgh division came down and determined that there is no wetlands involved and that their jurisdiction does not extend. They say the Division of Water.

President Mosby: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: So, as soon as we can get them off dead center, and get an inspector down here the better.

President Mosby: Are there any other questions of Bill? Do you have any other questions? We will remove the fencing, ask him to cut the grass, ask him to remove any fill from the flood way.

Bob North: (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

Madelyn Grayson: Mr. North, can you make your comments at the mic? We have to get these on the tape.

Bob North: I’m sorry. The north swale contains a ditch. It’s got construction sediment in it, concrete block, bricks, etcetera. We would more than gladly mow it, I’d maintain it. I think my wife and I own the majority that abuts that property there, so. The question I would like to ask, should we contact IDNR, or wait for them to contact us?

Bill Jeffers: They’ve told me that are coming, but the greasy wheel gets the grease.

Bob North: Okay, understood. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Any other questions?

Bill Jeffers: Excuse me, the squeaky wheel. A greasy wheel doesn’t squeak, or something like that.

President Mosby: We still knew what you–

Bill Jeffers: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

President Mosby: We knew what you meant though. Is there any other–

Bill Jeffers: That puts the cement on the cake as Frank McDonald used to say.

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

Don Gillies: Thank you. My name is Don Gillies. I am the president of a condominium phase out at Oak Meadow. I’ve been in this area for about 17 years now, and about, oh, seven years ago a developer bought the land that was behind us from the bank, developed it and built condominiums. Because of it, however, we have suffered a lot of water damage due to that, due to the way the land has been laid out, and the way that the drainage provisions that were in there are no longer effective. I have been working with Mr. Jeffers and Mr. Wathen, and they feel they know the solution, but we need help in effecting the solution, because the developer simply will not do anything. He walks away from us. I guess, I’m looking, we’re not allowed to beg in the building, but I’m looking for some help in how to do this, okay. I don’t have the privilege of a lot of architects and CAD drawings and everything else, but short of a pen and pencil set I’m going to ask Mark to give me a hand. One of my neighbors here, to grab the other side there. This is basically the area here, the street, this is our condominium buildings, and this is where the other new condominiums were all built up in here. This land is taken from a slope like so, to a slope like so, okay. Because of that, not only, we get water, but we get water at one heck of a rate higher than we would have in the past. The gallons per minute coming down there are very destructive. I have photos here of how it has scoured the land. We have cables coming up from the t.v. box. We have the electrical boxes are scoured out, it has fallen. There is really just a mess back there. There was supposed to have been a pond here to collect drainage, and the black arrows indicate the way the drainage plan that was submitted was supposed to work. The water now goes like so. This area here, the black dotted line is the actual ditch. That ditch was put in there prior to the developer buying the land, it was put in by the bank because of the flooding, okay. Now, the problem becomes, is that this blue line is the property line, it’s not on our property, we can’t do a thing with it. Mr. Jeffers and Mr. Wathen have been out there and said all they need to do is clean this out, this ditch, keep it clean, and give the water someplace to go. They are stopping about 15 or 20 feet from a drop off that goes into a pond. This area is used for egress by the condominium people to bring in product. This is now a big flower garden. They use that. This is just one big bloody malaise by here now. So, what needs to be done, we feel, is that ditch has to be cleaned, a culvert pipe put in there to dispense the water, just dump the water down into the ponds down there, and that would cure it. That would absolutely cure it. But, we can’t get it done. Like I said, we’ve asked, this is not, it’s like a crayon drawing, but there is the ditch, that blue line is the property line. It’s not to scale, but it’s to perspective, okay. I’ve got, as I say, I’ve got a number of drawings, a number of photos that we submitted in a report to Mr. Jeffers and Mr. Wathen and others showing the...well, there’s an example of the scouring that takes place. Just the flow of the water. It just erodes the ground. So, if we can somehow get it cleaned out and have it in the manner in which it can be kept clean, everybody would be happy, but we are getting flooded. We have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of about $12,000 already to take care of the water that comes down on the other end that’s knocking down a retaining wall for us. We’ve put in small drainage, small drains to siphon, keep the water away from the homes. It’s kind of like fighting a losing battle. So, we are begging for some help. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Are there any questions before I ask Bill. Okay, Bill?

Bill Jeffers: There was a very simple drainage plan submitted for this as an apartment project, because condominium lots are treated as apartment projects. For the new condominium adjacent to Mr. Gillies’ property, which is also a condominium. It showed a swale, pretty much in the place that he shows a swale exists, or a ditch exists. It was to carry the water in the direction that Mr. Gillies’ drawing shows it carrying. The last time that Mike and I were out there together a couple of years ago, there was a pipe at the bottom of the hill that carried it off into the woods, and subsequently into some ponds down the way in Oak Meadow. It may not have been a big enough pipe, but there was a pipe down there. The problem is that the ditch is filled with willow trees and other trees and brush that obstructs the full flow of water, and it causes water to spill out, and it goes down grade onto Mr. Gillies’ and other homes that lie on that subdivision, or, excuse me, that condominium lot to the east. So, and it’s all pretty much as shown on his plan there. Both condominium lots have condominium associations that are supposed to take care of their property. The one on who’s property the ditch lies should be taking care of the ditch. There are other drainage associated problems out there. Some are of the making of the individuals who own condominium properties there, have gone out and tried to improve or correct situations, and using corrugated plastic pipe and have subsequently run over it with lawn mowers, crushed it or mowed across it and ruptured it. The retaining wall was put in before our review, and not a part of any drainage review, it was put in with the original Oak Meadow condominium, which was not reviewed by our agency or any agency. I don’t know what the problem is there, but what I viewed was water simply coming over the top of the retaining wall and spilling into their patio areas. I’m not sure what the drainage board can do. We can’t send a crew out there to maintain a ditch on private property. I suppose you can send a notice to the condominium association who should maintain the ditch, that they should maintain the ditch. I don’t know if we can force them to do so. The ditch was shown on the plan, and it was put in, or it was mostly there to begin with. It was utilized, it just hasn’t been maintained.

President Mosby: Is the pond gone?

Bill Jeffers: There are ponds on down the way. It runs through the woods, and then there’s a fella who has a big landscape pond into which all this water runs. It’s part of his condominium lot. The water goes where it’s supposed to go, as long as it stays in the ditch. But, during heavy rainfalls when the trees and so forth force it out of the ditch, because it can’t carry it all, it runs on these two fellas patio areas.

President Mosby: So, if we send them a letter, and they refuse to clean it out, what’s the next step? Can they file a petition with this board and we go clean it out for them?

Bill Jeffers: I don’t agree with the petition to redirect water, this, that and the other, but two of the previous board attorneys have interpreted, and some of the previous board members have interpreted that statute to allow downstream property owners to petition for the removal of obstructions in a ditch that would result in better drainage on a downstream property. I always thought of it as removing a petition to improve drainage from an upstream property. I’m getting ready to go testify in court on one that went through the board, when none of you were members, that has languished around and no one has done anything because the removal of the obstruction was intended to fix a problem downstream rather than upstream. It’s really one of those issues where a person should treat their neighbors in a neighborly fashion and fix the ditch. Then we’re put on the point, you know, we’re put on the point of playing Solomon to people that won’t do their neighborly duty.

Don Gillies: May I comment on that?

Bill Jeffers: Sure.

Don Gillies: Jim is somewhat correct on that, that I wish there was a neighborly duty. But that’s not yet a condominium complex. That is not a registered condominium complex with the state, with the county. So, that’s still owned by Bauer Homes. As of yet that is not a registered, they do not have a declaration of condominiums registered with the county. So, it’s the developer who is still there. In fact, the developer is living in one of the homes, temporarily, I understand. But, this just gives you an idea too of some of the things we’ve talked about. You can see what we had to do at the bottom of the hill that was created to gain enough elevation to build the condominiums. I mean, it just pours down from the hill. There’s a picture of what (Inaudible. Away from mic.) They have PVC pipes sticking out of the side of the hill that has water running out of it that is coming from their down spouts, okay. So, that’s coming down into our retaining wall. On the drawing that they submitted, their drainage plans, it shows the arrows for the direction of flow towards this pond that’s supposed to be here. That pond is not there. That is a garden. That is a flower garden, okay. We get all...they installed sprinkler systems, but we get the water from the sprinkler systems. It’s not so much the water, but the integrity of the ditch is no longer viable. I mean, it just doesn’t do it. If it was the condominium association behind us was doing that, I would sit down with the people, try to talk to them, and, you know, as you say, a good neighbor policy. That’s the best way to go. We could solve it ourselves. But, when we talk to the developer, he turned his back to us and said, well, I won’t tell you what he said, but it was not–

President Mosby: Are there any questions of Mr. Gillies?

Bill Jeffers: The board can direct the County Surveyor, if they wish–

President Mosby: I was getting ready to.

Bill Jeffers: –to write a letter to Buddy Bauer, asking him to complete the drainage plan, as submitted and approved by your board.

President Mosby: That’s exactly what I was getting ready to ask you to do. So, I would entertain a motion to that effect, that we have the County Surveyor–

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Don Gillies: Thank you very much.

President Mosby: You’re welcome.

Don Gillies: Thank you, Jim.

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir. I have no other business to come before the board at this time, unless you have questions, comments or inquiries.

President Mosby: Seeing none.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.)

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Suzanne Crouch

         Bill Jeffers                       Kevin Winternheimer      Madelyn Grayson

         Jim Morley, Jr.                Bob North                       Greg Smith

         Don Gillies                      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.