VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

MAY 22, 2007

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 22^nd day of May, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Bill Nix presiding.

President Nix: Good afternoon. I would like to call to order the Vanderburgh County Drainage Board, Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 4:22.

President Nix: I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Musgrave: Second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Nix: All the same side. Mr. Jeffers, good afternoon.

Bill Jeffers: Good afternoon, President Nix, Vice President Tornatta, Commissioner Musgrave, Mr. Ziemer, Madelyn.

Bill Jeffers: The first item on the agenda is comment from two property owners in the Copperfield Subdivision. I put that first because they had been invited to attend, or encouraged to attend the meeting last week, and we had cancelled that meeting before, or after I had published the agenda. So, they were unable to make their comments last week. So, they are back with us tonight. Mr. Richard Cobb on your left from 8611 Southport Drive, and Mr. William Terry Raley, on your right, from 8545 Southport Drive. They are owners of lot number 40 and 39 respectively. The handout I gave you shows their two properties outlined in yellow. There’s a detention basin behind Mr. Cobb’s house, separate from the detention behind Mr. Raley’s home. You can see those two on your exhibit. There is a drainage channel between the two basins, highlighted in orange on your exhibit. Basically, that drainage channel handles the run off from an area substantially larger than what’s shown on your exhibit. The entire subdivision known as Copperfield section two is outlined in yellow on your overhead map here, yet there is another section or two of the same Copperfield Subdivision, it extends substantially westward and southward, and the majority of the drainage for those two areas also passes through this ditch on it’s way to Little Pigeon Creek. The ditch being in this yellow circle on your overhead photograph. Also, uphill of Copperfield Subdivision you have Deerfield Subdivision, all of which, this and Deerfield was all the Carson Estates, and when it was maintained as one large estate, most of the drainage also coming from the lakes up in Deerfield and coming through the fields that are now Copperfield, this lake here you see, all ran down where this street is now located, and through this ditch between the two gentleman’s properties. That was the natural course of the water on it’s way to Little Pigeon Creek. The street system now covers that waterway and there’s a pipe system underneath the waterway. It shows on your map an existing 27 inch reinforced concrete storm sewer. Basically, or in a nutshell, the conditions that generated the complaint from Mr. Cobb a few weeks ago, to which Mike Wathen and myself responded, were erosion and drainage problems in that existing ditch that have caused Mr. Cobb a great deal of expense of his time, his labor, his money, and a great deal of material to maintain that ditch as it has eroded downward over the years to it’s present state of affairs. I show a little caved in area, highlighted in red on your exhibit, his immediate concern is that that eroded or caving in area will eventually work it’s way back through the embankment of basin number one, the lake, and drain the lake, and also prevent his access to the grassy, park like area behind the lake. Between the lake and the creek there’s a large, grassy area that he maintains as part of his lawn. So, if that erosion is allowed to continue, it will eat away at his access that he uses to get back there. In a nutshell, Mr. Raley’s concerns, and I will point out that Mr. Raley has come to our office on, I believe, one or two occasions and has made other comments to me regarding this ditch and joined our viewing of the ditch. While we were out there a couple of weeks ago, he came over and added his comments and concerns. In a nutshell, and I’m sure he’ll expound upon it, he feels that because all this drainage that I pointed out, which is I can’t give you an exact acreage figure, but it’s several acres, at least 20 draining through this area, he feels that it’s more of a community issue than a single property issue, or a two property issue. Both gentlemen are seeking some sort of assistance, to what degree I’ll let them explain more fully, and then I might have some follow up comments or answers to questions that you may have. The two gentlemen are here to make their comments.

President Nix: Thank you, Mr. Jeffers. Either one of you that wants to go first, that’s fine. If you would, when you get to the podium just state your name and your address for the record.

Terry Raley: My name is Terry Raley, and I’m the second home on lot 39 from Richard. I brought some pictures along that might show you a little bit better of the problems we’re having.

Bill Jeffers: This pointer right here is a laser pointer, if you want to point to your homes.

Terry Raley: Okay. Mr. Jeffers explained it really well.

President Nix: If you could stay right to the microphone there.

Terry Raley: Okay.

President Nix: Thank you.

Terry Raley: Mr. Jeffers explained it really well up to a point, but another problem that we do have is, let’s see, right through here is another ditch that was supposed to handle some of the drainage. Well, during the construction of these homes right here, that ditch that was supposed to go into right through here to Little Pigeon Creek was diverted into this holding pond. Consequently, all of this that runs down through here, plus all of this here, it’s an additional load because it’s been diverted into here, this outlet right there, and there’s another outlet right here, and then it goes into this ditch. So, everything up here, not only through here, but also through here comes over this way. Consequently, Richard has lost, as you can make with some of the pictures, he has lost a tremendous amount of his yard through here, and as was stated, he is concerned with losing the holding pond and access to the back piece of property. On one visit down here, my first visit, I was told that Richard and I were ultimately responsible for taking care of any fix for this. Well, we not only have everybody in the subdivision’s water running through our property, but also Deerfield, and we, I feel that’s unfair for two property owners to be asked to take care of this drainage problem, that, you know, if you look at the initial plans, it should never have been approved anyway. I mean, me as a lay person can look at the plans and tell you from the get go what has, you know, what has happened will happen. It will eventually get worse. On this berm right here that this ditch runs through, there are, I would say approximately ten to 15 huge willow trees, and they’re all leaning, and as you can see by those pictures, the roots, I took some, the roots are 25 to 50 percent out of the ground already. I’m talking about huge trees that are going to fall into my pond right here, which is a tremendous expense if I have to clean them up. I would say that there’s four of them right now that a good gust of wind will take down. If the problem is not fixed, all those trees are going to go. I just feel again that it should not be up to Richard and I to come up with a solution to this property, since it’s basically three subdivisions draining into our property. So, I think that since it is a community problem that the county ought to take care of it, and not just Richard and I, because we’re talking thousands and thousands of dollars. I’ll let Richard expound on this. I have to get to work. So–

President Nix: Thank you, Mr. Raley.

Terry Raley: –I appreciate your time and anything that you can do for us.

President Nix: Thank you.

Richard Cobb: Thank you. I’m Richard Cobb, and I live at 8611 Southport Drive. As Terry had stated, I think he missed a few factors that these trees could really fall on our house. I mean, you never know the way the wind blows around here. Also, I think it’s a safety factor too. I’m going to give you the footage, there needs to be about 128 foot of pipe put in there and covered over to protect us. I really don’t have too much to add on, like I say, I have lost a large chunk of land already, and if this keeps going I could lose all of my bank along there, and pretty soon we won’t have two lakes, we’ll have one big creek is what we’re going to end up with. Anything that you all could do would be very well appreciated, because I don’t feel like this is our responsibility. I agree with Terry, it should never have been approved in the first place. This is very hazardous. Thank you very much.

President Nix: Thank you, Mr. Cobb.

Commissioner Tornatta: Mr. Jeffers?

Bill Jeffers: Yes?

Commissioner Tornatta: Is there a neighborhood association involved?

Bill Jeffers: I don’t believe there’s a neighborhood association formed, and there is no escrow account established for the repair or replacement of damaged drainage facilities. You know, in some subdivisions, since 1994, we collect an escrow account for each linear foot of pipe and hold it in the Auditor’s office in an escrow account, and should something deteriorate or fail or collapse, what have you, then there is money in that escrow account for the repair of the facility. That does not exist for Copperfield.

Commissioner Tornatta: How many houses would be directly responsible for this situation?

Bill Jeffers: If it were in a homeowners association, every lot you see outlined in purple on that map. In the neighborhood of 40 to 45 lots would be a part of that homeowners association.

Commissioner Tornatta: Any preliminary estimated costs on rectifying a problem?

Bill Jeffers: I could go out on a limb and say $50,000, because, I mean, that would seem high to many people, but you’re not just talking about 120 feet of pipe, 27 to 33 inch diameter pipe, you’re also talking about removing a substantial number of trees, re-excavating the trench, which is serpentine, it’s not a straight trench. So, there’s a lot of, like I said earlier, Mr. Cobb has expended quite a bit of material and time reinforcing the embankment with timbers and steel and rock and concrete and so forth, all that would have to be removed and carted away and disposed of. We would have to have a permit from the Corp of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources, because over half of the project would be construction in a flood way, so, we would have to have the 401 and 403 permits, which would take some effort and 90 to 180 days to obtain from those two agencies. Then, the amount of fill, I would say a lot of that you would have to fill over top of the pipe, not only with stable back fill, but then you would probably have to place either rip rap or a concrete channel over top for an emergency overflowing channel, because that pipe would only handle a 25 year storm, and when you have all that water coming down out of this watershed during a heavier storm, this channel would still serve as the overflow. So, $50,000 is a casual estimate. I think it’s not conservative or not out of line.

Commissioner Musgrave: Do you find flaws with the drainage plan that was approved when this subdivision came through the drainage board for the first time?

Bill Jeffers: I won’t say that I find flaws with it under the code and the requirements that existed in 1991, but, I will say there is room for improvement at this time.

President Nix: As in any plan from 1991 till now. I mean, there’s always room for improvement I would say.

Bill Jeffers: Even today there’s always room for improvement.

President Nix: Exactly. Could you verse us on our duties and obligations as the Drainage Board, I guess, so, that it’s understood what we can and can’t do from a perspective of–

Commissioner Tornatta: Can I ask a question that will slip in between your question, and that is, was this plan modified by the developer from what would have been approved by the county?

Bill Jeffers: I believe there were some modifications made after the approval, as I said, this exhibit I gave you is a portion of the approved plan in 1991. In other words, I cut and pasted the portion that we’re talking about today. But, this is by and large the entire area of concern by the two gentlemen and by the Drainage Board and by your question, as a matter of fact. This plan was drawn by a registered engineer, it was checked and submitted by James Q. Morley of Morley and Associates in 1991, it was approved on October 28, 1991 by the Drainage Board at that time. I asked Ms. Madelyn Grayson to put those Drainage Board minutes in your packet, but I did that late this morning, so, you’re probably just now receiving them, because I had found those minutes to be relative, or relevant to our discussion. You’ll look on page number one of those minutes and find that Mr. Morley at the time of submittal asked the county Drainage Board what they would like the plan to contain relative to the easement around the detention basin, and that would include this channel. What they should place on the plat? What language to place on the plat? Then, it was Mr. Morley’s understanding that the Drainage Board at that time wished to see that everything is in place, yet to have it clearly understood that the Drainage Board does not go out and maintain eroded slopes, mow grass, unplug pipes, that that remains the responsibility of the owners of the property on which the facility exists, and that he gathered that from the responses of the Commissioners in the past. Commissioner Hunter commented, that is the traditional method as he understood it. On page two, Mr. Borries comments, Commissioner Borries, that, “I think it has to be conveyed to the individual property owners because as you well know we are not dealing with county property. The county cannot maintain something that is on private property. This is not county property, so, it belongs to someone else. It must be conveyed to whomever.” Meaning that the notice of responsibility must be conveyed to whomever. “Unless you have a homeowners association and some kind of covenant, then I don’t think any individual property owner would have the responsibility of maintenance on that.” I think he means any other individual property owner than the property owner on whom, on whose property the facility exists.

Commissioner Tornatta: Uh-huh.

Bill Jeffers: You can go on and read that at your leisure, but, basically, there is no individual, or there is no homeowners association. They go on to describe what statement should be placed on the plat. Mr. Borries says that he thinks that it should be stated in very strong language, clearly understood that the potential property owner, to the potential property owner that it is his or her duty and obligation to maintain. Farther along Mr. Morley responded that the probably the best thing he could do is come up with a bold statement, etcetera, asked that the attorney assist him in that. I think he means the County Attorney, so that things don’t come back like it did at Old Petersburg Place where the property owner doesn’t seem to know about it. They go on to discuss that there is a lot of confusion regarding that. Apparently something was happening at Old Petersburg Place in 1991 similar to what’s happening today in Copperfield. What surprises me is that after all that discussion on that date, reflected by these minutes, about wording it strongly and notifying the property owners, and even to the comment that, for example, Commissioner Hunter said that what he’s really thinking about is the next person down the line. Not the original buyer, but the next person down the line, how do they find out about these responsibilities? Mr. Morley said the only place where that would occur would be if we could recreate things in the State of Indiana where the deed has to include an exhibit of the plat. Meaning that the notice on the plat would then be available to the subsequent property owner, currently this is not the case, etcetera. So, they are going on to discuss that, after all that discussion the only thing we find on the plat that Mr. Raley, or Mr. Cobb might have access to, “Individual lot owners shall maintain all easements on the lot.”, and then goes on to clarify that (Inaudible-mic cutting out) detention basin or a drainage easement. So, it comes as no surprise to any of us that the property owner, subsequent property owners, unless at some point in time are shown the plat by the real estate agent that sells them the home, or unless they take it upon themselves to come to the Civic Center and examine the plat, which is generally not made a part of the real estate deal, that they would not know of this. So, of course, when I’m out there telling Mr. Cobb and Mr. Raley that it remains their responsibility, I’m sure that their take on that was not exactly positive. Yes, there were some subsequent modifications made, I believe, to the drainage facilities. I don’t know who made them. Your question, Commissioner Tornatta, was it made by the developer? I’m not sure. I assume some of it was. Basin number two, if you’ll look up here, is at least twice as big as it’s shown on the plan. That’s this lake here. It only was supposed to cover Mr. Raley’s lot and the lot immediately to the south of him. It was extended two more lots south. So, that’s a modification. There’s, if you look on the exhibit, there’s supposed to be an equalizing pipe, called an equalizer tube, to keep the elevation of the water in both lakes the same. I cannot tell you today whether that’s in there, because the area where it should be crossing the ditch, I believe has been covered up. I can’t tell if it’s in there or not. I believe there’s been an extension made to the concrete pipe, the 27 inch reinforced concrete pipe that empties everything into this ditch, appears to have had an extension put on it. By whom, I don’t know, but, it’s a metal pipe extension, so, I don’t think it was done by the developer. One of the gentleman may be able to clarify who did that. I don’t know at what grade it is. I think this ditch was half the depth that it currently is today, or shallower, but the pipe that is extended from this concrete pipe is set at the current grade at the bottom of the ditch. So, whoever did that, must have done it at some point in time when the ditch was substantially weathered away. That was not a good idea, because that causes all the concentrated flow to be even deeper than it should have been, and, I think cause more erosion.

Commissioner Musgrave: Mr. Jeffers, may I ask a question of when these two gentleman bought their homes?

Bill Jeffers: When they bought their homes?

Commissioner Musgrave: Uh-huh.

Bill Jeffers: They could answer that.

Richard Cobb: I bought the lot and built the house myself, the first one. Mr. Raley, his house was probably three owners. What were you the third owner?

Terry Raley: Yeah.

Commissioner Nix: What year did you build?

Richard Cobb: I think I bought my lot in 1990.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, and then you built right after that?

Richard Cobb: Right away, yeah.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, right away.

Richard Cobb: And, as far as who put the additional piece of pipe in was Elpers Construction. The lot next door where he lives was vacant. You could walk across the lot at night and you could fall in the ditch. So, I told the guy buying the house, I said, why don’t you negotiate getting that pipe in there a little bit farther so, you know, it’s a safety feature.

Commissioner Nix: Sure.

Richard Cobb: As far as the amount of homes that we’re getting the drainage from, it’s far more than 40 lots, because we’re getting all of Deerfield, we’re getting probably 200 homes. That ditch, I would say, since I move in there and built my house, maybe is four times bigger than it was. As far as the easement of 15 feet on each side, which it’s not a straight line, there’s a point where it might be 60 feet wide. If that will help you in any way. If you have any other questions, I can–

Commissioner Tornatta: I just would like to make a personal comment, and this by no means has any bearings on this board. But, would like to say it seems like on October 28, 1991, they did a lot of due diligence in making sure that it was established in these notes which we just got from the Drainage Board meeting of whom was going to–

Richard Cobb: I was never notified of anything.

Commissioner Tornatta: I understand, but they kind of spelled that out in here that it is not the county’s purview to come and tell each owner of a property what their obligations are for maintenance.

Richard Cobb: Yeah, but each owner doesn’t have a ditch running beside his house. There’s only two of us in the subdivision.

Commissioner Tornatta: I understand, but it’s still not the county’s, the county has no place in their by-laws by which they have to let you know that that’s of a matter. That is the responsibility of you, the landowner, and/or the seller to make that available. I did see that. As far as a recommendation, I recommend that you check on getting in a neighborhood association with your neighborhood. Now, whether they are going to want to participate in something like this knowing that this type of issue is out there, I don’t know. Would it potentially help their values in the future? It very well could, but these are just some things that I’m looking at. I don’t believe, it’s my opinion that the county has any type of obligation to this particular issue, other than to say that I believe between Mr. Jeffers and some of the whether it’s connections of abilities that we have to facilitate getting some help to you, or giving some ideas to you, I think that we would be glad to do that. As far as a financial offset, I particularly would not be in favor of that at this time.

Terry Raley: Well, that’s not what I wanted to hear really.

Commissioner Musgrave: You need to come to the microphone.

Terry Raley: You have, Deerfield, Copperfield one and Copperfield two draining everything in between our house, eroding property that we’re paying taxes on that is going at a very fast rate. We’re paying taxes on property that we don’t have anymore. Now, if you guys don’t want to do anything about it, we’ll plug it up, because it is a safety hazard, it’s washing away property as fast as we can fill the ditch. The original plan was, right here there’s another ditch that may have helped that went into the Little Pigeon Creek that was diverted into here and then into our ditch. The whole plan originally was to have, there’s a nice size ditch running all the way down through here that was diverted into here, and consequently right there. Now, you know–

Commissioner Tornatta: My question is, did the County Commissioners approve the correct plan? And the answer was, yes. If it was diverted, was that done by another person that you might have to take issue with?

Terry Raley: The bottom line right now, Mr. Tornatta, is, we have a problem, a safety problem, and it is not two homeowners responsibility to take care of three subdivisions drainage. Now, if you think that’s right, you tell me with a straight face that’s right.

Commissioner Tornatta: I’m saying, I’m saying–

Terry Raley: It’s going to cost us–

Commissioner Tornatta: –you have, you have the opportunity to take issue with somebody else, or to get a neighborhood association who would do like this other association had done, is get a Barrett Law, it goes on the assessment and it’s spread out over all the houses that have issue with that particular ditch. Now, that is one way to take care of that, which would lessen the cost spread across more households. But, normally how that’s done is the association is developed before these problems are there, as not to go back on somebody and say that there’s a problem. Although it can still be done. That’s coming from me, whether that’s the other Commissioners wills–

Terry Raley: You’re the only one that has spoken on this. I want to hear from the rest of you.

President Nix: Mr. Raley, I guess, the concern that I have as a board member is that we never work on private property. It’s something we can’t do.

Terry Raley: Well, then how come we pay taxes on that private property? You all have the right to do anything on that easement you want to get done.

President Nix: That is not a public easement. Correct me if I’m wrong, is that correct, Mr. Jeffers? From the standpoint of a drainage issue that refers to this board. Mr. Jeffers?

Terry Raley: So, if it’s not public, we can do away with it right?

President Nix: Well, Mr. Jeffers? We’ve got an interpretation on that too, we’ve run across this–

Terry Raley: If it’s not public, it’s mine. I can do anything I want with it.

President Nix: Well, do you have, it’s not an ordinance, what would that be, Mr. Jeffers?

Bill Jeffers: Strips of ground marked drainage easement are dedicated for surface water or subsurface water provided, however the public utilities are permitted to cross such drainage easements with utility facilities, etcetera. In this case, the drainage easements may be used for ingress and egress and temporary staging area for work by public utilities. Those are the others, electric, this, that and the other. Then it says, specifically, that individual lot owners shall maintain all easements on their lot and not obstruct the drainage within a detention easement or a drainage easement. Not interfere with the flow of water along said easements. In addition, keep all the detention basin and drainage easements clear of any impediments which may fall or enter therein. I feel that they’re dedicated for the public use, but they remain the property of the private property owner, and remain the responsibility of the private property owner. While I may not agree philosophically with that point of view, because you’re draining public streets into that easement, and in some states it may be different, but that has been the position that I was told as a Chief Deputy County Surveyor, and I’ve been told subsequently as an elected County Surveyor, that this is the position we take in this county, and that it’s backed by state law, that none of the taxes that we collect are specifically assigned to drainage of private property, that we have no monies available to go on to drainage easements and make corrections. If the federal government were to free up some funds that could be used in that regard, they are usually sent to the city, and in the past the city had a surplus of those funds, and would ask the county government are there some areas in the developing area around the city that we may annex in the future, are there areas that need the use of these funds that we have in surplus? Now, as you know, from seeing the Storm Water Task Force operate and come up with millions and millions of dollars in needed improvements inside the city, those funds are no longer at a surplus. I don’t count on them being available. But, that’s what I’ve been told, that’s been my understanding from previous County Attorneys that we do not operate on private land, that those easements remain the responsibility, and the facilities remain the responsibility of the private property owner. They shall either be maintained by a homeowners association, or by an escrow account that since 1994 we collected specifically for each subdivision.

President Nix: Any other comments? I mean, we’re at a point really where I don’t really know what to tell you we can do as a board, as a Drainage Board.

Richard Cobb: Well, like I say, I don’t have $50,000 to spend.

Terry Raley: And the problem is just going to keep getting worse. Do you have $50,000 to fix something in your back yard?

President Nix: No, I do not.

Terry Raley: Most people don’t.

Richard Cobb: I feel that, you know, you’re dumping the problem on us.

Terry Raley: I mean, if Richard and I were the cause of this, say 50 percent of the cause, I would say, okay, it’s our responsibility, but the way this was designed and the way your previous board approved it created this problem, and consequently, I mean, those pictures do not do this justice. It just looks like a little trench.

Commissioner Tornatta: We established that this has been modified from what’s been approved. So, I don’t put any fault on what’s been approved.

Terry Raley: Well, Mr. Tornatta, if you looked at what was approved, I as a layman can look at those blue prints and tell you this would happen. I mean from here, I mean, you’re talking everything, everything back in here that originally, the original plan, there is a ditch right there that was supposed to take 50 percent of this and empty it into Little Pigeon Creek, that was diverted and I don’t know who approved it, but it was approved to come from down this, from all this, into here and then into our ditch. The original plan was not like that. That is the problem. If the original plan had of been stuck to–

President Nix: Mr. Jeffers, is there any way to–

Commissioner Tornatta: Did we approve the diversion? That’s the question.

Bill Jeffers: There was a plan in 1990 that included the ditch that Mr. Raley is talking about. We’ve lost our picture temporarily, but there was the original plan that he’s speaking of, but the Drainage Board had a requirement, and that was a preliminary plan. You’re familiar with preliminary plans. The Drainage Board had a policy at that time, since 1986, that all new subdivision water would go through detention. The opening remarks on that day in 1991, in the minutes in front of you, Commissioner Hunter said that Copperfield Subdivision drainage plan was approved January 28, 1991, that’s the old 1990 plan that I was talking about that was brought to us to review in 1990, with the ditch that bypassed the lakes, but the approval provided for a detention plan. This detention plan is now presented by Morley and Associates for approval. Okay, so, what it’s saying, basically, is that this plan that I’ve shown you a part of, the exhibit, shows that ditch that Mr. Raley is speaking of along the south line–

President Nix: See it here?

Bill Jeffers: –being diverted–

President Nix: It’s this right here, Troy.

Bill Jeffers: –and channeled into basin number two for the purpose of creating storm water detention. In other words, as Mr. Raley said, there is a significant amount of water that was traveling out of this area that was going to be developed into another 48 lots, and that this water going directly into Little Pigeon Creek was not being detained. Because the policy required detention, this plan in front of you dated October 28, 1991, clearly shows the ditch being filled in and diverted through this lake so that it enters into detention before it’s discharged into the creek. That was according to the standards at that time, and on this date, October 28, 1991, the Drainage Board discussed it and approved it in accordance with their requirements.

Richard Cobb: Without calling me, or notifying me. That is not right.

Bill Jeffers: Mr. Cobb added to my remarks that he was not notified at the time of that approval.

President Nix: Any other comments at all?

Richard Cobb: No.

President Nix: Okay. Just one real quick question, Mr. Jeffers, anything we can do at Little Pigeon to help this at all, outside this, that would help this situation at all? Because Little Pigeon is a public drainage, is that correct?

Bill Jeffers: Well, it’s a creek, but it falls under the jurisdiction of the Corp of Engineers and DNR.

President Nix: Okay, it’s not–

Bill Jeffers: It’s not maintained by the county.

President Nix: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: And, I don’t think that there is anything we can do to Little Pigeon Creek that would benefit this situation. Because this situation is caused by head water that comes out of these subdivisions on it’s way to Little Pigeon Creek.

President Nix: Okay. Any other comments at all?

Commissioner Tornatta: What is the effect of that ditch that was filled in, as of right now? Do you know? Is that a natural waterway?

Bill Jeffers: Well, the rest of this plan, I gave you the pictorial–

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –or the depiction part. The rest of the plan comes out on this sheet over here, it shows all of the calculations of how much water was being handled by that old ditch, and how much water was being diverted through the new ditch into basin number two. All of that is shown. I can give you a full copy of this, if anybody wanted to examine exactly how much additional water was being taken to basin number two.

Commissioner Tornatta: Essentially, basin two extends almost three times bigger than what it did on the original plan?

Bill Jeffers: I believe that the question was asked in that meeting in 1991, Commissioner Borries, “So, you’re doing a 25 year storage?”, meaning that you’re storing the 25 year storm and releasing it at a slower rate. Mr. Morley said, “We truly have well beyond that in actual capacity. The way it’s designed is almost double that, probably 35 to 40 percent more.” That’s with the smaller lake. Then they went and extended the lake twice that size, so, there is a substantial capacity for storage of all that water in this southern lake, which is designated basin number two. It is twice as big or more than what is shown on the plan, and what’s shown on the plan was determined to have 30 to 40 percent more capacity than necessary for the 25 year storm.

Madelyn Grayson: May we change the tape real quick?

President Nix: Sure.

(Tape change)

Bill Jeffers: That doesn’t negate the fact that the outlet pipe was still the same size. That’s Mr. Raley’s contention is that the outlet from basin number two into the creek carries a significant amount of water at a high velocity, and has caused him that erosion. We do have the storage capacity, yes, but the velocity of the water leaving that lake is significant.

Terry Raley: And the effect is–

Bill Jeffers: And that’s why it needed to be maintained in a proper way to prevent the erosion.

President Nix: Okay, thank you.

Terry Raley: Like I said earlier, I have to get to work, but anything you guys can do I would appreciate it. I know that it was approved, but that doesn’t make it right.

President Nix: I understand.

Terry Raley: I mean, I can look at those plans and I can tell you this would happen. I mean, you cannot have that much force coming...if you’re familiar with that area out there, it is just straight downhill. It lands on our property, and as Bill said, the pipe is still the same as in the original plan. So, consequently, you’re getting tremendous more force out of that pipe than originally should have been, you know, as it was in the plan. You’re just going to get a lot more force out of that pipe. You have a lot more pressure behind it. That is one reason Richard is losing his bank. I would say in a matter of four or five more years, his holding pond is going to be gone, because when we get a big rain, it’s like a fire hydrant shooting up against his bank, and it just eats it away. I know, maybe legally and all the gumbo jumbo you all, the county is not responsible, but you all approved a plan that was faulty, and my opinion is the county ought to take responsibility for it, not two homeowners.

President Nix: Okay, thank you, sir.

Terry Raley: Thank you.

Richard Cobb: I have one more comment. We’re also getting a lot of trash off the subdivision. We get balls and all kinds of stuff. We get everything in our ditch. So, it just looks like a dump sometimes after a hard rain.

President Nix: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Jeffers?

Bill Jeffers: Unless you have any further questions–

President Nix: Not at this time.

Bill Jeffers: –I would say we move on to the drainage plan for today.

Bill Jeffers: Which is Dr. Hadad Medical Center, located on Columbia Street between Stockfleth Ditch and Burkhardt Road, at the end of Kimber Drive there. It’s part of lot ten in Waterford Place Subdivision. You have the drawings in front of you from Bill Bivins, Accu Engineering. I’ve reviewed the plan and find it comports with the minimum requirements of the drainage ordinance, and recommend approval.

President Nix: Questions from the board?

Commissioner Tornatta: I would like to move the Surveyor’s recommendation.

Commissioner Musgrave: Second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Nix: Both same side.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, the only other item that I have to bring before you is somewhat comical to me, but here it is. There’s a ten dollar check for you to receive from Inland Marina, who has maintained the Eagle Slough as the easement passes through Catfish Pond there in their marina, they’ve dredged it for years. But, at some point in time rules changed at DNR, and DNR said that they had to lease that 50 foot right-of-way from us in order to be able to perform that service for us. Actually, it helps them get their boats in and out of the, you know. So, we came up with, we thought it was worth ten dollars to the county a year for them to–

Commissioner Musgrave: They lease that ground–

Bill Jeffers: They lease the 50 foot right-of-way from the county in order for DNR to approve the dredging. That’s the arrangement that DNR came up.

Commissioner Musgrave: Are we receiving the ten dollars?

Bill Jeffers: We’re receiving the ten dollars.

Commissioner Musgrave: Or renewing the lease?

Bill Jeffers: We’re receiving the ten dollars for them doing the work.

Commissioner Musgrave: And the lease is in existence and has been and has no termination date?

Bill Jeffers: It has been for several years.

President Nix: Do we need a motion to receive that ten dollars?

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Musgrave: I’ll second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

Bill Jeffers: Put it in the general drainage fund, because that’s the only place I know to send it.

President Nix: Now is the time for public comment from anyone here that would like to address the board. If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Musgrave: Second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Nix: Both the same side.

(The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Bill Nix                                      Troy Tornatta                            Cheryl Musgrave

Bill Jeffers                                 Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.          Madelyn Grayson

Terry Raley                               Richard Cobb                           Others Unidentified

Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

Bill Nix, President

Troy Tornatta, Vice President

Cheryl A.W. Musgrave, Member

(Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.)