VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

MAY 24, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 24^th day of May, 2004 at 6:14 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 May 24, 2004.

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

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

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

President Mosby: First we will, under drainage plans we will hear Clear Brook Manor P.U.D., final drainage plan.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, that’s represented here by Morley and Associates who should come to the podium please. Clear Brook Manor P.U.D. is at the end of Galaxy Drive off of North Green River Road. P.U.D. means planned unit development, it’s a method of having smaller lots and townhouse type homes. It has passed through the Area Plan Commission, and, I believe it comes to the County Commissioners for a rezoning during your rezoning hearing. Or has it already been there?

Ron London: It’s already been there.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, and been approved by the County Commissioners. The County Surveyor recommends approval of the final drainage plan for Clear Brook Manor, P.U.D.

President Mosby: Is there any remonstrators in the audience? Any questions by any member of the board? Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve final drainage plan for Clear Brook Manor.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

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

Bill Jeffers: Our next drainage plan is Carrington Meadows. This actually has been approved by the Drainage Board previously, but the developer, who’s here tonight, would like to modify the drainage plan to eliminate one lake. Elimination of the lake is necessary for making the lots more buildable, and the elimination of the lake does not eliminate detention. There is already sufficient detention in the other lakes on the sight. There is more than adequate detention. The County Surveyor recommends the modification as requested for Carrington Meadows, modification of final drainage plan.

President Mosby: Any questions by any member of the board? Any remonstrators in the audience? Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve Carrington Meadows modification of final plan.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: The next one is First Christian Church, it’s on Highway 57 just south of Windemere Farms. This also is simply a modified plan. The church wishes to eliminate a retaining wall and use an earthen berm to guide the water to the lake. Basically there’s no other modifications, it’s simply a landscaping modification that happened to be part of a drainage plan. Requires your approval. The County Surveyor recommends the modification of the final drainage plan for First Christian Church, as submitted by Reginald Heck.

President Mosby: Any questions by any member of the board? Anybody in the audience, any remonstrators? Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve First Christian Church, modified final plan.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: A motion and second. So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Windemere Farms, section five is a final plan. It also modifies a previously approved plan for section four, but five is a split off from section four. The plan conforms with the county’s drainage code. The County Surveyor has reviewed it and finds it’s adequate, and recommends approval of the final drainage plan for Windemere Farms, section five, represented here tonight by Keith Poff from Sitecon.

President Mosby: Is there anybody in the audience, any remonstrators to Windemere, section five? Any questions by any member of the board? Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: Motion and a second, so ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Next plan is Fed Ex distribution center. That’s on lots 13 and 14 in Vanderburgh Industrial Park. This is a modification that requests permission to enlarge the detention lake in order to acquire earth fill to raise the elevation of the facility. The modification will require dedication of an enlarged drainage easement. The County Surveyor has looked at the plan, and finds that it can be done with this modification and still comply with the drainage code. There is a letter here that I enter for the record from the applicant who is represented here tonight by David Schminke of Morley and Associates. Everything is in order. They will then have to come back with some drawings and some dedication of the easement. Other than that, everything is in order at this time. The County Surveyor recommends approval of the enlargement of the lake on lots 13 and 14, Vanderburgh Industrial Park, for the purpose of building a proposed Fed Ex ground distribution center in that industrial park.

President Mosby: Questions by any member of the board? Anybody in the audience, Fed Ex distribution center? Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: The next one is a modification of Windham Hill and Wynnfield subdivisions. This is a very simple modification of the final drainage plan. The lake outlets had called for rock rip rap as armament to protect as an erosion control measure at the outlet of the lakes. However, the developer, represented here by Jon Kipling from Morley and Associates, would prefer using a more modern erosion control fabric map. The county has used that very same mat on a ditch project that we completed last summer and found it a very acceptable replacement for rip rap. It doesn’t move and tumble like rip rap does. That’s one of the reasons it’s not desirable in a residential subdivision. It allows a dense grass cover to develop through the mat. We found, we happened to use North American Green on ours, and found, and would tell the developer that if you ask a representative from North American Green to come out and examine the installation, they will guarantee it. I’m not recommending North American Green. I’m just telling you that if you have a factory rep on site, they will guarantee it. Because they have the ability to tell the installers where to staple, etcetera. We found out it was very suitable, and preferable to rip rap in the project we used it on. The County Surveyor recommends approval of the requested modification for Windemere Farms, excuse me, for Windham Hill and Wynnfield subdivision to use the erosion control mat rather than rip rap.

President Mosby: Questions by any member of the board? Anybody in the audience?

Jon Kipling: I’m Jon Kipling with Morley and Associates. I just wanted to make one small correction, it was for all outlets, not just the lake outlets.

Bill Jeffers: For the flared in sections as well?

Jon Kipling: Correct.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. As long as you’re using the right material for the right velocities.

Jon Kipling: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: That’s all part of the specifications?

Jon Kipling: Correct.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. Correct my motion, or, excuse me, correct my recommendation to include all outlets.

President Mosby: Anybody else in the audience? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered

Bill Jeffers: The next request is for a modification to a final drainage plan for Fawn Creek, section two, previously known as Leo’s Place. Basically, what happened here, the developer wanted to resize the lake, make it larger, more picturesque, elevate the adjoining lake front road so that it wouldn’t flood with the additional...I have to correct my agenda, it’s actually 3.3 feet that they are raising it, not 1.3 feet. They are raising this lake 3.3 feet to make it larger, deeper and more picturesque. They also show on the plans that had been already reviewed by the County Engineer, John Stoll, elevating the lake frontage road. They’re elevating the dam. They’re elevating the emergency spillway, and the release structure, and they are reconfiguring the release structure. All these elements have been reviewed by the County Surveyor, and we are going to recommend approval of the plan, but I want to make it very clear that we are recommending approval of the design plan done by Mr. Easley’s office, not necessarily what’s in the field today. The developer has already preceded this recommendation of approval by doing some work, which may have to be fine tuned to make it comply with the plan that we’re recommending approval of. Also, I would like to point out that this is a tentative approval, because they will have to also resize the lake easement to contain the larger lake before the plat’s approved. They may have to replat some maintenance easements to incorporate a maintenance pathway to maintain a larger lake, because the other easement may be flooded. They will have to extend an easement on to lot 57 to account for a potential flood hazard, because they backed the lake up on to that lot a little bit more. They will probably have to establish finished, excuse me, flood protection grades on the lake front lots to a new elevation above the top of the dam, because the dam is being raised about 2.2 feet. They may have to extend the maintenance easement on lot 58, because when the new dam gets higher, and the 4:1 side slopes extend out from the new top, the back slope may encroach a little bit more on that lot. So, Mr. Easley is in the audience, and I make those comments as a matter of record. The plan that is on paper, that Mr. Easley has produced, complies, and we recommend approval of the plan. It may have to be fine tuned in the field by the developer, and it will be inspected by the County Surveyor and the County Engineer for correctness to this plan that we’re recommending. The developer is also here, and I’m sure all that is well understood. With that, I will recommend tentative approval of the plan.

President Mosby: Are there any questions? Anybody in the audience that would like to speak? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Wilmes Windows is a one lot commercial drainage plan on 2323 North Burkhardt. It’s part of lot four in Burkhardt Center, phase one. The County Surveyor is not recommending approval of the plan, because the plan appears to impact both adjoining, all three adjoining properties. One property in particular I’m very concerned about the impact that it has on that property with regard to potential off site flooding of the foundation. On another piece of property they appear to want to do some work, even though it’s within an easement, it is on someone else’s property, and I can’t approve that at this time. So, I would like to not approve Wilmes Windows plan at this time, and postpone that until I have a chance to discuss it with the developer and the engineer. However, our ordinance allows all plans that were submitted in a timely fashion to come before the board, and if there is someone in the audience that would like to speak to that plan, they may do so at this time, in fairness to them.

President Mosby: Is there anybody in the audience from Wilmes Windows, 2323 North Burkhardt? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: You wanted to defer.

Bill Jeffers: To say postpone approval.

Commissioner Fanello: To defer approval.

Bill Jeffers: Defer approval.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay, motion to defer.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: Would this be until the next meeting? Or do you want to specifically–

Bill Jeffers: I’m not really sure. The engineer is out of town. I have to talk long distance on the phone to communicate with him. I’m not saying the plan is a bad plan, it just has some impact on adjoining properties that I would like for them to address.

President Mosby: We have a motion to defer, so, I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: We have, I think, three claims for ditch maintenance that’s been performed in 2004. All three have been inspected by our inspectors, found to be compliant with the specifications, are signed by the County Surveyor, and have the attached necessary paperwork for payment. The County Surveyor recommends payment of these three maintenance claims.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

President Mosby: Encroachment agreements.

Bill Jeffers: Encroachment agreements. We have Waterford Commons, section three, 922 North Burkhardt Road. This is adjacent to Kruckemeyer and Cohn’s new building. It’s a building that has an approved drainage plan on the same lot, however, the building that they would like to build would, crosses an easement, and they are relocating the drainage pipe to be outside the building in the parking lot, as it should be, and they simply would like to encroach this easement with the building so that they have a marketable size building to construct and sell or lease out. Everything is in order. I’m sorry, I apologize to the County Auditor for not running this through your office, but the check is here. It came in late Friday. Everything is in black ink like it’s supposed to be to be recorded. The County Surveyor recommends that the drainage board approve the encroachment agreement. It’s notarized, and forward it, with the check, to the County Auditor’s office for processing through the County Recorder.

Commissioner Fanello: I move approval.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Next item is CCX truck terminal expansion at 4000 Hitch Peters Road, city of Evansville, happens to be on a regulated drain, that even though it’s inside the city is still maintained by the County Drainage Board, and the County Surveyor. Which means that if they would like to reduce the drainage right-of-entry along Sonntag Stevens Ditch, they have to come to your board and request a relaxation of a regulated drain right-of-way, which is allowed by Indiana Code 36-9-27. It’s an urban drain, it was constructed after 1981, therefore you can reduce the right-of-entry to any distance not less than 25' from the top of the bank, and that’s what they’re requesting. They show their facility adjacent to and along side the ditch with a chain link fence for security of the truck terminal measured 25' from the top of the bank. The County Surveyor has inspected the site, finds it appropriate, and, basically, the same as neighboring properties have done the same thing. We have approved it before. So, the County Surveyor recommends approval of the relaxation of the north bank of Sonntag Stevens ditch to 25' as measured at right angles from the top bank of the ditch as shown on the plan for CCX truck terminal expansion, 4000 Hitch Peters Road submitted on behalf of that terminal by David J. Wanniger, Professional Engineer.

President Mosby: Chair would entertain a motion for relaxation of north bank of Sonntag Stevens ditch.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Next item would be to receive petitions, if any, and these are the statutory petitions for removal of an obstruction from a natural surface watercourse or a drain. I’m not aware of any that have come to our office. Have any come to the Auditor’s office? There being none filed with either office, I would move on to –

Bill Jeffers: –other plans or requested actions that may come from the floor. We have an action request for Carpentier Creek Pavilion. If you’ll remember a couple of months ago, or a month or so ago, the board asked the County Surveyor to draft an agreement between the board and the Department of Natural Resources Division of Water for Carpentier Creek Pavilion. It was requested by DNR that we enter into an agreement with them for perpetual maintenance of the relocated channel for Carpentier Creek Pavilion. Basically, you guys, the board agreed that they would send the County Surveyor or the County Engineer out on an annual basis and post-flood basis to inspect the site and recommend mowing of the channel, overbank areas, keeping the channel banks and overbank area clear of debris from a flood, etcetera. Make sure that the flow through the channel was unimpeded, and to come up with a list of maintenance items that would have to be performed by the owners. We did that, you approved that, DNR approved that. Now we’re coming back with a perpetual agreement between the board and the owners of the property so that the county is not encumbered with any costs to perform that maintenance. This agreement was drafted using the same documents and same parameters that you have previously approved between yourself and DNR, but it puts the responsibility and the cost on the owner of Carpentier Creek Pavilion for all this maintenance. In other words, the county will say what needs to be done in their report, and the owner of the property will do it. It also, the owner at this time being Dennis V. Owens, and his successors and assigns down through the chain of title will also have the same responsibility after Mr. Owens sells the property to successors or assigns. This legal document was drafted by Les Shively at Shively and Associates of Evansville, Indiana. It appears to be in proper legal form, but not being a lawyer, I would recommend that you move this to your legal staff for their expedient approval, and I would recommend that you enter into this agreement to protect the county from any money costs that are associated with performing the maintenance. Time is of the essence with regard to occupation of the property by a commercial venture. That’s the original, here’s five copies for any person or agency who would need them.

President Mosby: I know Kevin had to leave, and I had talked with a representative from Carpentier Creek Pavilion earlier today that this request was coming forward. I would ask for a motion that we approve this request upon the approval of our attorney. That we could go ahead and act on it and then have Kevin look at it right away.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make a motion to approve contingent upon legal counsel’s approval.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered. Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Another requested action from the floor is Stone Creek P.U.D. It’s a, there was a 10' easement, basically, for an emergency overflow channel between two homes...again, this is a P.U.D. that has very small lot sizes and nice, well built little town houses, and space is very critical in a P.U.D. The 10' easement is between two homes, and what happens there is that whenever the street may fill up with water because let’s say an inlet were clogged, the water would go over the top of the sidewalk and flow between the two housing units and back to the ditch behind the homes. So, we have these emergency overflows for extreme events that might occur, but usually are very infrequent. Because P.U.D.’s are so crowded and so critical to get everything spaced just exactly right, there was an inadvertent oversight of less than one half foot and a house had to be offset one half a foot to accommodate this oversight. The developers for Stonecreek P.U.D. represented by Ron London from Morley and Associates are requesting that one half, what was it, .46, or are you going for the full half a foot?

Ron London: The whole half foot, if that’s possible.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, one half foot of the easement be vacated. Now as you know, as the board knows vacations have to go, vacation of an easement has to go through the County Commissioners, but it generally comes to the drainage board, and then the drainage board asks if the County Surveyor finds everything to be copasetic, which I do. I don’t see any problem whatsoever with this. Vacating a half a foot will not interfere with proper drainage or emergency overflow through this channel. It’s necessary for the person to take title of the house that the half foot be vacated. I just wanted to express that at this time and ask the board to move this matter in an expedient way to the County Commissioners for whatever period, generally it’s a 45 day period of notification and hearing to vacate an easement in the county. Kevin Winternheimer may know of a more expedient method, but the last time we did this several years ago it took about 45 days. Of course, someone is trying to take title on that house. So, if we could move that through the legal staff and the County Commissioners, I would say at this time that the County Surveyor recommends that the drainage board allow it, on the basis that there is no problem with doing it.

President Mosby: Chair would entertain a motion, I guess, to move it forward to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay, and the County Attorney?

President Mosby: Yes, and the County Attorney.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll make that a motion.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Is that sufficient for your purposes, Mr. London? Thank you. Are there any other plans or requested actions to come before the board at this time that have been formally presented someway or another?

Bill Jeffers: If there are not, the board at this time generally takes comments, questions, etcetera from other persons wishing to address the board.

President Mosby: Yeah, come on forward, state your name and address.

Jerry Arnett: This is my first public format, so you’ll have to excuse me.

President Mosby: That’s fine. We don’t harm anybody.

Bill Jeffers: We’re not as formal as we appear to be.

Jerry Arnett: Okay. My name is Jerry Arnett. I live at 3221 North 12 ^th Avenue. We have a problem with our P.U.D.’s, but I want to read a statement if it’s okay with the board. Dear County Commissioners, I humbly ask for your service. My name is Jerry Arnett, and I live at 3221 North 12^th Avenue, to be exact lot number 31. I bought this property mainly because it has a half acre of land, room for my children to grow and to play. I have, or should I say we in our neighborhood have, a drainage problem. None of my neighbors seems to know for sure who’s responsibility it is to keep our easement, creek, embankment, or what have you, or whatever it’s called there, P.U.D., clear of brush, trees, weeds, and overall woodlands. I’ve spoken to some of my neighbors saying that I am new in the neighborhood. I just moved in there in November, and I have taken it upon myself to be spokesman, or spokes person, for the neighbors and to bring this issue to your attention. I have two children ages three and eleven months. This is our first home we have ever owned, and was bought without knowledge of the water problem. Again, I bought it in November of ‘03, and there was no water back then, you know. But, this spring I have noticed that when it rains, the area of issue, embankment, easement, or P.U.D., fills with water and has no way of draining because of the woodlands that are obstructing the drainage. A lot of neighbors have taken it to themselves to clear their area directly behind their homes, however, some have not. Mainly because either they are renting, or don’t realize where their property responsibilities start or stop. There are a number of children in the area, and it’s a great neighborhood to raise a family, but so far it’s been hard to enjoy our new home when you can’t step out of your home and go into your yard without fear of being attacked by mosquitos, ticks, or fleas. The water stays in the embankment for weeks on end, at least, depending, of course, on the amount of rain that we get and for how long it rains. It stretches about two football fields to my north, and that’s where it’s all cleared. Moreover, it stretches another two football fields to the south going towards Allen’s Lane and it is all filled with brush. I haven’t ventured enough, ventured far enough into the woodland myself to know how deep the thickets are. I’m not that brave. Please all I ask is for you to look into it, and if enforcement is needed again, please, do so. Why should I have to pay $100 in order for you to just take a look. I don’t understand that, but if that’s what I have to pay you for a fee for a petition, then, that is what I’ll do. If I find out that it’s not a county issue, or, you know, it’s not an issue with you guys at all, then I’m just out $100, I guess. Because I haven’t spoken to anybody else about paying anything, I was taking it upon myself. It hurts when you’re trying to raise a family with bills to pay, plus to keep up the property anyway. I’m not the only person with this problem, I’m just not the kind of person that sits back and does nothing, which is why I’m here. So, please tell me what options do I have besides losing $100. You know, I have another statement from one of my neighbors, she couldn’t make it tonight, she has to work. Her name is Connie Brassard. She lives two doors south of me. To be exact, her address is (deleted), and, again, her name is Connie M. Brassard, B-r-a-s-s-a-r-d. She’s lived there since 1987, and the easement in the back of her house has never been completely cleared. The previous owners did not clear it. She’s never been able to afford to clear it, and cannot physically clear it. She is a divorcee, and feels that it is a health hazard with standing water and have seen many children playing in it over the years. If someone would clear it, she would most definitely, and I think the rest of the neighbors also agree would most definitely maintain that they would keep, they would maintain at least their portion from that point forward. Maybe we could all work together as a neighborhood to see to it. We want to thank you for listening to us, but we would like for somebody to please come by and look at it. I mean, all we are asking for is a look. I’ve brought some video if you would like to see what it looks like. I would be glad to present that for you. I don’t know how this works, you know, so, I spoke to you, Ms. Crouch, and thank you for calling me back. I just don’t know where else to turn. I’ve called everybody, I’ve called the County Surveyor’s, I had a gentleman by the name of Mike Wathen from the County Engineer’s, he came out and took a look at it. He was probably there a total of three to five minutes, and he’s not sure if it’s a county problem or not. We do know that the drain is clear, that’s good, but if the water can’t get there, then there’s a problem. I talked to Vectren to see if they had any responsibility, seeing that there is telephone poles and electrical lines and so forth, and they said it is a P.U.D. easement, Jean Ashby is who I spoke to. This is in the back of our house, I have a half acre lot, so do most of my neighbors on that side of the street, and they don’t, some of them don’t know where their property ends or where it begins. I do know where mine is. I’ve made sure of that, and it is on to the other side of this easement. My area is cleared, and the areas to the south are cleared, or to the north are cleared. The areas to the south is where the problems lie. There is brush and thicket that is, like I said, woodlands. So, if you could give me some direction and some guidance, I would appreciate it.

President Mosby: Bill, what role do we play in this?

Bill Jeffers: Before I forget, Connie Bussard, B-u-s-s-a-r-d?

Jerry Arnett: B-r-a-s-s-a-r-d. Brassard.

Bill Jeffers: B-r-a-s-s-a-r-d. And her address again please, sir.

Jerry Arnett: 3213 North 12^th Avenue. I also have a Ron Jarvis, he is my next door neighbor at 3215 12^th Avenue, 17, excuse me, 3217 12^th Avenue. I live at 3221 12^th Avenue. It starts from Connie Brassard’s yard and heads south towards Allens Lane.

Bill Jeffers: Right. This particular drainage problem is a chronic drainage problem that has existed for decades at this location. It has existed ever since I’ve worked for the county. We’ve been called out on occasion every few years to address this problem. It’s all on private property. The easement that Mr. Arnett’s speaking of is a 4' public utility easement, which is why the abbreviation is PUE, public utility easement, adjacent to a 6' alley that was platted contemplating another six feet to make a total of 12' on it, on the adjacent property. That never happened. So, basically, back there you have a 6' alley way and a 4' public utility easement for underground and above ground electric utilities, etcetera, making it a total of 10' easement. That’s still private property owned by the private property owners. There was, at one time, a swale, a very shallow ditch all along through that easement that carried water both to the south to Allens Lane, and at some point it breaks and goes north to Hobart Avenue. There’s a vacant lot at the very end of Hobart, because that’s one of the lots that was not divided with a house. In other words, these lots used to be 104' wide. Mr. Arnett’s home is on the north half of lot 31, and Mr. Jarvis’ is on the south half of the same original lot.

Jerry Arnett: He’s right next door to me.

Bill Jeffers: Right. So, those lots were all split up. When you get up to lot 25 at the very north end of 12^th Avenue, there’s an empty area that used to have a ditch that went through it along the north end of Hobart, and adjacent to the south end of the industrial subdivision. Mr. Easley, who was here owns that subdivision, and they dug a ditch along Hobart to drain that water out to St. Joe Avenue back years ago. I worked for Mr. Easley in the late ‘70's and that’s when that ditch was dug. It used to drain.

Jerry Arnett: Used to.

Bill Jeffers: It used to drain, right. The residents of North 12^th Avenue, in the case of Mr. Arnett and Mr. Jarvis, for example, in this aerial photograph you see they keep their ditch nice and clean. I’ll pass it down if you would like to see it, but where it says 3221 on the rooftop, that’s this gentleman’s home. To the south of him is the man he named as Mr. Jarvis. To the north of him he has a neighbor, all three of those people keep theirs clean, but then you see trees growing in the rest of the easement. That’s pretty common all up and down through there. Most likely the water from Mr. Arnett’s property is intended to go south to –

Jerry Arnett: Allens Lane.

Bill Jeffers: –Allens Lane, where there is an inlet, and that last lot or two down there, at Allens Lane, is also clear, but there are a variety of obstructions along the way that I’ve viewed over the years; raised gardens, people put railroad ties back there and had a garden at one time, you go north of you and there’s a guy that built a garage back there right on the easement, whether or not it’s permitted I do not know, just letting blackberry bushes grow up, there’s some brambles that grow up back there. All of these things are obstructions, but they all exist on private property. Our state code 36-9-27.4, which was passed in 1996 allows for you to petition for the removal of an obstruction on private property if you have already asked the owner of that property, if you’ve made a request to that owner to remove it, and not received a satisfactory response from that property owner in a reasonable time, like 30 days let’s say, he hadn’t initiated any removal, then you can bring a petition down here to the drainage board. None of these drainage board members who are sitting at this time were sitting on the board in 1996 when this statute was passed by the legislature. But at that time when it was first passed the drainage board received a lot of requests that were very neighborhood squabble oriented, or spite, you know. The first one I went out on was a wheel barrel full of dirt some guy just spitefully dumped in a ditch. The drainage board became a little perturbed with spending several hundred to a thousand dollars for hearings and legal proceedings to go out and settle a wheel barrel full of spite dumped in somebody’s ditch. So, just one hearing cost $100, just one single hearing, that doesn’t count the mailing, the time spent by the lawyer, time spent in the field by staff. I don’t like permit fees, I don’t like legal fees anymore than anybody else does. We resisted that, but we were getting too many of the frivolous complaints. Yours is not frivolous. Yours is a legitimate complaint. I think there’s been an instance or two where the board for reasons of, for one reason or another refunded the $100 after the proceedings. We’ve also had cases where the county went through with the hearing and ordered a removal, no one removed it, I mean, you know, the people who were ordered to remove it didn’t remove it. So, the county board, this board here had to order the County Surveyor to seek a contractor and go remove it at our expense, and then we have to go over to the court system to recover our money. That’s very expensive. So expensive, just in legal fees, that we often don’t do it for a small amount, because it would cost the taxpayer more to recover the money than it did to spend it in the first place. So, those are the reasons why we have the fee. This is not a perfect system, certainly, but constitutionally also I cannot trespass on private property over a private civil matter without some kind of warrant, and the petition itself serves as my warrant to conduct the investigation. If I were to go on to your neighbors property without a warrant and without some due process, I would actually be trespassing.

Jerry Arnett: I understand that.

Bill Jeffers: Because it is a civil matter until you file this.

Jerry Arnett: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: So, I do have here a copy of instructions along with the legal backing, the statutory backing for this process, and you can consult, there’s a fill in the blank form. You can also, at any time, consult with the County Surveyor’s staff to help, you know, or to assist you in anyway filling this out, if you like. I can’t do anything other than recommend to the County Commissioners that they waive the $100, that’s up to them totally, this board. I will say, in all fairness, they did not institute the fee, it was three other Commissioners at the time. I also will say in fairness to those Commissioners it was done for a good reason. They may insist upon a $100 fee. My warning to you would be that because most of this occurred before the law took effect, it may be legally hard to say that it was an intentional obstruction. In other words, it was just natural growth. No one went out there and intentionally obstructed it.

Jerry Arnett: Well, from the looks–

Bill Jeffers: Trees grew.

Jerry Arnett: –of everything, it is natural growth.

Bill Jeffers: Right.

Jerry Arnett: It impedes that drainage.

Bill Jeffers: Right. In that case, the law says that if it’s not intentional, if it’s a natural occurrence, and the clearing of it would serve all the people served by that drain, that they shall all share in the cost of the project equally, or, as, in your case it would be equal because all the lots are the same size. So, whatever proportionate benefit you get from the clearing of the ditch, you would pay that much. Now, I will say at this time that it’s been our experience, all of our experience, that if the government proceeds with a project like this, there is going to be added cost and delay. That’s the way the government operates, slowly and cumbersomely.

Jerry Arnett: Well, I understand–

Bill Jeffers: If you guys get together and do it yourself, I can tell you, I can give you a list of contractors for you to seek bids from that have done this for a reasonable amount of money. I cannot recommend a contractor, that would be unfair, but I can give you a list of contractors we seek bids from that are always low. It would be much cheaper for you guys to do the project yourself, if you can do it as a neighborhood. If you can’t, you can file this petition and we’ll proceed with the hearings, and we’ll do it as cheaply and as quickly as we can, but it’s going to be at least 90 to 120 days.

Jerry Arnett: Well, again, if it hasn’t been cleared since the ‘70's, I don’t see it being cleared any time soon.

Bill Jeffers: Well, I worked for Mr. Easley up until ‘78, and it was bad then, and it’s worse now.

Jerry Arnett: Yes, sir. I can second that motion. It is, I mean I’m here just to find a solution to this.

Bill Jeffers: I understand.

Jerry Arnett: I’ve went to some of the neighbors, and this Connie Brassard, where it starts from her area, she was out there trying to clear whatever she could. She doesn’t even know where her property starts and ends. You know, you have my permission to come onto my property and just to look. You can go on to Allens Lane and you can view from there. There is no garage back there, there is no garages back there on that embankment.

Bill Jeffers: Not between your, between your house and Allens Lane there is not.

Jerry Arnett: No.

Bill Jeffers: Between your house and Hobart Avenue there is one.

Jerry Arnett: Yes, and he gets flooded out a lot–

Bill Jeffers: I imagine he does.

Jerry Arnett: –of his garage. You know, however, that is north of my area, and, again, you said there is even supposed to be a drainage ditch over in that area going to St. Joe. Okay, that doesn’t work any longer. I don’t know who’s supposed to fix it. Neither does that gentleman.

Bill Jeffers: The County Highway Department went out and dug it out at our request a couple of years, about four or five years ago from North 12^th, from the end of North 12^th out to St. Joe, they dug it out, because that is a county road, Hobart. But, then through the private property, back to the backside of your subdivision, we had no permission to do it. There’s a large oak tree up at the end of that street that blocks the ditch, and that would have to come out either at the grace of the property owner or by this order right here. If the board were to order it. No one has ever, believe me, sir, everything you say is true. I acknowledge that to the board, everything this man is saying is true, but you are about the eighth or tenth person to come before, or come through our office seeking this very same thing over the past ten or fifteen years. But, without participation of your neighbors or someone filing this petition–

Jerry Arnett: That’s what I’m here for now.

Bill Jeffers: –we cannot do a project on private property.

Jerry Arnett: That’s what I’m here for now. I will pay that petition right now, if need be. There’s no problem with that.

Bill Jeffers: First you need to notify every property owner that has an obstruction between you and where you want the water to go. You have to request that they remove the obstruction in accordance with this statute. That has to occur. I would strongly recommend that you make that request to those property owners in writing.

Jerry Arnett: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: And if you can use a form of mail that certifies that they’ve received it, it would be best. It’s not a requirement of the law, you can hand deliver it to them and come up here and tell us that you did it.

Jerry Arnett: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: And give us copies of that letter, and that’s good enough. We all work like gentleman’s agreement type thing. There’s nothing in the law that says you have to mail it. But, I would recommend that you do it at least in writing so that there’s proof.

Jerry Arnett: Definitely then, there’s no problem with that. I just want this cleared for my children. I mean, I just bought the property and I would like to see my children grow up there.

Bill Jeffers: Sure.

Jerry Arnett: Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Here’s your, here’s the form. If you need any assistance whatsoever, call our office and someone in our office will assist you with this.

Jerry Arnett: Last time I called (Inaudible).

Bill Jeffers: Basically, right. You got the short and sweet from them, you’re getting the long and sugary from me.

Jerry Arnett: Thank you.

Madelyn Grayson: Mr. Arnett, there’s a thing called proof of mailing that the post office will do a lot cheaper than certified mail, but they will sign that they all went out and they’ll stamp it. It’s considerably cheaper.

Jerry Arnett: Okay, and that’s done through the post office.

Madelyn Grayson: Yes, it’s called proof of mailing, and they’ll sign it and stamp it, and it’s like two dollars per item cheaper.

Jerry Arnett: Okay, thank you.

President Mosby: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Arnett.

Jerry Arnett: Thank you very much.

President Mosby: Is there any other person wishing to address the board? Seeing none.

Bill Jeffers: Seeing none, you’ve got four minutes, bud.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m.)

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Suzanne M. Crouch

         Bill Jeffers                       Madelyn Grayson           Ron London

         Jon Kipling                      Jerry Arnett                     Others Unidentified

         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

David W. Mosby, President

Catherine Fanello, Vice President

Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.