VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

MARCH 22, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 22^nd day of March, 2004 at 6:02 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.

President Mosby: Call to order Vanderburgh County Drainage Board for March 22, 2004.

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

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

President Mosby: Second, and so ordered.

President Mosby: Do I have a motion to open bids for annual ditch maintenance?

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

President Mosby: Second, and so ordered. I guess, while you’re opening the bids, we’ll go ahead and move on. Then we’ll come back and review the bids. So, while they are opening the bids for the annual ditch maintenance, we are going to move on to drainage plans.

President Mosby: First will be Carpentier Creek Pavilion, preliminary.

Bill Jeffers: Carpentier Creek Pavilion. I’m sure everyone knows where it’s located on Rosenberger Avenue and the Lloyd Expressway and Hogue Road. This is a preliminary plan. The County Surveyor has reviewed the preliminary plan, and recommends approval of the preliminary plan without detention, due to it’s proximity to and across Carpentier Creek, a major tributary in Vanderburgh County, with the provision that the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Divisions of Water, Division of Water, also approved the plan. The design engineer has submitted the plan to Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Water, to the attention of Michael Kneer, the director, and subsequent to their submittal to the Division of Water, I got a call from Mr. George Bowman, who requested that the county drainage board enter into an agreement to monitor and report on the relocated and reconstructed channel of Carpentier Creek, as the plans indicate. I’m going to hand out a copy of a proposed agreement that I prepared from, at the suggestion of George Bowman. (Inaudible). Mr. Bowman represented to me that what he had sent me was an agreement from Hamilton County, Indiana, where Hamilton County drainage board entered into a similar agreement on a project to reconstruct a portion of a major tributary, went to DNR, DNR simply wants to be assured that the mowing of the channel banks and overbank areas will be completed. That the channel and the channel banks and overbank will be kept free of debris and obstructions after construction is completed, so that the water can flow unimpeded through the channel and across the overbank area. And that the shape and condition that the channel and the overbank area is constructed to is maintained in that shape and condition perpetually. That’s down at the bottom of the first page, a, b, and c. Now, that’s what DNR is after, and what they are after is the drainage board saying that they will provide inspection on the back page. They will provide an inspector, a qualified inspector. You have one in Mr. Wathen at the County Engineer’s office. The County Engineer himself is qualified as an inspector. At this time I’m qualified for as long as I’m working for Vanderburgh County, and there are two individuals in my office, both chief deputies are qualified. But, the inspector has to be supervised by a professional engineer or land surveyor. Again, the County Engineer, so long as you employ a County Engineer, he is a professional engineer licensed to practice. So long as chief deputy, Doug McDonald works for the County Surveyor, he’s both a civil engineer and a professional land surveyor. So, we would assume that you would always have a professional engineer on staff. I failed to mention Valerie Harry is also a professional engineer, and she’s also qualified as an inspector. So, you have the personnel that can go out and inspect the site on a regular basis, minimum of once a year, per this agreement, plus every time flood waters overtop Hogue Road. That was specifically required by Mr. Bowman. That would represent a 100 year flood in other words. So, you would have to go out and check then. Then we need to produce a report on a regular basis, and subsequent...basically, what you’re doing here is you’re committing the county to use their forces to inspect and report on the finished condition of the channel, at least once a year, and after every major flood event, and to cause the removal of obstructions, debris, etcetera, and the maintenance of the grass and other vegetation in it, and the maintenance of the channel in it’s location and shape exactly the way that the plans that DNR approves show. That’s an expense to you, it’s not something that we’ve ever done before to obtain a permit for a private individual. I don’t think it’s something we can’t perform, but you might want to think in terms of it sets a precedent that will have to be followed, possibly, and I’m not sure that DNR has the legal authority to enforce this. However, I’m not saying it’s onerous. I’m not saying it’s impossible. I’m simply saying that this means that every time a permit is issued by DNR for reconstruction of a ditch through a project, they will probably be asking the same thing again. It’s up to the drainage board. Whatever the drainage board decides, the County Surveyor will provide assistance and manpower. I’ve signed the bottom of the original copy, and if the Commissioners so desire to enter into this agreement with DNR, they should apply their signatures here on, and date your signatures please. Now, as to how you’re going to cause this to happen, what you should do is enter into an agreement with the developer obligating the developer, so long as he owns the property, to perform these maintenance items in accordance with the report that’s generated by John Stoll, or the County Engineer, whoever he may be in the future. That agreement that you enter into, separately, between the drainage board and the developer, should be put into a document by your legal staff that can be recorded and applied to all subsequent property owners. Now, we have done that before. Skinner Broadbent piped a ditch underneath Eastland Place where Shoe Carnival is, in exchange for allowing them to enclose the ditch and build a commercial subdivision over top of the ditch, just like this, or similar to this, we have a recorded document whereby they maintain the pipe, they maintain the face of the pipe, etcetera. So, there is a precedent on that part, okay? It’s a fairly long document, and I do have samples of similar documents that Mr. Bowman was kind enough to forward to me that other counties have used. Here’s the original copy.

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

Bill Jeffers: Before you execute all these things, you may ask if there is any remonstrators in the audience. Other than that, again, I have reviewed the plan and recommend approval of it. It is in accordance with our local code, so long as DNR approves the reconstruction, the plan will work.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators?

Unidentified: (Inaudible).

Bill Jeffers: Ma’am–

President Mosby: Ma’am, I need you to come to the Mic. and give us your name and address.

Loretta Roberts: I’m Loretta Roberts, my address is 4526 Kerrick Lane. I’m here representing John Roberts. John is deceased. I think I have a lot that adjoins this construction. From what I’m understanding, my, what was a lot is becoming a drainage ditch. I’m quite upset about it.

President Mosby: Okay. I don’t know where your property is exactly.

Loretta Roberts: It’s on Warner Avenue.

Unidentified: (Inaudible).

Loretta Roberts: Well, there’s not a house on it. It’s just a lot.

Unidentified: This is the Lloyd Expressway. John Roberts was your husband?

Loretta Roberts: Yes.

Unidentified: Okay. I believe it’s this lot right here. It’s south of (Inaudible) Avenue.

President Mosby: Okay.

Unidentified: (Inaudible) this is the floodway. (Inaudible) Carpentier Creek. (Inaudible).

Loretta Roberts: No, I haven’t seen it. This is where it was (Inaudible), they are moving it, aren’t they?

Unidentified: This is up creek. This is (Inaudible).

Loretta Roberts: Well, I just, I’m real concerned with what’s happening and how it’s been done. Like, all the soil that’s been placed in there, and made it like over my head. I mean, it’s over five foot deep ditch there now.

President Mosby: Okay, I need you to give your name for the record too.

Loretta Roberts: Previously, there wasn’t anywhere near that. I mean, there just wasn’t a ditch, it was just a trickle of water that went over the land.

President Mosby: Okay.

Jon Kipling: My name is Jon Kipling. I work with Morley and Associates.

President Mosby: Okay.

President Mosby: Mrs. Roberts, this is a preliminary hearing, so, if you would want to get with Bill Jeffers, the Surveyor, who is head of the drainage board, he would be more than glad to try to answer any questions you might have. Because this will have to come back on a final. This is just a preliminary, so, if you have any questions, if you would like to get with him, or get with Mr. Kipling from Morley and Associates so that they can answer any questions you might have before we hear this on final.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, there may seem to be some urgency in me asking for all these approvals tonight, and the reason is I won’t be available from the end of this month through about the end of April. However, this particular plan is at DNR, and I don’t anticipate that it will be back before the May meeting. So, there will still be 30 days where this lady, after I come back, will be able to speak with our office, if she’s not satisfied with the answers she gets from Jon Kipling at Morley and Associates. But, I would recommend that she immediately begin talking to Jon Kipling at Morley and Associates about her concerns that she would like to see incorporated into the final plan, and to talk to Mr. Dennis Owen, who is the developer. So, that they know what you’re concerned about, and can explain it to you thoroughly in a technical way.

Loretta Roberts: How did it get this far along before we were notified?

Bill Jeffers: You were notified of a preliminary drainage hearing, and an Area Plan hearing that will occur the first Wednesday of April. That’s what’s required by law. The question the lady asked was how did it get this far along. There have been notifications on the portions that are over on Dorothy Drive, however, this particular project that’s before you today will appear in front of Area Plan Commission the first Wednesday of April, I believe. Is that correct, Jon? Is it scheduled? The legal notices went out, and if there is any question about the legality of the notice, you can address that to Area Plan Commission at 426, excuse me, 435-5223.

Loretta Roberts: 5223? Area Plan?

Bill Jeffers: Or is that 5226?

Unidentified: 5226.

Bill Jeffers: 5226. If you have any questions about the legality of the legal advertisement, not the legality, but the correctness, they can show you the green cards that were sent out at the appropriate time.

President Mosby: Are there any other questions? Are there any other remonstrators? Seeing none. Let me see if I get this right, Bill. I need a motion to accept the letter from the drainage board with DNR, right?

Bill Jeffers: Motion to approve it for form, or a motion to enter into the agreement–

President Mosby: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: – with DNR, as shown on this sheet, on this letter.

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

President Mosby: I will second and so order it. So, we have a motion–

Bill Jeffers: Then a motion to approve the preliminary plan as presented, as a preliminary plan.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved on that, and then I would like to make an additional motion if it’s required at this time, but the letter that you talked about as far as the agreement between the–

President Mosby: Hold on, I’ve got to second and so order the preliminary plan. I’m sorry, I thought that was part of the motion. We have a motion and a second to accept preliminary plan. So ordered. Go ahead.

Commissioner Fanello: The letter that the County Surveyor referenced as far as the agreement between the developer, I would like for us to pursue that option as well.

President Mosby: Okay, and I have a motion to pursue an agreement letter with the developer, and, I guess, subsequent land owners.

Commissioner Fanello: Right.

President Mosby: Motion, I will second and so order.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, and then we’ll provide your legal staff with whatever documents we have, which are very limited. I’ve read them, they are very limited. I know that Mr. Winternheimer and his staff can come up with a much more thorough agreement between you and the developer and subsequent property owners as to them paying for and accomplishing all the maintenance required, and repairs required perpetually. Thank you.

President Mosby: Mrs. Roberts, if you will get with Mr. Kipling from Morley and Associates and see if–

Bill Jeffers: Their phone number is 464-9585.

President Mosby: Next we have Havenswood sections two and three, preliminary.

Bill Jeffers: Havenswood is another preliminary that meets the requirements of the county drainage code. The County Surveyor has reviewed it and found it compliant, and recommends approval. The only question I have at this time that needs to be answered before the final is submitted, is do the adjacent property owners who came in a year ago on this issue, two farmers that own property adjacent, are they okay with the discharge point in a ditch that they share that has a pipe in it that they maintain? That can be answered at final. I just want to enter that for the record. The recommendation is for approval.

President Mosby: Is there anybody here that wants to speak to Havenswood, sections two and three, preliminary plan? Seeing none.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion to approve the preliminary Havenswood, sections two and three.

President Mosby: Second and so ordered.

President Mosby: Next we have Asbury Pointe Subdivision, final plan.

Bill Jeffers: Asbury Pointe Subdivision is a final plan. It has been presented a month ago as a preliminary plan, subsequently the Soil and Water Conservation District plan review technician has reviewed the construction and erosion control plans and post construction pollution prevention plan for this project, as required by Rule Five, and has found that it is appropriate, and has forwarded her approval of it to IDEM for a Rule Five permit. The County Surveyor has reviewed the plan from the point of view of the local storm water drainage control ordinance, or code, and find it’s substantially compliant with that code. The recommendation is to approve the plan. The only controversial issue at this time is that, and there are people here to speak to this issue, is that the plan that was presented by Morley and Associates that I’m recommending at this time, is dependent upon some off-site creek channel improvements on a neighbor’s property to handle the extra water that’s coming off of the lots along the entrance road. The adjacent property owner’s name is Mr. Raab, or Raab, R-a-a-b. He’s here in the audience with a representative that may wish to speak. Basically, what I’m saying is that there is a little additional water that comes off of a development, after development, that doesn’t occur as an open field, and the plan proposes to discharge this directly on to Mr. Raab’s property, in a creek channel that needs some improvement. The design engineer has shown the improvement that needs to be made to the channel, that’s part of the plan. If they can come to an agreement with the adjacent property owner to acquire a temporary construction easement to accomplish the work, then this plan will work. If they can’t do the work on the adjacent channel, then they will have to go back to the drawing board, and come up with some detention or some sort of way to slow the water down so that the existing channel can handle it without any damage. Again, at this time, what I’m recommending approval of is the plan. However, in order to implement the plan, they have to come to an agreement with the adjacent property owner.

President Mosby: Is–

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: Hi, my name is Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley. I don’t know if you want an address, 400 Court Street is the office. I represent Mr. Rudolph Raab. On this issue, specifically we wanted to, and I appreciate how clear Mr. Jeffers made the actual issue, specifically if you look at the review comments regarding Asbury Pointe Subdivision, I think they were submitted to be put into the minutes at a previous meeting. Specifically number eight, number 10 and 11, specifically speak to Mr. Raab’s property. They also specifically outline that there will be increased drainage. Mr. Raab at this point is not willing to grant either an easement, a 20' drainage easement, or is he interested in a temporary construction easement. This property right here, it is zoned commercial. This is the property belonging to Mr. Raab. Here is the proposed, well, actually the drainage ditch that exists now. This currently is an open field. It also, right here is the lowest point of this whole development. On Saturday, and I know the rain on Saturday was pretty intense, but the majority of this field and this area right here was completely under water. When you, I know, I see how this is drawn on this plat, is that what that’s called? I was out there today. This ditch, in places, is already 20' across. It’s 5' deep, the ditch already does not control the drainage. If he were to give an easement for them to do the work...see he has a section of trees back here that provide kind of a visual break between him and the subdivision that is going to be put in. Granting the easement they’re asking for, that would eliminate, he would lose most of his trees back there, which, this is a fairly rural setting at this point, but, I mean, this is 93 homes, he would be pretty much smack dab in the middle of a big subdivision. He likes the trees back there, you know, it provides a break for him on top of....instead of being, you know, surrounded, I mean, these lots are very small, they are only 60' wide. There is going to be 93 houses here. There is already erosion control problems. He already has some trees that he is in the process of losing because the ditch continues to get wider and wider. It’s generally through the bulk of this area, it’s 10' across. Twenty feet across in places, and at least 5' deep. We think it’s a significant problem to begin with. We think that the drainage could be moved on to the developers property. I’ll just leave that there. I just wanted you to have an idea of the property that we’re talking about. I spoke with the developer just a few minutes ago, and it’s my understanding that their position is now that there will be no additional drainage, and, in fact, that the drainage is going to be less after this development is done. I think that is an issue that needs, that’s between Mr. Jeffers and the developer, because if you look at eight and number 10 of the review, I mean, to quote:

“Abatement of the increased storm water run off anticipated.”

So, the Vanderburgh County Surveyor has made it very clear that there is going to be more drainage from this development. So, I mean, we’ve also...Mr. Raab has spoke with the developer on several occasions, we don’t know at this point if there is any potential negotiations that could take place, especially with the new position that the developer just took this evening. We’re not sure where that is going to go, because I think that clearly outlines a disagreement between them and Mr. Jeffers. So, we, of course, would ask that the drainage plan not be approved. I understand the plan itself complies with the statute, but in carrying out the plan, they require an easement from my client, and he’s not...and for the reasons I’ve outlined about losing his trees and then the development already being on top of him, he’s not interested in providing that easement. Mr. Raab, would you like to speak? Would you like to add anything?

Rudolph Raab: (Inaudible).

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: I understand Wayne, who is also....do you want to point out to them what your property (Inaudible)?

President Mosby: What is his name, just so we can get it for the record?

Unidentified: Wayne Fehd.

President Mosby: Wayne Fayne?

Unidentified: Fehd. F-e-h-d.

President Mosby: F-e-h-d.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: This is his property.

President Mosby: Okay.

Unidentified: Do you want me to go over there?

President Mosby: No, you don’t have to. She just showed us where your property was. I just wanted to get it into the minutes of the record.

Wayne Fehd: We have six acres there on Hornby Lane and Green River Road, which is on the north side of the entrance road going into the subdivision that they’re proposing. The ditch on Hornby Lane has a 36" pipe in it, and this ditch, when it rains the water on the north side of Hornby Lane goes over the top of the road there about 10" deep, it’s not near sufficient to carry that water off that field. That’s why I say the drainage plan is wrong there. I spoke to them about relocating the ditch through my property to my west line, and straighten it out and come down through theirs. It changes their lots, puts the ditch over further west, make it align with Mr. Raab’s ditch, but we haven’t gotten anything done. I spoke to them before the Area Plan Commission meeting, and nobody’s called me back and said anything. If Mr. Raab hadn’t called me tonight, I wouldn’t have known there was a meeting tonight.

President Mosby: Okay, thank you. Is the developer here? Did you want to say anything?

Ron London: I’m Ron London with Morley and Associates. I’m the engineer on this project. I would like to just rebut what they are saying there. I have gotten the response from Mr. Jeffers. I’ve done a full rebuttal to his office. I’ve shown by calculations that by no means are we increasing any run off going on to Mr. Raab’s property, from what was going on there prior to this development. I have calculations showing that. I’m a licensed, registered engineer in the state of Indiana. I can only state my case that we’re not increasing any run off going on to Mr. Raab’s property. So, by no means do we feel like we need to get an easement on his property. We have offered to come on to his property, and help him with his ditch, but by no means are we increasing any run off, or increasing any detriment on to his property whatsoever.

President Mosby: Okay.

Ron London: I’ve shown the calculations to Mr. Jeffers. I’ve sent them to him.

President Mosby: Do you want to speak?

Wayne Fehd: Mr. London didn’t address my part there though. I’m saying the 36" pipe doesn’t carry the water. The water goes over Hornby Lane 10" deep. The pipe he’s got going through underneath that road, I think, it shows a 36" inlet, and it’s back up water on my property if that pipe isn’t increased. Now, what he’s saying about Mr. Raab’s property, I’m not speaking to that effect.

President Mosby: Okay.

Wayne Fehd: I’m talking about mine now.

President Mosby: Okay.

Ron London: I would like to say that the pipe that we’re putting into that ditch was sized for the 100 year storm event. It will pass the 100 year storm event. So, not only a 25, but a 100 year storm will pass through that pipe.

President Mosby: Okay, are there any other remonstrators?

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: Have the Commissioners seen the request for the easement received by Mr. Raab? I know that the developer has indicated that they were never interested or asked for an easement.

Commissioner Fanello: Go ahead and show it to us. I don’t recall.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: This is specifically what he received, which pretty much insists that he sign it and return it, and then if you look at...here is the 20' drainage easement that they’re looking for, but they actually want 30', because you can see where their temporary construction easement is a significant, you know, piece of his property. It wasn’t until they were denied an easement that I think they developed the argument that they didn’t need one.

President Mosby: Okay, so, are there any questions by any member of the board?

Ron London: This is Ron London with Morley and Associates. I would like to state one more thing is that the easement, we have offered them, we have offered to do the work on their property. It’s an offer by Jagoe to help Mr. Raab, but by no means are we increasing any flow on to his property. So, I have given those calculations to Mr. Jeffers. You may want to ask him if he’s received them and looked at them, but we have done that. So, it is an offer out there, it’s not something that we thought we had to do, but we offered to do it.

Bill Jeffers: Unless those calculations came to our office over the past couple of days, I’m operating off submittal from March 11^th, March 12^th I got a rebuttal from Mr. London. I believe that’s the probably the latest thing I got. Let’s see, we have some sheets here that were received on March 12^th in the afternoon. What I’m concerned about, and what all my review notes have spoken to is lots one through 13, and lots 79 through 91. So, you have 26 lots with 26 new homes, facing on Asbury Pointe Drive, which is a 30' wide new street, with sidewalks, again, approximately 26 houses, plus that street, draining into inlets on this project and being point discharged from the end of a pipe directly on to Mr. Raab’s property. I don’t think there is any calculations that have come to me to show me that the five acres occupied by those 26 new homes, and that new street, can possibly discharge less storm water, after construction, than they do as an open grass field today. In addition, the water that arrives at Mr. Raab’s northwest corner, which is where the channel is located, now arrives as basically sheet flow across the land, over the bank of the ditch in many points, and I submit more slowly arrives at that point. After a development of 26 new homes, sidewalks, driveways, patios, plus the 30' wide street, which is approximately 700, 850, almost 900' long, that there will be substantial more storm water coming off the new hard surfaces. In addition they will be brought to this discharge point in a more rapid fashion, higher velocities. They will be discharged from point discharge directly into this channel, that the peak discharge that occurs in agricultural land, generally occurs over a period of 30 to 60 minutes. You reach peak, it lasts for maybe five or ten minutes, and then it goes back down to post peak conditions, and any water that is outside the channel, gets back in the channel, and flows on it’s merry way. In a development of this magnitude, what occurs is you have collection and discharge within 10 or 15 minutes rather than 30 to an hour, and the peak discharge generally occurs over a longer period of time, so, that water is pumped into that ditch over a longer period of time, causes a greater amount, or a potential for scour. It saturates the embankments, and I simply ask for that to be addressed. Our ordinance requires, our code requires all storm water to be detained and released at pre-development cubic feet per second. I don’t see how that can be accomplished without detention. The reason I was willing to forego detention, or a recommendation for detention is, at this point, is if they improve this little, short stretch of channel to accommodate the extra flow, it goes right back on to their property, and they have such a substantial detention basin for the rest of the...I can’t remember how many lots altogether, 80 something, 70, 80, what is it? 91 lots. The rest of the lots have such a high magnitude of detention, that they are reducing the overall flow back to about 25% or 30% or it’s pre-development rate down here at the subdivision’s discharge point. So, that offsets this little five acre parcel I’m talking about that has accelerated run off. Yes, there is a much lower rate after development from the final discharge from the subdivision, but we still have the issue of these 26 lots. I don’t see how they could possibly discharge less storm water after development than before. Having said that, Ron London, as he pointed out, is a registered engineer with the state of Indiana, and it’s his liability, not mine. My recommendation is to approve this plan, if...I mean, the plan is approvable. It can sit there forever. I mean, you can approve this plan, it sits there forever. It can’t be implemented until they go off-site and deal with the fact that local code and state law requires that downstream channels be fit to receive discharge from new development without the peril of erosion or sedimentation.

President Mosby: Any other questions by any member of the board? Seeing none.

Ron London: I would just like to make a rebuttal. I believe in the drainage ordinance, correct me if I’m wrong, Bill, but what we have to show is that there is a pre-development rate before this development is done. We have to show the amount of water that is coming down through this ditch. Then I have to show what the rate would be after the development is done, which is the post-development rate. What we’ve done in this development, is that a portion of the water that goes on to that property there has been cut off and taken down into our retention basin. So, by shutting off, cutting off some of that water, what we’ve done is lessened the amount that’s going to go through Mr. Fehd’s property down in through that ditch, through our pipe, and on to Mr. Raab’s property. I’ve proven that with calculations that are post-development, which is after this development is finished, is less than, this is for the 25 year storm, which that is what we’re required to size this pipe for, is less than what is going over there now.

Commissioner Fanello: And that is where I would ask the County Surveyor how he feels about that comment. If he agrees with that comment.

Ron London: And I would like to say that these rebuttals were sent on March the 11^th. I’ve also talked with Mr. Stoll about this.

President Mosby: You can if you–

(Inaudible discussion taking place out of range of microphones.)

President Mosby: Bill, I guess, I want to ask you a couple of questions.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, Mr. London has pointed out an area that I overlooked as having been diverted to the interior, and pointed out where he made the rebuttal in his March 11^th rebuttal to me. He’s correct. I will say that if any erosion or sedimentation or scour or anything like that occurs on Mr. Raab’s channel, Indiana state Rule Five will require that repairs be made or alterations be made to the plan, and that could come in as a modified final drainage plan. As to Mr. London’s calculations of the 36" pipe as pointed out by Mr. Wayne Fehd, I don’t have any record of the water going over the top of Hornby Lane, however, I don’t doubt Mr. Fehd’s eyewitness account of it happening. As I don’t dispute the eyewitness account of the legal, or Mr. Raab and his legal attorney here. I just wasn’t there to witness it. Again, Mr. London’s calculations were performed in accordance with the ordinance using our rainfall data and our method of calculation. They do conform with the ordinance in the code, and, again, he is a registered civil engineer, and the responsibility for those calculations are his. The recommendation is still to approve the plan.

President Mosby: Are you taking out of your recommendation the upgrade to the ditch?

Bill Jeffers: I would like to see the ditch upgraded, and I think it would be a benefit to everyone, including Mr. Raab. Mr. Raab has a C-4 piece of property that undoubtedly will be developed in the future, being at the corner of 57 and Green River Road. I think he should look to his future as well as the future of the neighborhood. I think he should maintain that piece of property. He shouldn’t sell it outright, he should maintain access to it, because when he or his heirs or assigns come in to develop that acreage of his, it’s already zoned C-4, they are going to need an outlet, and they are going to have to improve it. If he doesn’t want it improved now, it’s going to be improved later at this expense. So, yes, I’ll take that out.

Ron London: I would just like to restate that we have offered to, you know, fix, or to upgrade that ditch. The offer is out there. It will remain out there, you know, as long as they are doing the work, they will do that. The offer is still good.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: What is your developer’s response to the issue of his trees? There is probably 30 fully developed trees lining that ditch that if you go in with a constructive, with a temporary easement for construction, what’s going to happen to his trees? I mean, one of his primary issues has been he doesn’t want to lose those trees.

Ron London: Well, Ron London, with Morley and Associates. If we go in there to upgrade the ditch, I mean, we’ve got to be able to cut the banks back. I can’t go in there and do that without taking out some trees.

Commissioner Fanello: I was just going to say, that’s really not something that we have any control over.

President Mosby: I guess, my question, oh, go ahead.

Wayne Fehd: I’m Wayne Fehd. I know Ron London hasn’t addressed my issue there, but if he’s going to assure us that he’s not going to back any water up on my property, or he’ll be liable for it, and have to take corrective measures by using that small a pipe from under his entrance road. I just don’t see how he’s going to get that 36" pipe through under his entrance road to carry the water that’s going to be coming off my property, six acres, plus what’s on the north side of Hornby Lane. When now, Hornby Lane’s pipe is 36" diameter, doesn’t carry the water, it’s going 10" over the top of the road there. I addressed this matter with him on the site, and we still haven’t gotten it corrected. My father-in-law bought that property in 1958. We’ve been there a long time. I bought it from my mother and father-in-law, we’ve been there 20 years already. The water does back up on Helen Inglehart’s, a third of the way up on her yard, then it goes across Hornby Lane, 10" to 12" deep. This pipe’s not big enough to go underneath that road. If he’s going to assume the liability and you’re going to put it in the minutes, it’s up to him.

Bill Jeffers: On that issue, I would like to point out that the pipe under Hornby lane is a corrugated metal pipe put in by the county. I have no earthly idea of what the inlet control is on it, what the head is on it, head pressure. I have no idea what the grade on it is, which affects the flow rate. All these things affect the flow rate. Mr. London presented to me a plan that shows that a 36" pipe will pass the 100 year flow. He’s only required to pass the 25 year flow. On top of that I asked for, and I did receive an emergency overflow channel on top of the pipe, paved. Is that correct? Paved?

Ron London: Correct.

Bill Jeffers: It’s a paved overflow channel, so that if the pipe becomes totally plugged, how’s that guy on My Cousin Vinnie go, “totally plugged”, the overflow from the 100 year storm will jump up and go down the overflow channel between the houses without flooding. They are on slabs, not on crawl spaces. I did that because Mr. Fehd’s property upstream is wooded, and there is a good deal of forest litter, and downed logs and limbs and firewood and so forth that could be washed into the pipe and plug it. So, I asked Mr. London to provide an emergency overflow to handle the 100 year flow, and he’s showed that. We’re not in the business of preventing acts of God, or acts of nature. I would also like to point out that anything can happen in that regard, and I would like to also point out that the Soil and Conservation District did review the plans, which include the location, under new Rule Five, include the location of all drainage improvements, including pipes, and asked for pre-development and post-development discharge rates. So, it’s been reviewed in accordance with Rule Five as well, which takes it to the state level.

President Mosby: John, did you want to comment on the pipe?

John Stoll: Yeah, Mr. Fehd called me last week with the concerns about the water flowing across the top of the road, and I’m having Valerie Harry look into it. If it is undersized, we can replace that pipe. I haven’t looked at it personally myself, and I don’t think Valerie has gotten out there yet, as of yet, but, like Bill said, the capacity on the corrugated metal would be less than the capacity on the concrete pipe that’s in this subdivision. So, this would have a larger capacity, just because it’s not corrugated. But, anyway, we’ll look into that. If it needs to be replaced, I’ll come back to you with a quote, or we’ll have the county crews replace it.

President Mosby: Okay, thank you, John. Did you have a question? Mr. Raab, I mean, do you want to–

Rudolph Raab: Yes, I would like to make a statement. It was my understanding that it’s more than 23 homes, is the way I’m reading the blueprint, unless I’m reading it wrong. I would like to have that discussed, because I think the homes on the west side of Fehd’s ground, and also on the south side of Fehd’s ground is also going to be discharging in that pipe. That’s the way I’m reading it. Now, unless somebody can tell me different, he’s saying 23 homes, and it’s a lot more than that.

Ron London: The other homes in the development, besides the 23 or 21 that are going there, the rest of them are all going down into the retention basin, so they are bypassing Mr. Raab’s ditch. That basin has been sized, it’s double the size that it needs to be. The flow rate coming out of that basin, we were allowed to run 28 cfs out of that pipe, we’re running it at six. So, we’ve not only doubled the storage that we need, we’ve reduced the flow rate by four times.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: I think one of the problems is that we’re setting this up so that the plan gets approved, and if it causes damage later, then they’ll be responsible for it and have to fix it. The problem is, is that what we’re trying to prevent initially is, you know, six of one, half a dozen of the other, if we let them come in, they are going to cut down all his trees, and make a bigger ditch, and if the plan’s approved and we don’t let them come in, then once it causes significant damage, then the remedy is for them to come in and cut all his trees down and make the damn thing bigger. You know, how is that possibly going to put him, I mean, their remedy directly flies in the face of what Mr. Raab is trying to preserve and trying to protect. You know, their whole drainage plan is based on, you know, shaving off the top of a hill, and moving that dirt over to the low spot. It all seems to be a great calculation of future, you know, suspected rainfall and all that kind of stuff, but at the end of the day, if the plan doesn’t work, then he’s caught with the same event happening, you know, that he’s trying to prevent now. I don’t think saying if it causes problems later that Morley will be responsible for repairing it is a solution. You know, we still seek for the drainage plan not to be approved.

President Mosby: Well, according to the County Surveyor, I mean, with the calculations he has been given, and he admitted to overlooking a calculation, he is saying that it will work in accordance with the same thing Mr. London is saying.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: Well, he’s also saying, look, it’s on him if it doesn’t work.

President Mosby: Well, I understand that. It’s always on somebody.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: Then we’re stuck with the same thing we were stuck with before, which is removal of his trees, and loss of more of his property. I mean, it is zoned commercial, we know, all of this leads to loss of his property for the happiness of the Jagoe Home Industry.

President Mosby: I am not an engineer, so I can’t say that it’s not going to work. The Surveyor is an engineer and he says it will work. He’s reviewed it. Their engineer’s reviewed it, they’ve still made the offer to upgrade the ditch, if you want to accept that, it’s up to you, and we can pass that tonight.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: I would have to talk to my client about that issue.

Commissioner Fanello: Do you want to take a few minutes to talk to your client, because I really don’t have any basis to deny the drainage plan. It meets the code.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: Alright then.

Commissioner Fanello: Why don’t we give you about five, ten minutes, and then we’ll come back to you.

President Mosby: We’ll come back to this. I’ll give her time to talk to her client.

President Mosby: We’ll move forward to Lot 91 of Eagle Crossing, 2009 Championship Drive, modification of final plan.

Bill Jeffers: Okay.

President Mosby: You might want to go with them and listen to what they have to say.

Unidentified: We don’t represent them.

President Mosby: Well that’s okay. Represent yourself. Go for it.

Commissioner Fanello: It’s a public building. You can listen.

President Mosby: Tell them we okayed it.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, this is a situation where Lot 91, and I believe the address is 2009 Championship Drive, needs to install a drainage pipe and re-route some drainage to the benefit of that lot and the adjacent golf course, which is Eagle Crossing Golf Course. All the property owners are in agreement with this, and have indicated that they will send letters stating so, but the engineer is on spring break and I promised him I would bring this and tell you that the plan will work. Mr. Roland Brinker, the owner of the golf course, is in agreement with it. The work will be performed by Steve, real good, starts with a b, Blankenberger. Blankenberger Brothers is going to do the work, the contracts already been let to them, and they will come in with signed letters to be recorded stating everybody is in agreement with it. It does not become the maintenance of the county, the letters will indicate that the individual property owners will maintain and repair and replace any damaged pipe that results from this project. The Surveyor’s recommendation is to approve.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators? Anybody that would like to speak? Seeing none.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion to approve the modification of the final plan for Lot 91, Eagle Crossing, 2009 Championship Drive.

President Mosby: Second and so ordered.

Bill Jeffers: I’ve lost my agenda.

President Mosby: That’s okay, ditch maintenance claims. We’ll move down to ditch maintenance claims.

Bill Jeffers: Oh, here it is. Ditch maintenance claims have all been properly made out and documented and so forth by our office. The County Surveyor recommends paying those ditch maintenance claims that are in front of you at this time.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

President Mosby: Second and so ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Encroachment agreement for Woodward Realty on behalf of White Castle, located in Burkhardt Crossing. We have an engineer here who will speak to that, Matt Wallace, from Morley and Associates. Very briefly what you’re trying to do, do you have the agreement with you?

Matt Wallace: I do have the agreement. I also have the exhibit drawing. The exhibit drawing illustrates the property descriptions of lot 15 and lot 16 of Burkhardt Crossing Subdivision. The, we show the previous existing 75' right-of-entry line for Kelly Ditch. We are requesting that that be relaxed as described on the exhibit to 35' along the parking row, and 25' for the two proposed dumpster enclosures. The 25' would be the minimum we can ask by law. That would prevent one of the dumpster enclosures from falling within the right-of-entry. It minimizes the encroachment on the second, more easterly, westerly. Yes, westerly, I’m sorry.

President Mosby: I mean, Bill, do you have any–

Bill Jeffers: Commissioners, what you have in front of you, and in the hands of your attorney at this time is the standard encroachment agreement form provided by Kevin Winternheimer for use in this case. What the motion would require is the relaxation of the right-of-entry for Kelly ditch, as shown, on exhibit A, B, and C attached to that agreement. Your signatures on the agreement indemnify the county, when it’s recorded, against any loss or damages incurred on that strip of ground forever. The County Surveyor recommends approval, and execution of that form.

President Mosby: Are there any remonstrators? Seeing none.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion to approve the encroachment agreement that was presented.

President Mosby: I will second and so order that.

Bill Jeffers: Thank you, Matt.

Matt Wallace: Thank you.

President Mosby: No problem. Any petitions?

Bill Jeffers: Now, you guys need to bring a check for the recording of that. We don’t pay for the recording.

Matt Wallace: Correct. Previously, the last one I worked on there was discrepancy in the amount the check was made out for. I can never quite guess the exact dollar amount–

Bill Jeffers: Right, it will be available at the Auditor’s office after it’s execution. You bring a check to the Auditor’s office and they’ll walk you over to the Recorder’s office and see to it that it’s recorded.

Matt Wallace: Yes, sir.

Bill Jeffers: You can call Madelyn. When will Madelyn return? Next week.

Charlene Timmons: Yeah.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. Thank you, Matt.

Matt Wallace: Thank you, Bill.

Bill Jeffers: I don’t know of any petitions, and the Auditor didn’t receive any, I don’t believe.

Bill Jeffers: Other persons wishing to address the board should do so at this time. Seeing none, we should go to the reading of the bids into the minutes.

Bill Jeffers: Which is rather lengthy, I apologize.

Commissioner Mosby: Okay, well, they don’t look ready, so you can go ahead and start.

Jay Ziemer: I’ll go ahead and start reading the bids:

Jay Ziemer: And that is the end of Townsend’s bids. If you want to take a break and go back to the other folks.

President Mosby: Thank you, Jay.

President Mosby: At this point we will reconvene on Asbury Pointe Subdivision.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley: We stand with our original position. We’re going to go back and film the area extensively, and he’s going to keep his trees.

President Mosby: Okay. Thank you very much. At this time the chair would entertain a motion on Asbury Pointe Subdivision.

Commissioner Fanello: Upon the Surveyor’s recommendation, the final plan does meet the code, so I will move approval of the final drainage plan.

President Mosby: I will second that and so order it. I do thank you for your time and participation. Thank you very much.

President Mosby: At this time I will let the attorney reconvene reading the bids into the minutes.

Jay Ziemer: This is the hardest part of my job. The next five bids were given by Terry R. Johnson.

Jay Ziemer: That is the end of the bids. I would certainly recommend that they be reviewed for their accurateness, and for their responsiveness.

President Mosby: Do I have a motion?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, echo that recommendation that they be taken under advisement for two weeks, sent, carried down to the Auditor’s office tonight to be stored overnight, and taken to the Surveyor’s office in the morning to begin the review.

President Mosby: I have a motion by Surveyor Jeffers.

Commissioner Fanello: I will make a motion of Mr. Jeffers recommendation.

President Mosby: I will second that, and so order it.

Bill Jeffers: Now, are you meeting on Monday, April 5 for a regular Commissioners meeting?

Commissioner Fanello: Yes.

President Mosby: Is that a holiday?

Commissioner Fanello: No.

President Mosby: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: No, Passover is on the 6^th.

President Mosby: Okay, yeah, we’ll be meeting.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, so, what I would recommend at this time is that you adjourn this meeting until that day, Monday, April 5^th, on which day you would resume this meeting–

President Mosby: Let me, we want to recess, right? If we adjourn–

Bill Jeffers: You can do two things, you can recess this meeting–

President Mosby: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –and set a certain day, under 36-9-27. You can set a date certain and a time at which you’ll reconvene to finish this matter of awarding the bids. Or, you can simply adjourn and advertise that you’re going to have a special meeting, whichever you prefer.

President Mosby: I would say, at this time, that we accept a motion to recess this meeting until April 5^th.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

President Mosby: Second, and so ordered. We will stand in recess.

Bill Jeffers: Thank you, sir. I’m finished with my portion.

President Mosby: That’s it, we’re in recess.

(The meeting was recessed at 7:16 p.m.)

RECONVENE: APRIL 5, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board meeting was reconvened on Monday, April 5, 2004 at 7:25 p.m.

President Mosby: Call to order special drainage board, or I take that back, we recessed, so I would like to reconvene the drainage board meeting. At this time–

Bill Jeffers: Bill Jeffers, County Surveyor. To bring everybody up to speed, we opened the bids on March 22^nd, Jay Ziemer read the bids, all the bids that were opened into the record of that meeting. Then a motion was made to take the bids under advisement for two weeks and return today with our recommendations for awarding the bids for 2004, which we’re ready to do at this time. I would like to thank the Chief Executive Deputy, Linda Freeman, for preparing all the paperwork for our department to present to you. You have it in front of you now. It’s all in order. It’s been examined by Ms. Freeman and her staff, and the County Surveyor recommends the bids as shown on there. But, what I would like to do is have Ms. Freeman stand up and answer any questions you may have, and make one or two comments, and then I’ll confirm the recommendation.

Linda Freeman: Basically, in the letter that I handed to you that Bill signed, there were two bids with errors, one was a double bid from Eldon Maasberg, and then there was a multiplication error on Townsend Tree Services bid for broadleaf brush application on Eagle Slough. It’s recommended that the board award a contract to Eldon Maasberg based on the linear footage contained in the specifications for the lowest price Mr. Maasberg bid per foot on Kneer Ditch, so the total of his contract would be $314.64, which is the 2,736 lineal feet that we mentioned in the specifications, again, this year. His lowest priced bid was 11 ½ cents per lineal foot. Then, Townsend Tree Service, they bid .091 cents per foot at 30,040 lineal feet of ditch, and their bid should have been $2,733.64, and they had like $4,500. I don’t know where they, but, we’re going in favor of the county in both cases. That’s the only things that we had. The other thing would be that we recommend the release of the bonds to the unsuccessful bidders. Then, on Shideler Spray Service, they actually submitted bid bonds, so, we’ll be requesting performance bonds from them. But, everyone else, we are requesting that the board holds their 5% checks, as their performance bonds, as we have done in the past.

President Mosby: So, Bill, did you want to follow that up?

Bill Jeffers: We always have a few errors every year, because of the people we deal with sometimes don’t use the same calculator that we might use. But, we always make the recommendation in favor of the county, based on the lowest possible bid that we come up with, the factors that they give us to multiply. That’s what Linda was explaining. We always have released, we must release all the bid bonds from the unsuccessful bidders within five days, or 30, I don’t know, but they’ll be released down at the Auditor’s office as Ms. Freeman explained. Then, when you approve these bids, we enter into contracts with those successful bidders within five days. The contract form is standard, we’ll bring those to you after they’ve been executed, and you’ll approve those at our next regular meeting. We usually keep the bid bond as security, and we’ve found that to be successful. If you have any legal questions about anything that’s in those documents there, you can refer to Mr. Winternheimer. It’s been okay with all the previous attorneys, the way we do it.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion that we accept the County Surveyor’s recommendations, and approve, award the lowest bidder.

Commissioner Crouch: I presume I can second it. I wasn’t here for the opening.

President Mosby: Yeah, but you’ve got the recommendations, so.

Commissioner Crouch: Yeah, I’ll second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to accept the Surveyor’s recommendation. So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Thank you, and unless you have any questions or comments, we have no further business. We’ll bring the contracts to you executed at the end of the month.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello                     Bill Jeffers

         Jay Ziemer                      Charlene Timmons                   Loretta Roberts

         Jon Kipling                      Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley      Wayne Fehd

         Ron London                    Matt Wallace                             Linda Freeman

         Others Unidentified         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

David W. Mosby, President

Catherine Fanello, Vice President

                                                                        (Not present for 3/22/04 meeting)

Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

3/22/04 Meeting was recorded by Charlene Timmons. Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.

4/5/04 Meeting was recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.