The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 7^th day of October, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Troy Tornatta presiding.

President Tornatta: We’re going to open up the Vanderburgh County Drainage Board agenda, or meeting, Tuesday, October 7, 2008. It is roughly 6:45.

Bill Jeffers: I have a group of four amended, final drainage plans, which I did explain to Mr. Korb earlier. Would you like to hear the explanation for that? He’s heard it.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, as I said, Commissioner Korb is aware of my explanation for these. So, I’ll go ahead and enter that into the record. It’s Arrowood Subdivision, Windemere, Sections Four and Five, Ivy Meadows Subdivision, and Liberty Estates, Section One. All four of those plans that are in front of you at this time, as a package, are amended, final drainage plans. Essentially, the idea is that the subdivisions had been complete for some time. There are still a few lots left undeveloped in those subdivisions, but, essentially, the drainage plan has been working for several years, in some cases, a few years in others. There are some minor discrepancies between what was on the original plan and what’s out there as built. But, the plans are each accompanied by pictures, and with calculations and narratives that clearly show that the plans, that the system is in working order, and the recommendation of the County Surveyor is to waive any minor discrepancies and approve the as built, amended, final drainage plans for those four subdivisions, so that the punch lists can be processed and the inspections can proceed from the County Engineer’s office, and ultimately the letters of credit released to the developers so they can move forward with their financing. That’s the recommendation.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, now we’ll move back to the top of the agenda, with Mr. Korb here present.

Bill Jeffers: No, that’s quite alright. Just some things that you were already aware of that we moved on. Veolia Transfer Station, this is a solid waste, or a refuse transfer station. It’s a final drainage plan that’s located north of Boonville-New Harmony Road on Warrick County Line Road. It’s an extension of an existing facility out there who’s drainage plan is already in place and operating satisfactorily. I have a letter accompanying the plan from the operator of the existing facility to the south saying that they have not experienced any drainage problems, and don’t anticipate any from this expansion. It does comport with the drainage code, and the recommendation is to approve.

Bill Jeffers: The next drainage plan is Deerfield Subdivision, Section Four. This is a final drainage plan. It has been discussed before in Drainage Board as a preliminary. There were some remonstrators who met with the developers engineer and me at the County Surveyor’s office and we discussed some of their concerns. I worked subsequently with the engineer, Keith Poff, from Sitecon, to address those concerns. Basically, it’s to intercept, and if you look on the plan, I have highlighted the intercepting swales that capture and convey the storm water from the interior of this site to off-site, or on-site drainage control facilities and then release it into off-site facilities on Eissler Road. I believe that our work has succeeded in addressing those concerns, but keep in mind that there may be some existing drainage problems associated with storm water runoff from the unimproved project site, in its current natural, or unimproved condition. I’ve heard those concerns expressed. There may be others I’m not aware of, but keep in mind that these problems thus far were the responsibility of developers and subsequent owners of adjacent property, particularly Deerfield Villas, adjacent to this undeveloped site to handle and address those problems. Because the site, you know, it remains natural and undisturbed at this point, or up to this point, so, any water that came off that naturally vegetated site was not an accelerated run off. So, it was someone else’s to address. Now, the purpose of this plan you have in front of you is to capture and convey and manage the newly generated storm water that we anticipate resulting from new pavement and rooftops within the subdivision that’s going to be developed, and to do that in a manner that satisfies the requirement of our drainage code. This plan does do that. That’s about all I have to say at this point in time. The recommendation will be to approve this plan, unless something unknown to me comes up. There are people in the audience who would like to express some of their concerns possibly. I believe all those concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. The design engineer, Keith Poff, and Mr. Mominee are here, in case there are any questions of the designers. I’ll let the, I’ll turn the microphone over to anyone who would like to speak to it.

Commissioner Korb: My question is, is this coming, Deerfield coming before us through Redevleopment? Do we know guys?

Commissioner Korb: Wasn’t there something with Deerfield that had gone through the Redevelopment Commission?

Commissioner Korb: For rezoning and has not appeared to us yet? Or, am I mistaken on that?

Bill Jeffers: –via Area Plan Commission as a, what happened was, this was all laid out and designed, this big lot here was all divided up into smaller lots at one time.

Bill Jeffers: This was all part of Deerfield, and the time limit lapsed for the recording of this portion of the plat.

Bill Jeffers: So, the developer has come back to you, and that’s why it’s gone through the hearing process again. It basically looks about the same, except that this large area is going to remain one lot.

Commissioner Korb: But, I don’t think we’ve heard that though, Commissioners, though have we, from Area Plan?

President Tornatta: Was this the one that was supposed to connect to Deerfield–

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir. It would start here at Eissler Road, there would be a new connection at Eissler Road, and then the road would wind through the new development, connect up with the old road, or the existing road and go all the way through Deerfield, it’s Carrington Drive, and end up at Mt. Pleasant, oh, what, maybe half a mile west of 41.

Bill Jeffers: The concern from some of the neighbors regarding traffic was people cutting through from–

Commissioner Korb: I mean, I don’t remember that coming before us yet. That’s what my question is.

Carol Stevens: Part of that discussion, Carol Stevens from Deerfield. Part of the discussion was that a lot of the residents wanted not to have access from Eissler, because they thought everybody would go through Carrington and on to 41.

Carol Stevens: Basically, what you all said was, you were sorry, but because legally they had met all requirements you had to vote yes.

Commissioner Korb: I don’t think that was us that said that. I think that was the Area Plan.

Commissioner Korb: Okay, so that’s coming before us, I think, Madelyn said on October the 21^st.

Madelyn Grayson: Well, the next rezoning meeting is October 21^st, it depends on whether Area Plan recommends that it go forward or not.

Keith Poff: Keith Poff, Sitecon, Incorporated. We do not have a rezoning petition for this land, and we were before the Area Plan Commission for the primary plat approval on August 14^th.

President Tornatta: What is the, what are you going, well, there was something before us that talked about the last couple of lots, where that would, where there would actually be, we were talking about whether there would be a barrier or some type of barrier put between those two subdivisions, and I was assured that there was some type of talks on-going about that. Because having that direct cut through does affect how people bought, when they bought in the Deerfield Subdivision. I mean, that traffic pick up is unfair to the residents that are established.

Keith Poff: Okay, the layout that you see that has been approved is effectively the same layout that was utilized for the primary platting of the area prior to 1994, even, I can recall the project in the mid ‘80's. So, the only reason that it wasn’t completed, there was a termination of primary plat approval. It used to be an 18 month period. Currently it’s a five year period from that primary plat approval, but since he did not record a section after 1993, that primary plat approval had expired, and therefore we came back with another primary in order to approve this, but this is the same layout that they’ve had proposed here ever since the land was taken into a developer’s hands.

President Tornatta: Well, I mean, and it very well could be, but, I guess, there was a prior layout before Eastland Mall was there, there was a prior plan for this area before the Civic Center was here, so, things will change due to the changes in building and what have you in an area. The extent of time between the build up of Deerfield and what we have here, I believe is taking advantage of those people that are up on that hill that have built out and have filled out the Deerfield area. I thought that before when this was coming before us, because I wanted something worked out, you know, I want to see growth in that area, there’s no question about it, but, to have those houses where they are, I’m sure purchased because of the quietness of that street, then to push as many cars as I know are going to be going through that area, you’re coming late to the dance.

President Tornatta: Well, then cut it off. Cut it off in that area. Cut it off at that last lot.

Keith Poff: There was no termination of the streets, with a cul-de-sac. The end of the phase that was recorded was an intersection, not a dead end. We, many times the developers are going into undeveloped ground and they don’t have a tremendous desire to make those extensions into the other lands, or make those available. MPO in the county encouraged the interconnections between the projects in order to get traffic to spread from one area to the other. So, this connection does fit into what normally we hear from your planning office to make the connections, not cut them off. I live in a project named Bridlewood, and that was the very thing that was required of us was to make a connection from the subdivision known as Bridlewood into the other project that’s over on Petersburg Road. To have a connection in between in order to spread the traffic out, rather than to keep funneling all of the traffic out through the single, or two entrances, and put every homeowner on to the same roadway coming in or out of the project.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, just to, we probably ought to stick to drainage issues here, really. This really isn’t an issue about traffic or traffic flow. That needs to be addressed at another day at another meeting. I think the whole reason for this meeting tonight is drainage issues.

President Tornatta: I understand, and point taken. Maybe the reason we got into it, there was an explanation of why we did, what we did, when we did, and probably took that a little too far.

Dan Lentz: My name is Dan Lentz. My wife and I own a lot in Deerfield Three that is affected by the activities in Deerfield Four. I don’t know if I know how to use this pointer or not, but I’m lot 63 there at the corner of Doe Run and Carrington Place. My lot is right here.

Dan Lentz: It’s identified as lot number 63 on the drainage plan, lot number 60 in the subdivision site plan. What I’m interested in finding out is, initially there was supposed to be a swale that ran along this line, because all this up here is much higher than the lots down here.

Dan Lentz: But it was never installed. There was supposed to be a swale, a drain and a pipe to pipe it over to the detention lake which is across the street. I guess it’s somewhere right here. That was never installed, even though it was on the approved drainage plan in 1994. The developer has agreed to install such a swale, but it hasn’t been done yet. The problem I have right now, particularly is, the developer is clearing land up here, disturbing land, and it’s created the potential for drainage to come down in all these lots. My problem is I can’t get any commitment as to when they’re going to put this swale in, whether it be a final swale, like the drawings call for, or will it just be a temporary swale to allow me to go ahead. I was ready to build a house, then when Deerfield Four was announced I stopped, because my builders advised me not to go ahead until we knew what we were going to be dealing with as far as drainage coming down from Deerfield Four. So, I have talked to Mr. Jeffers, and he really has been very helpful. Without him, I don’t think I would have found out what was supposed to be there, to be truthful. So, I’m very appreciative to him to what he’s done for me, but I would just like to find out, if I could, from Sitecon what their plans are, and if there’s any way that this could be done, could be expedited so that I could proceed with building a house, or whatever I want to do.

Commissioner Nix: Keith, you show, on this drawing I’ve got here, you show, you’ve highlighted a swale. It actually shows, it looks like it was either supposed to have been put in there, or it is going to be put in now.

Keith Poff: This is what we’re proposing for Deerfield, Section Four. Even though there’s a drainage easement on the back of Section Three, they never improved it, the intercept swale. So, the reason that it’s not (Inaudible) is that we’re trying to pick an alignment that doesn’t tear out trees–

Keith Poff: It is an intercept swale. So, we’re capturing everything that’s upstream of that point.

Keith Poff: Mr. Lentz’s lot is here. There is going to still be some flow that comes through this little (Inaudible) that we’re not going to be affecting.

Commissioner Nix: Which is just naturally there now? This contour that is existing hasn’t been changed?

Keith Poff: This is still an unimproved area. So, we’ll be capturing what’s above us, we won’t be taking care of anything (Inaudible) below us.

Keith Poff: Then we’ll have to (Inaudible). Then probably (Inaudible) there will be a (Inaudible) inlet here, then come back into the storm (Inaudible).

Commissioner Nix: Well, yeah, if you could maybe show that on the, with the highlighter, I’m sorry. Or, with your pen there. Keith, if you would show–

Dan Lentz: The thing I’m trying to point out is they have disturbed the ground extensively out there, and so now there really isn’t any protection from the natural vegetation that was there at one time. I don’t know why that was done, to be truthful.

Commissioner Nix: Can you get that pen, the pointer? Show about where that starts and where it ends. You said there would be an inlet of some type or another? No, there’s a pointer there.

Keith Poff: Okay, the area we’re talking about is the backyard area here. This is going to behind between Section Three and Section Four–

Madelyn Grayson: Hey, Keith, could you make sure you’re closer to the microphone so we can get your comments on the record?

Keith Poff: Okay, this is the area here that we’re talking about. Mr. Lentz lives up, or has a corner lot here. What we’re proposing is to put an intercept swale on the Deerfield Four side of it to capture any water that comes down that is above that location. We’ll have to have a, in a permanent state we’re going to have an area inlet collect the water there, and it’s going to drain to the east back to an existing pipe system before it enters into the lake. So, that’s what the plan is for the permanent installation.

Commissioner Nix: But, Keith, also point out that the natural contour just to the north and west of there, which still falls that direction–

Keith Poff: You can’t see that, when we say intercept, we will capture everything that’s above that, but below that there’s an area that’s going to drain still, continually through that natural valley, across that lot, and go, effectively to the intersection of Doe Run and Carrington Drive. That is something that’s not going to be impacted by Deerfield, Section Four.

Commissioner Nix: Ma’am, you need to come up. Ma’am, you need to come up to the microphone, please.

Unidentified: The other point was, this section up here, those lots are eight feet higher than our house. I know that, I think in your final you said that you were going to put some kind of swale or something in there, is that correct?

Keith Poff: Yes, it’s an intercept swale that divides between one project and another.

Keith Poff: That’s simply to intercept the flow of water that’s on the surface and going from one area into another.

Keith Poff: The minimum is going to be one foot deep, one foot bottom, three to one side slopes. So, it occupies at a minimum seven feet of width. Mr. Jeffers has additionally recognized that, you know, your lot is a downstream area for part of what would drain that way. He’s added a restriction that the lots that are improved on the two cul-de-sacs would not be allowed to have discharges in the rear of the property. So, we will not be having anything more going into that area than what is naturally there now.

Unidentified: And is the swale going to be on that side, stage four, or whatever that is?

Keith Poff: That is going to be the first phase of the project. I can’t tell you when the ditch will be cut, but that’s the section of the project that’s going to be done first. He’s only going to record those lots and the Gregory Court area in his first phase.

Commissioner Nix: Is the grade change that steep in this area too? Seventeen feet or so?

Keith Poff: There’s a very small area that contributes in that direction. Therefore, when we set up one of these minimum county ditches, it should have more than enough capacity to carry that water down the hill. The ditch there will aim toward the street system, which is a conveyance component as well.

Dan Lentz: There’s a point I would like to make. Mr. Jeffers knows better than me, I’m sure, but there is an ordinance that I understand that if land is disturbed that erosion control has to be implemented within a certain length of time. That’s where I’m coming from primarily.

Bill Jeffers: Right, what I had talked about with Mr. Lentz, and I would like for the other two parties here that are expressing exactly the same concerns about off-site water that is generated as result of immediate land disturbance, whether the developer goes forward with building homes, building streets, whatever, as I said at the beginning of the presentation, to keep in mind that there are existing drainage problems, from the existing natural land, as it lays before the land disturbance. We don’t have any control over those. When that land was naturally woods, the Carson Estates, whatever the ground cover was, we don’t have any control over the water that comes off of there the way that Mother Nature throws it onto it. But, now, when the developer goes and strips off trees, or otherwise disturbs greater than one acre of land, that immediately kicks in your Rule Five ordinance, and at Mr. Lentz’s and some of the other off-site neighbors, out of their concern, or concern for them, I made sure that Mr. Poff included in his erosion control package that went to Mike Wathen at the County Engineer’s office, that those intercept swales that I highlighted over here on your, the three of them that are of most concern to the people here in the audience, including the lady to the east, she’s here also and hasn’t spoken yet, and Mrs. Dorothy Joest who’s here with her, you know, and hasn’t spoken yet, all those are highlighted on that map, those are included in the erosion control plan. So, as soon as the developer disturbs that ground, those diversion swales, as they are called in the erosion control plan, must be put in place and maintained for the entire time that he maintains that Rule Five permit. The first permit is for five years. If he’s not finished in five years, he’s got to re-up and get another five year permit. Regardless of what he does after he disturbs that ground, regardless of how far the project goes, he’s got to maintain those diversion swales, because he disturbed that ground. Now, I also explained to Mr. Lentz, and I want everyone else to understand that there may come a storm that overtops those swales, because they are designed for a 10 or 25 year storm. There may come storms that just, you know, just a toad strangler that overtops them, and in those cases, if that brings mud or water down onto the neighbors, they should immediately call Bill Jeffers or Mike Wathen and we will go out there and we will enforce the regulation on the developer that he has to repair or upgrade those swales to capture what was discovered to be, or, you know, to repair the deficiency and move forward. So, that’s the best we can do under the current codes, and that’s what we have to work with.

President Tornatta: Just kind of outside the box here, this didn’t come before the Commissioners for approval, for those sitting out there, just to tell you who are concerned about this. On the Drainage Board, and I got a little rambunctious to run on about the project, which I do not support, because of the impact of what’s established. I don’t like that type of scenario. But, we are in a Drainage Board meeting, and if the Drainage Board, if the drainage is correct, and the recommendation of the Surveyor, who is the guy who is going to tell us what he thinks the drainage looks like is correct and we have faith in him, then that might be a separate subject. So, for those of you who are out there, if that’s the case, understand that there are two separate issues here, one is drainage, and one is what we like to see, or what is going to happen because of a subdivision. One we can do something about, which is approve or disapprove a drainage because of its legality, and one we can’t touch. So, for those of you who are out there, just a little distinction between the two issues that we’re talking about. Because our hats, at this time, are in the drainage sector.

Bill Jeffers: And to expand on that just for 30 seconds, those issues were discussed in Area Plan Commission. As a point of information this ground can remain agriculture, under our zoning code you can have single family dwellings, multiple single family dwellings in a subdivision without changing from Ag to R-1. So, the zoning issue never came before the County Commissioners. Not recently. If it did, it came before them in 1994 or 1993. Okay, that’s the first issue. The second issue, there were many concerns expressed during Area Plan Commission, of which I’m a member and Commissioner Korb is a member, a cut through for the new developments that have occurred since 1994, Woodgate for example, a couple of hundred lots, yes, this will provide a cut through, and there were extreme concerns about that expressed by several members of Area Plan Commission during the plat hearing. But, we have a local judge who imposed upon us a ruling that if Area Plan Commission does not vote yes to approve a plat that comports with the zoning code, as written currently, as exists, that we’re all in contempt of court. We lost a million dollar law suit in that regard, both in that court and in a court in Chicago, that is currently under appeal, but that’s the way life is in Vanderburgh County at this time. As explained to me, that’s the way it is in the State of Indiana. Under our zoning statutes, if it comports with the code, it must be approved. The only alternative we have is to change the code. I don’t want to get into any other extraneous matters, there may be benefits to having two connections for a couple hundred lots, you know, if a tree were blown down over one of them, for example, you still have emergency access through the other. There’s pros and cons, but there was extreme concern expressed by members of Area Plan Commission, who then are forced to go ahead and approve it because it comported with code.

Commissioner Korb: My first, I have two questions, Bill. My first question is, Mr. Lentz, I don’t see you, are you behind...there you are.

Commissioner Korb: You had your question, you wanted some clarification, are you getting your question answered clearly so you know what to do going forward? Or what do you need from us?

Dan Lentz: I would just like some help in knowing when the swale that’s supposed to be there will be installed. Whether it’s going to be a permanent swale that was in the plan, or whether a temporary swale to take care of the fact that the earth has been disturbed up there and created the potential for a lot of water to come down my lot. So, I don’t know whether that can be answered or not, but that’s what I really want to know, because like I said, I’m trying to build a house–

Bill Jeffers: Okay, Mr. Lentz would like to build a house. I would love to see him build a house.

Bill Jeffers: There’s no but, it’s when. The developer may be moving some trees, I haven’t been out there to look. I understand he’s moving them from one source, because they’re in the way of this road that’s going to be punched through. Whatever he’s doing, if it’s not a timbering operation, timbering operations are exempt, if it’s not a timbering operation he must install that swale ASAP. Okay? Now, I’m not going out there tomorrow, I’m not going out there Thursday, I’ve got an Area Plan Commission meeting. I will go out there Friday, if it’s not a timbering operation, if it’s a land clearing operation, I’ll take Mike Wathen with me and we’ll instruct the developer to begin installing that swale, hopefully next week.

Commissioner Nix: Mr. Poff, are you at liberty to speak on behalf of the developer, as far as getting this (Inaudible) done?

Bill Jeffers: And, on another issue, there is going to be sewer line go in adjacent to the swale. I would not like to see a permanent swale put in all nice and seeded and matted and everything, and then have the sewer people come in and dig it all back up. So, possibly, as I explained to Mr. Lentz, in that regard, it will be a swale moved over maybe ten feet from its permanent position to accomplish the same thing over the next year or so while they decide when they’re going to put the sewer line in.

Commissioner Korb: But, Mr. Lentz is asking a question, I’m sorry is it Lynch or Lentz?

Commissioner Nix: I think this will clear it up. Mr. Poff, are you at liberty to address what the developer will and won’t do, at this time?

Keith Poff: Not specifically the dates. I know that he has a contractor, an excavator who’s been retained for the work. So, he does have someone lined up. We received Monday the permission to move soil, so, he’s just now this week ready to take this on. So, I will encourage them to construct this swale. The swale that Mr. Lentz needs, I will encourage them to build it in the permanent nature for the portion that’s running from the southwest to the northeast. The area inlet location that’s going to be permanent, I will probably recommend that we do a temporary connection from that location into the existing storm sewer system.

Commissioner Nix: But, it would be installed permanently, but it will be maintained during their whole process? So, it will be functional.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, what you said, Bill, was that possibly Thursday you could go out and look at the site?

Dan Lentz: Oh, certainly. What Mr. Jeffers says is exactly what I’ve been trying to find out. I don’t know exactly what he means by ASAP, but I’m certainly going to be reasonable on this.

Dan Lentz: So, yeah, without him I would be nowhere in this project. But, that completely satisfies me, as long as they go ahead and do what they say they’re going to do.

Commissioner Korb: My encouragement, Mr. Lentz, is if you don’t mind, continue to work through Bill, in his office, because he does a great job with that.

Commissioner Korb: And that way we’ll know that you’ve expressed, or you’ve experienced satisfaction to your question. But, I didn’t want you to leave tonight until we sort of had a little bit of a feel to give you some answers to your unanswered questions to date.

Keith Poff: I hope it was clear that today is Tuesday, yesterday was the first day that we had permission under the storm water pollution prevention plan–

Commissioner Nix: But, one thing you’ve got to keep in mind, there’s some sensitive issues between developed and undeveloped property. That needs to be paid attention to first, above all else.

Keith Poff: We were informed that he was only taking the trees down. There wasn’t any excavation work being performed.

Commissioner Nix: If that’s the case, then Mr. Jeffers can confirm that. But, if they go in there and start ripping and tearing, this stuff needs to be in place.

Keith Poff: We understand, and we advise our clients to that matter. This is only the second day that the permit is active.

Commissioner Korb: Sure, I don’t think that Mr. Lentz was being a jerk about it. He was just saying, hey, I need some, I would like to have an end date going on here, and I respect the fact that you just started this process, and not looking for a drop dead date, I think that Mr. Lentz has already expressed his ability to say, hey, I’ll be flexible here, just give me a ball park idea.

Commissioner Nix: Correct me if I’m wrong, there’s a difference between cutting a tree down and hogging one out with an excavator.

Commissioner Nix: If you start hogging them out with an excavator, you’re ripping and tearing and this stuff needs to be in place.

Keith Poff: Right, if the root wad comes out of the ground, then you are (Inaudible) the soil.

Commissioner Korb: Great. Bill, do you mind if we put that on your shoulders to kind of follow up? That would be great. Thank you so much.

Dorothy Joest: I’m Dorothy Joest, this is my neighbor Gene Elpers, and we’re on the west end there. We have a problem with the original swale when we built out there was not deep enough to hold the water.

Gene Elpers: All the water comes from down in through here, all comes through our, there’s three houses right there that this will affect. Water comes from this area, it comes all the way down, and from this way it goes east, or west. This is, we’re concerned about the water on us.

Dorothy Joest: Now, Bill says there’s going to be a swale there, but we don’t think it’s deep enough that it’s going to take all that.

Commissioner Nix: Once again, I think we’re getting back to a natural drainage situation. Correct me if I’m wrong, Bill, that whole area that, that whole opened up area is not being disturbed at all? Is that where you’re–

Dorothy Joest: But we’re worried about where the subdivision is going to be, there’s going to be less ground for the water to soak into, so it’s still going to be more coming over on us. I have a VCR of when we first built out there, how the water poured over there. Mr. Dentino did not make the swale deep enough, but they tell me they don’t have any VCR’s up here anymore, so I’m going to have to transfer it to disc before you can see it.

Commissioner Nix: Basically, the way this is drawn you’ve got the same situation between the undeveloped and the developed now, except for that area, that unimproved area up above there. There’s nothing going to be done with any of that. You’re aware of that?

Commissioner Nix: If you’re getting water from there now, it’s going to, you’re going to continue to get water.

Dorothy Joest: Well, there’s a, we paid to dig a deeper swale than what was put in there originally. We’re just asking that he make this swale a little bit deeper.

Keith Poff: Well, our calculations show that the slope of the ditch has the greatest effect on the capacity of the channel. So, if we have a reasonable slope on the ditch, it’s going to be able to carry quite a bit of water. We will not be setting up to carry absolutely every event that’s going to come our way. We have a drainage ordinance that requires us to set up a ditch for a 25 year storm.

Commissioner Nix: He’s got young eyes. He can see everything. Is it 432? Is that 432?

Commissioner Nix: About a nine foot fall from here to here, and you’ve got the same, you get the same elevation, or the same section on all these, three to one.

(Inaudible. Two different conversations going on at once. One at the microphone, and one at the Commissioners desk.)

Bill Jeffers: Well, there’s the top of the hill right there. All this water–

Commissioner Nix: Because of this not being here now, they’re having so many water problems.

Bill Jeffers: It’s not uphill, that’s down hill. That goes down hill. That goes downhill like that. This water’s going this way.

Gene Elpers: Will this one foot, whatever they are, will that take care of all that water.

Bill Jeffers: Because what they’re doing is they’re having all this water that used to come here–

President Tornatta: Here you go. Okay, we talked about the swale and what’s proposed, and it is in code at this time. Understand it’s the slope, as he said that’s taking care of some of those water issues, not necessarily the depth.

President Tornatta: I understand. Right, right. You know, you can definitely bring that back before us.

Bill Jeffers: It will be a triple. Again, because he’s disturbing ground behind Dorothy, behind Mrs. Joest and Mr. Elpers’ house, because he’s disturbing ground there too, that kicks in the erosion control plan. Which the new Rule Five erosion control plan, the new requirements require a drainage plan in that plan itself. That code has no upper limit. In other words, if what he puts in there as a diversion channel does not handle the job, he has to upgrade it. So, it’s my opinion, in this market, regardless of how much clearing he does, it’s not going to move real quickly. We’ll have plenty of time for a big event between now and next June to find out whether it works or not. If it doesn’t work, it gets upgraded. We have a lot of leeway now with this new Rule Five, and it’s been my experience that Mike Wathen from the County Engineer’s office and I, when we go out, we’re able to get good cooperation from the developers. I anticipate getting good cooperation from this developer.

Commissioner Korb: I guess, my question, Carol, did you get all your questions answered too?

Beverly Howell: Beverly Howell. We live east of Deerfield there. I’m concerned about the drainage. How are they going to drain it down to the ditch on Eissler Road? I’m not clear on this. Can somebody help me on–

Keith Poff: There’s an existing pipe that sits in here (Inaudible. Talking at Commission desk. Multiple people talking away from microphone.)

Nathan Mominee: It’s going release into an existing roadside ditch under Eissler Road?

Beverly Howell: But (Inaudible) goes across our drive. How are you going to handle this?

Keith Poff: We’re (Inaudible) into the path of (Inaudible) roadside ditch (Inaudible).

Beverly Howell: Well, yeah, there’s a ditch, we can’t help that there’s a ditch across the road (Inaudible). But, how, where are you going to put this water? That’s where I’m not clear, to get it over to the ditch on the other side?

Nathan Mominee: It’s an existing roadside ditch, that’s where this water from this area has always historically drained to, and we basically try to slow it down at the bottom of the hill–

Nathan Mominee: Then we release it at the same place it was always going before, but at a (Inaudible).

Commissioner Nix: But you have to understand, you have to understand what this is here for. This is to fill up and release at a–

Commissioner Nix: –controlled rate, but it’s not like you’re getting every bit of this water all at one time.

Nathan Mominee: (Inaudible) go down the hill into the unnamed tributary and eventually reach Pigeon Creek.

Nathan Mominee: There’s not, actually I’m pretty unfamiliar with the channel after that.

Commissioner Nix: So, you’re taking, basically, what they’re doing is they’re taking everything here, instead of it coming off across on your property, which is an existing contour, these are existing contours.

Commissioner Nix: So, they’re actually taking all that water up and taking it down and dumping it this way.

Commissioner Korb: This is your pipe? That’s a yes. You gave yourself away their, kiddo.

Beverly Howell: Well, it isn’t developed. I mean, the road isn’t extended down there.

Commissioner Nix: It appears from what I see, by putting this in you’re not going to get anymore of this here. Apparently, right now you’re getting some of this on your property.

Commissioner Nix: So, you’re getting basically (Inaudible), I can’t read this.

Commissioner Nix: So, everything falls back this way. This will divert, everything from here this way will divert around this way, and from here this way will divert down to here. So, it’s going to make your situation better. The water still has to go somewhere.

Commissioner Korb: So, it’s going to be going down here versus staying up here?

Commissioner Nix: No, it will actually, it will get caught up in this detention basin–

Commissioner Nix: –and then be released at a slower rate. I don’t know what kind of hold, how much volume you’ve got in this thing here.

Commissioner Nix: They’re going to hold water here, temporarily, and release it at a slower rate across here.

Beverly Howell: I didn’t want to be sliding all over the ice trying to get out of there.

Commissioner Korb: (Inaudible) and takes its natural drainage (Inaudible). As Bill said, what you’ve been experiencing is all this water from here, so, you’ve probably been getting a lot of water here.

Commissioner Nix: I don’t know if you can see this upside down or not. Which one is that here, that is an A isn’t it?

Commissioner Nix: Yeah, this is what they’re putting in. Yeah, this right here. See this swale?

Commissioner Nix: In other words the water comes down here, it’s going to pick up in here and travel away, instead of here.

Nathan Mominee: Some of the water from this side of the ridge is going to be diverted and (Inaudible).

Beverly Howell: There’s really some beautiful trees right through here, where is this ditch going to be?

Keith Poff: This is the path, you can see that we have an easement for it here. It’s not near the property line, but here it is very close to the property line. So, I think we’re aiming from a point that’s within what, seven feet from the line, over to probably 25 feet?

Nathan Mominee: I was personally on the site to pick up (Inaudible), and I spoke with you out there.

Nathan Mominee: And, actually, I shot some of those large trees, because those are obstacles, and they’re also assets, so we don’t–

Beverly Howell: Okay. I was concerned where that was going to be, whether that could be moved over to salvage the trees.

Nathan Mominee: Usually it is easier for us to build the ditch around a large, nice tree than it is to try to move that tree.

President Tornatta: Okay, let’s do this. You guys can maybe explain that stuff. I mean, I appreciate all that. We’re gonna kind of move on and get on. Any other persons wanting to speak to this issue? Okay, alright. So, we have a recommendation on the floor to accept. Do I have a motion?

Commissioner Korb: That’s Deerfield. Holy cow, we’ve only got one, two, three, four more to go.

Bill Jeffers: We’re moving down to the Evelyn Utley petition. We’re going to continue that hearing. We paid the claims. I don’t have any other business. Hopefully, there’s no public comment, there’s been plenty. So, we’ve got one item left, and that’s to continue the Evelyn Utley hearing. Okay, Ms. Utley is here with her representative, her legal representative, Ms. Kathryn Kornblum, and I e-mailed you this report earlier. There’s no reason to read it, I’m just asking you to put it in the record.

On September 9, 2008 at 9:39 a.m., Hydromax (with subcontractor SubCam, Inc.) began the inspection with the camera robot entering the 18-inch diameter pipe from the inlet box at the north end of the pipe run at the north line of Smith’s property.

The method used can identify the exact location of the camera robot within the pipe at any location along the inspection route.

The pipe was found to run along the extreme western edge of the Smith property for approximately the first fifty (50) feet of pipe, then under a wooden deck as it gradually veers toward the west and crosses into the Utley property.

The pipe then runs in a generally south by southwesterly course, and following the natural surface watercourse exactly as it is shown on old county maps, for approximately one hundred (100) feet through the Utley property under the eastern side yard of the home, under two driveway slabs, and then under Cresthaven Court.

There are several active taps to the concrete pipe from both the east and the west along this first one hundred fifty (150) feet of pipe run. There is one inactive tap through the ceiling of the pipe directly under the Utley main driveway to the garage where the driveway slab is visibly poured right atop the former area inlet that apparently served to help drain the surface watercourse at that point.

From the southern edge of the Utley property, the pipe then runs approximately nineteen (19) feet diagonally and southwesterly across Cresthaven Court pavement before entering the Volz property on the south side of Cresthaven Court.

The final run of the pipe is southwesterly through the Volz front yard for approximately one hundred (100) feet to a catch basin in the east right-of-way of Oak Hill Road.

The exact distance measured by the robot camera for the pipe run examined from the north end to the catch basin at Oak Hill Road is two hundred seventy-one and one tenth (271.1) feet.

It is estimated the concrete pipe is forty-five (45) to fifty (50) years old from testimony of the property owner(s).

There were no major offsets of the pipe joints, and generally no major defects found in the majority of the pipe run except for two noticeable defects that require, may require attention if surface conditions reflect subsidence in the Volz’s yard:

a) one small hole in the interior pipe wall with soil visible at 265.2 feet, six feet east of the terminus inlet; and

b) one place in the interior wall with reinforcement visible at 249.6 feet, about 22.5 feet east of the terminus inlet indicating potential pipe failure.

Both instances of potential pipe failure already show minor subsidence in the Volz’s lawn where the property owner could easily expose the defects for repair if needed.

There were two (2) broken places discovered in the pipe wall where apparent past repairs were affected using asphalt shingles or similar material, and no soil entering the pipe at those two patches – one large patch at 61.2 feet (Utley) and one small patch at 257.7 feet (Volz).

There is some expected wearing away of the cement surface of the interior of the pipe from friction and abrasion exposing aggregate to the surface.

There is some minor and expected accumulation of sediment in the pipe at places where the pipe has sagged over the years. The sediment does not exceed more than an inch or so in depth. None of the accumulated sediment constitutes an obstruction at this time.

There is some minor root intrusion, but nothing notable – mostly fine roots at 56.1 feet, 72.5 feet, 76.5 feet, 84.7 feet, 117.7 feet, on Utley property; and 195.3 feet, 199.7 feet and 204.1 feet, on the Volz property. None of the roots constitute an obstruction at this time.

Specific to the Petition, there are no objects or materials constituting significant impediments to the flow of water through the 18-inch diameter concrete pipe; therefore, there are no obstructions of the drain as defined by IC 36-9-27.4 in the opinion of the county surveyor.

Finally and with regard to obstructions to the natural surface watercourse, in the opinion of the county surveyor, there are objects and materials constituting significant impediments to the flow of storm water run-off through the historic alignment of the natural surface watercourse as follows:

* A shed at the northeast corner of the Utley property.

* A fence along the east property line of the Utley property.

* Three (3) large poplar trees planted along the east property line of the Utley property.

* Statuary, landscape blocks, and other landscape features including planted beds of shrubbery and earthen fill placed in the watercourse on the Utley property.

* Two concrete driveway slabs on the Utley property.

* Minor amounts of soil, concrete waste and loose rock on the Utley property and the Smith property immediately adjacent to the Utley property.

* A small portion of the wooden deck built by the Smiths and straddling the property line.

None the less, it remains the opinion of the County Surveyor that due to the diameter, grade and head pressure available to the pipe, and until more serious structural deterioration occurs, the pipe drain is capable of conveying storm water flow from storms up to and including the 100-year storm event so long as the entrance(s) to the pipe and the entire subsurface run is kept free of obstructions in the future.

(End of Surveyor’s Report)

Bill Jeffers: I’m sure you’ve already read most of it and are familiar with it. I’ll go straight to the summary. Well, I’ll say that we did run a camera down through there. Hydromax, with their subcontractor ,SubCam, Incorporated, ran a camera down through there September 9^th, and I have a hard copy of their report. We also have a DVD of the entire thing, cave crickets and all. I mean, it was very interesting. It would take an hour to show it to you. So, we’ll dispense with that.

President Tornatta: Well, then, hurry up and start it.

Commissioner Korb: Does it look a whole lot like a colonoscopy?

Bill Jeffers: Run it, Brenda.

Commissioner Korb: Does it look a whole lot like a colonoscopy?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, it did.

President Tornatta: I don’t have anything until 10:00.

Bill Jeffers: Okay.

Commissioner Nix: I do.

President Tornatta: What?

Bill Jeffers: Okay, so, basically, I’m just explaining to you, kind of every so many feet what we saw. We did find a couple of small holes that were patched with asphalt shingles, blah, blah, blah. We did not find any objects or materials that constitute a significant impediment. Therefore, we did not find an obstruction to that concrete tile drain.

Commissioner Korb: Which was a little bit of a surprise, yes?

Bill Jeffers: It was a surprise to me.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: We’re in the summary now. With regard to, this is on page three, with regard to the natural surface watercourse, yes, indeed, as I explained last meeting, there are objects in that old, historic natural surface watercourse on both pieces of property which constitute a statutory definition of obstruction. But, at that time I did not recommend that you order those removed, because if you had them removed from the Smith’s property, you would have to have them removed from the Utley’s property. I believe both property owners enjoy those improvements. They consist of sheds, fences, landscaping, trees, etcetera, concrete driveway slabs. There are some minor impediments that could be dressed up, and I will continue to work with them on that. There are some discharge pipes from the Smith’s garage that I’m going to ask them to extend over to the drop basin, just as a courtesy. If they would do that, that would, I believe, further satisfy Ms. Utley, that some of the water that is coming on to her property could be put directly into the pipe. There’s some other minor dress up things we could do, but, nonetheless, it remains my opinion, down here in the summary that due to the diameter, the grade, and the head pressure available to that pipe, and until more serious structural deterioration occurs, I believe that the pipe drain is capable of conveying storm water flow from storms up to and possibly including the 100 year storm event, so long as the entrance to the pipe, and the entire sub-surface run is kept free of obstructions in the future, as it is now. Okay? That’s my report. If there’s something anyone would like to add, both parties are here present and I’ll let her roll.

Kathryn Kornblum: Kathryn Kornblum for Mrs. Utley. Since the last time we were here, I showed you a bunch of pictures, there has been changes to the land. They’ve removed rock, put some dirt in, and we will see if this takes care of the problem. At this point we don’t know, and with the extension of the pipes, which contributed to the water going around the drainage opening, instead of into the drainage opening, that should help the problem also. So, at this point in time, we’re just working with Mr. Jeffers on this, and another engineer in order to address Mrs. Utley’s property where she needs to make changes.

Commissioner Korb: So, you and your client, at this point, are satisfied?

Kathryn Kornblum: Until–

Commissioner Korb: Until–

Kathryn Kornblum: –we–

Commissioner Korb: –we have an event?

Kathryn Kornblum: Yes.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

President Tornatta: Which would keep–

Kathryn Kornblum: Our first step was to do the pipe.

Commissioner Korb: Yeah.

Kathryn Kornblum: Our next step is to find out what else needs to be done.

Commissioner Korb: Sure.

Kathryn Kornblum: So, that’s where we are, at the second step right now.

Commissioner Korb: But, it sounds to me like this is somewhat neutral. So, who’s winding up paying for the scope? I’m sorry, I probably shouldn’t have brought that up.

Bill Jeffers: I didn’t find any obstructions, so, and I did find a couple of minor defects on the Volz’s property, which, you could dig up with a shovel and repair. Okay? So, I don’t want to bill anybody at this point in time.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: The Auditor has informed us that we $1,700 in the account. I turned in a claim for $1,350. We have plenty of money in all of our drainage accounts that should we have a horrible event that would cost us $20,000 or $30,000, we would still have it covered somewhere else.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: So, why don’t we leave it on the table, let it ride until we see another event, and I would like to work with the Smith’s, I would like to work with Mrs. Utley and her engineer and see if we can’t just work as three or four neighbors together to resolve some more of the minor issues.

Commissioner Korb: Love the way that sounds.

President Tornatta: So, will you make that in the form of a motion?

Bill Jeffers: Just extend the hearing –

President Tornatta: Continue, continue.

Commissioner Nix: (Inaudible).

Bill Jeffers: Oh, there may be someone else we want to hear, yes. I’m sorry.

President Tornatta: Mrs. Smith?

Commissioner Korb: They’re shaking their heads no. So, that’s a good sign.

President Tornatta: Okay.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

President Tornatta: So, we need a motion to continue this.

Commissioner Korb: I so move.

Bill Jeffers: I have the report here if you want a copy.

Commissioner Nix: I second.

President Tornatta: So ordered.

Commissioner Korb: Thank you. I’m so sorry you all had to wait for all of this.

Commissioner Nix: I’m sure you have a whole lot more stuff to come before us, don’t you, Mr. Jeffers?

Commissioner Korb: Pray not.

Bill Jeffers: No, my agenda disappeared.

Commissioner Nix: I’m just kidding.

Commissioner Korb: You know better than to say stuff like that to him.

Commissioner Nix: It was just a bad joke.

Public Comment

President Tornatta: Is there any public comment?

Commissioner Korb: Under public comment, right.

Bill Jeffers: Under public comment, I would like to remind everyone, regardless of the weather, the Fall Festival goes on. Now enjoy yourself.

Commissioner Korb: Whoa, what about the claims? Do we have claims?

Bill Jeffers: We’ve paid our claim.

Commissioner Korb: We did those?

President Tornatta: We did those.

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir.

Commissioner Korb: I didn’t–

President Tornatta: Okay–

Bill Jeffers: You were outside.

Commissioner Korb: Okay, great, great. Good, good, good, good.

President Tornatta: Okay, hold on, real quick. Public comment? No public comment? Okay.

Commissioner Nix: Move to adjourn.

Commissioner Korb: Second.

President Tornatta: So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Troy Tornatta Bill Nix Jeff Korb

Bill Jeffers Ted C. Ziemer, Jr. Madelyn Grayson

Keith Poff Dan Lentz Carol Stevens

Dorothy Joest Gene Elpers Beverly Howell

Kathryn Kornblum Others Unidentified Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

Troy Tornatta, President

Bill Nix, Vice President

Jeff Korb, Member

(Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.)