VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

OCTOBER 28, 2002

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 28^th day of October, 2002 at 6:15 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.

Commissioner Fanello: Call to order Vanderburgh County Drainage Board meeting, October 28^th.

Commissioner Fanello: First item on the agenda, approve minutes of September 23^rd and October 7^th meetings.

President Mosby: I’m not saying nothing. Motion to approve.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second. David’s President of this meeting.

Commissioner Fanello: Oh, that’s right.

President Mosby: You’re doing fine. Keep going.

Commissioner Fanello: I was just continuing on. I’ll now turn it over to our President, Commissioner Mosby.

Commissioner Mourdock: That’s why David wasn’t going to say anything.

President Mosby: I tell ya. Well, we can skip number one. We have a motion to approve the minutes. So ordered.

Commissioner Fanello: I’m just trying to get out of here.

President Mosby: Old Business, report on petition 658, 662 & 666 Audubon Drive.

Bill Jeffers: Bill Jeffers, Vanderburgh County Surveyor. This is with regard to the Eidson/Ponder petition to remove an obstruction from a drain behind 662 Audubon Drive in Plaza Meadows, Evansville, Indiana. The County Surveyor visited the Eidson property at 666 Audubon Drive on October 17, 2002, and viewed an accumulation of floatable debris lodged against the south side of a wooden fence surrounding the backyard at 662 Audubon Drive, indicating a partial obstruction of the mutual drain serving the affected properties. The owner of 662 Audubon Drive apparently installed, or allowed to be installed, or has allowed to remain in place, a piece of wire fencing along the bottom of the wooden fence, resulting in a collection of floating debris, and the partial blocking of the storm runoff through that drain. In addition the owner of 662 Audubon Drive installed, or caused to be installed, or has allowed to remain in place rip rap lining the open drain. Some of which rip rap may be partially impeding the flow of storm water through the drain. The petition was filed by Eidson and Ponder on September 23, 2002. The statute requires a hearing within 90 days of the filing to determine if the impediment of the drain is significant, and thereby constituting an obstruction. The County Surveyor recommends the board set a hearing on November 25, 2002 at or about 6:30 p.m. in this room. The County Surveyor has prepared a notice of hearing for the board to authorize and sign, and for the Auditor to send to the appropriate parties, named in the notice as petitioners and respondents. On the following page is a copy of the notice, with signature spaces, and the Recording Secretary has the original at the far end of the table, if you wish to sign it and declare a hearing to be held. That hearing would be within 90 days. I think it’s actually 63 days from the filing date.

President Mosby: Do I have a motion to set a hearing?

Commissioner Mourdock: I have a question first, Bill. Did they file the necessary fee to get this process started?

Bill Jeffers: They did submit a check for $100, which has been entered, the quietus.

Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Okay.

Bill Jeffers: The Recording Secretary sent a note to me asking for a copy of the petition, which she does not have in her file, and I have a copy of the petition, or I have the original here with me, that was delivered to your office, the Commissioner’s office.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’ll move the scheduling of the hearing as recommended by the Surveyor for November 25, 2002, at or about 6:30.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

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

President Mosby: Report on Oscar Jordan complaint.

Bill Jeffers: At this time I ask you to enter into the record of this meeting the letter our office sent in reply to Mr. Jordan’s complaint. A copy of the letter was sent to each of the members of the board. There is a copy at the far end of the table for the Recording Secretary to enter into the record. There is also one attached on the following page.

President Mosby: Do I have a motion? To enter into the–

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I’ll move that we accept that into the record.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: Motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Order to remove obstruction at 2330 Sheridan.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, this is a follow up to your August 26, 2002 hearing, where a motion was made to send a notice to the Jones’ to remove the obstruction, and indicating that this board was ordering the removal of the obstruction as a result of your hearing. The Surveyor’s office has prepared, following the Oscar Jordan letter in this packet, is a copy of the order to remove an obstruction, including language to inform the respondents that the hearing was in accordance with Indiana Code, etcetera. We’re asking you to sign that, and have the Auditor mail it to Kenneth R. and Ruth H. Jones, with a copy going to Richard E. Jones...that’s a typo, Richard E. Smith, is the petitioner, at 2320 Sheridan Road. Kenneth R. and Ruth Jones are the respondents on who’s property the obstruction exists.

President Mosby: Do I have a motion to send a letter?

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Mosby: Motion and a second. So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: That’s with the understanding that we’ll strike the word, the name Jones from the last line–

President Mosby: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –and substitute with Smith.

President Mosby: Okay.

President Mosby: Drainage plans, Carrington Meadows.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, Carrington Meadows is located west of Petersburg Road, between Schlensker Road and Bailey Lane. It will enter onto Petersburg Road. The owner is Gerald and Darlene Anslinger. The developer is JBJ, LLC. The development consultant engineer is Danny Leek, and he’s represented here by Morley and Associates representative. It’s a total of 107.34 acres, 249 lots, with a large common area along the creek. Existing zoning is agricultural, proposed use, of course, is residential. There is a flood zone, which is marked on the drawing. Additional information is given on the drawing that would represent the FEMA flood plain, if it should be enacted. The County Surveyor has reviewed the preliminary plan for Carrington Meadows, recommends approval of the preliminary plan. As I said, there’s representatives of the owner and the developer here, and there may be persons in the audience wishing to make comment. This is a preliminary plan.

President Mosby: Is there anybody in the audience wanting to speak to Carrington Meadows?

Commissioner Mourdock: Going once.

President Mosby: Seeing none.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, on preliminary approval, I would, I would move preliminary approval for Carrington Meadows.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

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

President Mosby: Crowne Ridge Sub.

Bill Jeffers: Crowne Ridge Sub also is a preliminary plan. It’s located northwest of the intersection of Greenriver Road and Kansas Road. The owner is Baywood Development LLC. The representative from Morley and Associate, well, the design engineer is Danny Leek, but he has sent a representative from his company, Morley and Associates, here to represent it tonight. It’s approximately 30 acres. It’s proposed use is 131 residential lots, currently zoned agriculture, and used as a corn and soybean field. The northeast corner is in the 100 year flood zone, down near Greenriver Road. The Building Commissioner is asking that a flood way for the stream that passes through it be depicted on the final plan. Soil and Water Conservation District asks that an erosion control plan be filed and approved before construction activities begin. Preliminary approval of the drainage plan by the Drainage Board is required prior to it’s hearing by the Area Plan Commission, which I assume it’s on the agenda for this coming Wednesday, or the first Wednesday in November. The developer of Crowne Ridge is here in the audience to answer questions, along with his representative, and there are a number of people in the audience who are wishing to make comment, at this time.

President Mosby: Do we have a spokesman, or, for Crowne Ridge Sub is there a spokesman for, or do we have several people wanting to speak? Is there anybody wanting to speak? I have a gentleman in the back. We’ll just go ahead and take you one at a time.

Bill Jeffers: Anyone wishing to speak would probably like to sign the sign-in sheet, so that we correctly spell your name in the minutes. All the minutes are taken verbatim. We are streaming on the Internet, and ask that you be concise and clear, so everyone can understand. The minutes will reflect exactly what you say, word for word when they are printed up and brought for adoption next month.

President Mosby: If you want to go ahead and come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Unidentified: Come forward where?

President Mosby: Right here, I’m sorry, come on up to the podium.

Commissioner Mourdock: And as you all get started, let me clarify again, this is for preliminary approval that you’re bringing to us, Bill, is that right?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir, it’s for preliminary approval, and that gives us an opportunity for the next 30 days to take into account all the comments that are made by the neighbors. The neighbors and the County Surveyor will be glad to work with the developer and his engineers to incorporate any workable ideas into the plan to come up with a plan that does conform to our existing codes, and address the situation.

President Mosby: Yes, sir.

David Georgesen: Okay, my name is David Georgesen, and my wife and her sister are co-owners of the 33 acres that are across Greenriver Road from this development. It would be the northeast 33 acres. As you can see from the elevations, and what has gone on for years is that all the farm ground is higher than that level that drains in towards Greenriver. All the people who drain into Henry Ditch, not all the people, but all the people that are on that side of the road. All that water crosses our property, from one corner to the other, the 33 acres. What we’re adding here is, as close as these lots are together, I figure about 50% roofs and concrete, additional drainage, along with the tin cans, and the trash, and the other stuff that storm roads, road covers, and that sort of thing normally collect, would also be going across our property. What I would like...what I see from this swail, this retention area looks like about 3/4 of it’s draining towards the ditch, and the other, there’s a high point where it looks like, near as I can tell, drains south, and the rest drains north. I would like to see as much of this retention pond drain out south, and go down Kansas Road. That would alleviate the additional water that we’re getting from the farm properties and the additional...the water we’re getting from the farm property has been there forever, but it would relieve the additional water that’s coming from all the houses and the concrete and the part of the water that doesn’t permeate into the ground. Now, I don’t know if this is possible or not. I know that the elevation where it crosses under Greenriver on the north end is much lower than the 390 elevation, which seems to be the level of the ditch, or the contour line that follows Greenriver. If you’ll look on, there is a pipe across Greenriver at Kansas Road. I checked it today. It looks like about a 20" pipe. I didn’t have a tape. I didn’t measure it. It looks to me like that would be more than adequate to drain if this is to drain slowly. To drain as much of this swail as you can catch, move the high point north.

President Mosby: Okay, and that is something that we’ll have the Surveyor talk with the neighbors–

David Georgesen: Yeah.

President Mosby: –and his engineer.

David Georgesen: Eventually, the people on downstream, they’re going to catch all this water anyhow. Whether it goes down Greenriver or whether it goes across our property, at the corner of Quentin Stahl, who’s here tonight. At that corner is where this, our property, drains into the road ditch that goes in front of his house, and on down to the lane. So, that situation is still going to be a problem on downstream, excess water. If we have any more subdivisions here, it’s going to get worse. I think it needs to be addressed now.

President Mosby: Okay. Is there any questions by any member of the board?

Commissioner Mourdock: Your comment about having the detention pond drain into, basically, going along Kansas Road–

David Georgesen: Uh-huh.

Commissioner Mourdock: –does it, I’m trying to picture in my mind, does that ditch run on the north side of Kansas road?

David Georgesen: There’s a ditch that runs on the north side.

Commissioner Mourdock: But it doesn’t run clear past Quentin’s house, does it?

David Georgesen: Oh, yeah. It gets much deeper. That’s where Henry Ditch is. Henry Ditch is in front of Quentin’s house.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I was sitting here thinking, I thought it cut back underneath the road.

David Georgesen: It cuts back underneath further down, further towards the interstate.

Commissioner Mourdock: Past Quentin’s place.

David Georgesen: No, I don’t know who’s property it goes across. They’re probably here, but it does cut across country again.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

David Georgesen: But it’s more of a defined ditch down there. This property we’re talking about, it’s real deep where it crosses the road, because of the depth of the pipe, and then it pans out and goes all over the farm property down at the other end, and floods us out the way it is. If we get more water, it’s going to be even worse.

President Mosby: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anybody else that would like to speak?

Henry Schlensker: I’m Henry Schlensker of 4100 Kansas Road. We own the ground directly west of this property. We have WASCOB’s, and we own a large hill too. We now are sending our water down, retained in WASCOB’s, into a 12" pipe that enters the property going to be changed. All my friends live below me, the rest of these people in here. I don’t want to flood them, but I don’t want our drainage, I want our drainage to be addressed, that now is in a pipe. I do not have to maintain those WASCOBs. That was there on my doing to control the water. So, when this is developed, I hope they do it as though those retentions were not there, because some day they may not be. This could be concrete and rooftops too. Secondly, the intersection at Kansas and Greenriver, when you have entrance to this subdivision straight across from the other one, they are going to put a hundred and some cars on from the south side, and a hundred and some odd residents (Inaudible. Someone coughing.), and that’s about 400' or 500' from the intersection. I would say between somewhere like 6:30 and 8:00 in the morning you cannot get all these cars in that short distance. So, widening of the intersection is definitely going to have to come. Widening of Kansas Road is going to have to come, which that is going to involve me, whichever side they go on, because we own both sides of the road. But, there’s a Vectren easement on the north side, and a fiber optic on the south side. So, there’s two big guys there that this probably won’t happen either. The intersection at 57 is going to be involved, if they go that way, and it still is not up to where the traffic that it has. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Any questions? Anybody else that would like to speak to Crowne Ridge Sub? Is there somebody–

Bob Wheeler: My name is Bob Wheeler. I represent my brother, Dr. Edward Wheeler, and we own the property that is directly north of this subdivision. There is a lot of drainage that comes off of his hill, comes down and if the water that is coming off of this area is not, basically, maintained, it’s going to over flood. Flood the end of our property, and, I think, probably even get down to where it will go across Greenriver Road. Just looking at the drop and the things that are there, I don’t actually live out there, some of the people who do live out there see how much wall of water comes down there now. If you get the rooftops, as he said, up on the hill, and all these, and the water is coming off my area, it’s going to be more than that ditch that they are showing there is going to take, and that pipe, 60" pipe going across Greenriver Road is going to take, to go into there. As he said there is a high point, as you mentioned, swail there, that that, there’s water going north, and there’s water coming south. When I was talking to a Mr. Hatfield, he indicated to me that that is not a retention pond. There would be no water in there at all. After the rain is over, it will be dry. It was going to store, he said, 4" deep, I believe, at Kansas Road, and come down to about 8" deep, and that way any water that would be there would back up this dry, flat bottomed thing. I didn’t say exactly the size of it. You can’t have that with a high point in the middle. So, somewhere there is something wrong with those figures. So, I need to know what really kind of ditches they are going to have, and what really drainage is going to be there, so that this is not going to build up, and, naturally, Greenriver Road is going to be a dam. So, if it don’t go through the pipe, it’s going to go over the top. It’s just that simple. Anybody on the other side that owns that land, it’s going to get flooded too. So, we ought to think about that now–

President Mosby: Right.

Bob Wheeler: –before they get any further. Okay.

President Mosby: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to speak?

Lynne Wheeler: I’m sorry. I’m Lynne Wheeler, Bob’s wife. What we noticed was, on that map there is no retaining pond, at all. Most of the people that are building subdivisions these days have some kind of a big retaining pond. There is nothing. There is 131 lots, five roads, a ditch between us and them, a ditch running across the top, and one apparently running down the side. Nowhere on there is any kind of retaining pond that that water can come down, sit in, until it can get out, and get underneath the road. So, you know, perhaps that might be a way to collect the water to stop it from running across the road.

President Mosby: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

Leland Fehd: I’m Leland Fehd, and I own the property to the east of Wynnfield Subdivison. We had been with Bill Jeffers before on this issue. Whenever you bring all this water off this high land, down to Greenriver Road and try to put it through that pipe, whatever size pipe you put in there, it’s going to come down the north side of Wynnfield Subdivison. Then you have two entrance, exits or entrances, whatever you want to call them, off of Kansas Road, according to the subdivison map. As hard as it rains, and as quickly as that floods, the people who own, or purchase those houses in Wynnfield are going to be very upset to have that road flooded, unless you raise it. You are going to have to get in a deeper ditch, with a bigger pipe along Wynnfield. Or you are going to have to raise the road. When you raise the road, your elevation is going to be higher than the elevation that is to the entrances to the subdivision. When this water comes down along Wynnfield, and turns and goes into the Henry Ditch, on the corner of Quentin’s property, and the corner of Wynnfield and me, when that Henry Ditch is full, or that pipe can’t take it, it cuts catty corner across my farm. We’ve tried to address this issue that that pipe would be bigger before, but nothing’s been done about it. That goes from Wynnfield Subdivison, under Kansas Road, into the Henry Ditch. It’s not big enough. This spring when it rained, we had some bales of straw that was there. That was supposed to be in the ditch to hold the silt back. When it rained hard enough, the bales of straw was against the pipe. No water could go through the pipe. At the corner of my property I lost about 6" of top soil, on a piece of it. I don’t appreciate that, because that’s productive. That’s productive farm land. I’m sure the rest of these farmers behind me don’t want this damned water coming down there any faster than it is. So, we think that you need a retention pond up there to hold it, and release it slowly down on us. Anything else?

President Mosby: Any questions?

Commissioner Mourdock: No. I’ll just make a comment, the County Engineer, John Stoll, is here, and having heard those comments, John, if you would confer with Bill about this need, or necessity, maybe, to take another look at that pipe that Mr. Fehd is talking about.

President Mosby: Yes, sir.

David Georgesen: David Georgesen again. After I hear what I’ve heard now, my understanding was that this swail, or whatever we call it along Greenriver Road was going to be set up as a retention pond. Apparently that’s not so. Apparently however fast it comes, that’s how fast (Inaudible. Talking over each other)--

Bill Jeffers: No, the swail that’s along–

David Georgesen: Is that true? Or is that wrong?

Bill Jeffers: The swail along Greenriver Road is, in fact, a detention facility. It just happens to be a dry detention basin, like a WASCOB, rather than a permanent standing body of water.

David Georgesen: It doesn’t get, excuse me, it doesn’t get dry as fast as it rains? It does–

Bill Jeffers: It detains water–

David Georgesen: –detain water and let it out slowly?

Bill Jeffers: Correct. It’s designed to detain water and let it out at a regulated rate.

David Georgesen: Okay, then the idea of retaining the water and letting it out at a regulated rate down Greenriver Road would be an improvement to what we have now. It would definitely be better than what we show on the print. By the way, I would like to have a print that I could read. I never, all I received was that little 8 ½" X 11".

Bill Jeffers: I had one extra one that I gave to Mr. Wheeler to share with any of his neighbors that he might. Actually, it’s truly the property of the developer, and if you ask the developer, he may release it to you through Morley and Associates.

David Georgesen: Well, that’s fine.

Bill Jeffers: I only have one copy left, at this time.

David Georgesen: I’m requesting, you know, that we have a copy. So, if we’re going to have hearings like this, we need a copy, so we know what we’re talking about ahead of time. One that we can read.

Commissioner Mourdock: That’s the purpose–

David Georgesen: If it had been blown up to a legal size, we might have been able to read it.

Commissioner Mourdock: That’s the purpose of having a preliminary versus any final, so everybody gets a chance to review the data. Is there anyone here from the developer side who wishes to address some of these questions? To be, at least, identified as a point of contact for these folks.

President Mosby: Was there anybody left on the remonstrator side that wanted to voice an opinion? I was going to call him up next, but....yes, ma’am. I’m just trying to get everybody’s opinion on the remonstrating side.

Shirley Melton: I own the property at 5501 Kansas Road. My name is Shirley Melton. I have had my home up for sale almost a year, and we cannot get FEMA to okay that you don’t have to carry flood insurance on that home. So, I need for you when you develop this project to do something with the cul-de-sac at the end of Kansas Road too next to I-64. Nothing has ever been done to the ditches, even though Wynnfield Estates are coming in. It would help if someone would come in with just a digger, and dig it out, and haul the dirt away. I don’t know why the people below the Stahl’s never do complain, because they are always blocked off whenever we have a spring flood. It gets up to my back summer kitchen door, and misses one inch of coming in the back door, and we still aren’t doing anything, but we’re building more homes. What quality homes are we going to have on 60 acre, 60' lots? What price range are they going to be in?

President Mosby: What was your address?

Shirley Melton: I live at 5130 Millersburg Road, but I own the property at 5501 Kansas.

President Mosby: 55, that’s where the problem’s at?

Shirley Melton: Yes.

President Mosby: We’ll turn it over to the engineer, and let him look at it.

Shirley Melton: Okay, and there’s a cul-de-sac at the end, next to I-64 that nothing’s being done about.

President Mosby: Okay. We’ll turn it over, and let him look at it.

Shirley Melton: I would appreciate it. Thank you.

President Mosby: Is there anybody else? If not, I’ll have the developers.

Nathan Waggner: My name is Nathan Waggner. I’m the engineer of record for Morley and Associates. I guess, I’ll just kind of clarify a few things. We will be providing a detention facility. I think Bill tried to address that. Some of these fellows thought that there was not going to be one. There will be one. It will detain it, and release it at our regulated rate, which is at a 10 year, undeveloped rate, and hold back what the drainage ordinance requires, which is the developed 25 year. I think you’ve got the capacity to hold back more.

Unidentified: We can’t hear what you’re saying back here.

Nathan Waggner: I’m sorry. I said we will be providing detention on site. I know some of you people–

Unidentified: Where will it be?

Nathan Waggner: Along Greenriver Road. It will parallel.

Unidentified: Is that on here?

Nathan Waggner: Yeah.

Unidentified: That’s not going to hold it.

Nathan Waggner: The calculations we’ve done it shows the amount of detention to provide equal to and above what the ordinance calls for, which is the difference between the 10 and the 25 year storm events. Other than that, as far as the people that are concerned about what the 60" pipe underneath Greenriver Road can handle, I think what we are proposing to detain as a detention pipe, or discharge pipe, will be somewhere around the order of a 15" to 18". So, the 60" pipe, the 15" discharge, is what will be coming off of our site. Other than that, I’ll just entertain any questions.

President Mosby: Does any member of the board have any questions?

Commissioner Mourdock: I don’t have a question, Nathan, other than just a comment, which is you’ve heard all the comments here, and the requests that there be copies of maps made. I presume, working for your client, you’ll be able to do that, to get those to these folks who are interested, and might give you their names before they leave tonight.

Nathan Waggner: As long as the developer doesn’t have a problem. We could do that.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Then also, as a point of contact, if you would, talk to them so some of these technical questions might also be reviewed prior to our hearing this again.

Nathan Waggner: Okay. The last question that was brought up, I’ll let Bill address that one. It’s kind of...that’s away from our subdivision.

Bill Jeffers: Which, I’m sorry, which question was that, Nathan?

President Mosby: That’s the one–

Nathan Waggner: Kansas Road–

President Mosby: Yeah, I’m going to have John Stoll...I’m going to have our engineer look at that.

Nathan Waggner: Okay.

President Mosby: That’s, I’ll give that to John. John’s still here somewhere. Is there any other comments by the–

Commissioner Mourdock: Just to clarify one thing, Bill, our ordinance requires that a detention pond like this, be it a dry basin or wet basin, ultimately release at 10 year rates? Is that right?

Bill Jeffers: Right. For those in the audience who’ve not been to a Drainage Board meeting, or who have not heard our drainage requirements explained thoroughly, they look at the existing farm field, and they determine how much water runs off that field during a 10 year storm. Which is, basically, a storm that has a 10% chance of happening in any calendar year. We have, probably, two or three 10 year storms every year. That’s maybe what, Nathan, an 1 ½" , 2"--

Nathan Waggner: Yeah.

Bill Jeffers: –in 24 hours. That storm is analyzed, and then a detention basin is built to collect a 25 year storm, which is much greater than a 10 year storm. It’s based on the post-development runoff. With like Mr. Georgesen was talking, maybe 40% to 50% hard cover, generating all that additional water, they calculate how much additional water would come down to the detention basin. They are only allowed a pipe to release that 10 year storm as if it were still a cornfield. The rest of that excess water is held in the detention basin over a period of time. It may look like a long, narrow detention basin, but it’s what, a quarter mile long?

Nathan Waggner: Close to it.

Bill Jeffers: Nearly–

Nathan Waggner: 1000'.

Bill Jeffers: –it’s over 1,000' long. It’s about 40' wide, I believe. What you’re looking at is just storing enough acre feet of water so that the control release orifice slowly releases that excess water to that 60" pipe. It’s designed so that it will not increase the flow in cubic feet per second from that ground. That’s, basically, what they’re required to do. It’s the same as any subdivision in Vanderburgh County is required to do.

Unidentified: Every subdivision I’ve seen lately has a big pond in it.

Bill Jeffers: The reason that the ponds are so large, the one in Wynnfield, across the street from you guys, the one at Kansas and Greenriver, in the flood plain there, it’s very large. It’s over sized. It will handle a huge storm. That was to acquire fill, because the ground was so flat, that they needed fill dirt to build their homes on. So, they dredged out a huge amount of fill dirt, and that’s why you have such a large lake. In this case, they’re moving dirt down a hillside. They don’t need to excavate, they don’t need to acquire additional fill. They’re already sitting on a surplus of earth, because they are on a fill. So, they are only excavating the required detention basin. They prefer not to have a wet body of water that long and narrow. It’s very hard to control water quality in a long, narrow facility, because you don’t have any movement of the water, and the water gets stagnant. So, what they are doing there is they are just simply meeting the minimum requirement to store and release according to our regulations. Nathan has indicated that there may be the possibility they have some additional storage in there, and if they do, they’ll apply that as well.

Unidentified: Well, maybe I’m misunderstanding what (Inaudible. Not at mike.) Is it an open ditch (Inaudible. Not at mike.)?

Bill Jeffers: It’s going to sit there for as long as it takes to release it at the lower, allowable discharge rate.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Nathan Waggner: 52' not 52".

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Nathan Waggner: Well, there’s a lot of stuff on there.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

President Mosby: Okay.

Commissioner Mourdock: Again, that’s why we have a preliminary plan meeting, and a final plan meeting, in hope’s that all these questions will be dealt with. Between the representatives, and the builders, and (Inaudible. Mike not on.)

President Mosby: I would just echo what Commissioner Mourdock said, that you would get with the neighbors and talk with them about what they have expressed as their opinions here tonight.

Bill Jeffers: Yeah, I would strongly encourage the neighbors to ask the developer, who has the long standing reputation of development in this community, both here and in Warrick County. I would ask him to meet with you between now and the next Drainage Board meeting, and let his consulting engineer explain some of the tedious detail of the drainage plan to you in a more, in a way that a layman can understand.

President Mosby: Is there any other questions or comments? The chair would entertain a motion.

Nathan Waggner: Can I request that we still ask for preliminary approval, and still entertain there ideas?

President Mosby: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: I’m sorry, Vanderburgh County Surveyor recommends approval of the preliminary plan for Crowne Ridge Subdivison.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’ll formally move that we do give preliminary approval, but, at least, as one member of the board, I want to make sure all these questions get addressed. So, when we hear this again next month, or the following month, that everyone knows what’s going on.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second, and I would say that that is very important what Commissioner Mourdock said, and I will say so ordered.

President Mosby: Next, is Burkhardt Lynch Business Park modifications.

Bill Jeffers: This is a simple modification, this is a simple modification of one open ditch, so that they may pipe it, and put two lots together to build a larger facility. They have supplied sufficient details to show how they are going to accomplish it. The Surveyor recommends approval.

President Mosby: Anybody willing, wanting to speak to Burkhardt Lynch? Seeing none.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll move approval of the modification.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Mosby: Motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: North 41 Storage, Old State Road.

Bill Jeffers: This is a mini-storage facility being built behind the Boat Sales Complex at the west, excuse me, at the east entrance of the 4-H Center, at the end of Old State Road, with it’s intersection with 41. It is a final plan. It is a commercial storage facility, and the County Surveyor recommends approval.

President Mosby: Anybody in the audience wanting to speak to North 41 Storage? Old State Road? Seeing none. Chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll move approval.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

Bill Jeffers: Thank you for coming.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Unidentified: If we would come to more of these, we would be more educated.

Bill Jeffers: We have another one next month.

President Mosby: Every month you’re invited back. Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Fourth Monday in November.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second, so ordered.

President Mosby: New Business, Easley/Broerman request regarding Ashley Place.

Andy Easley: Let’s see, I’m Andy Easley, here on behalf of Rick Broerman. Did you get copies of the letters we wrote to John Stoll, and to the County Surveyor? No. Okay. Ashley Place–

Commissioner Mourdock: Just for the record, Andy, I haven’t seen the letter that you sent this way, but I did get some comments by e-mail from John on the summary of, I think, your letter, and also some of his comments.

Andy Easley: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: An original copy of the letter is in Mr. Mosby’s hands, and it should be passed to your Recording Secretary for inclusion in the minutes.

Andy Easley: I think we have about, I’ll try to be as brief as possible, but this is going to take a few minutes. Ashley Place was built, I suppose it’s been probably three years ago, and it has a retention basin that involved relocating a ditch, and putting the retention basin in the bottom of the enlarged ditch. The, shortly after it was built, there was a huge, what January of the large storm that came, and a great deal of debris washed into the basin, clogged the outlet pipe. The overflow had been, put a piece, it was a 5' diameter round structure. I have some photographs that I’ll hand out in a minute, but they put some welder wire, expanded wire metal on the, on top of the overflow that caught acorns, and did not, it did not allow it to function the way it was designed. We made an emergency, at the request of the County Surveyor, we put an emergency, another emergency overflow that would allow, you know, that not....because they almost got water in one house. I will pass out some pictures here. I need them back. I got two sets. These two, those two, those three pictures show the outlet of the retention basin. I’m going to give you another one that shows where the water went between two houses. The last picture is the, looking at the basin towards the east. The outlet structures, because of the debris, need some debris racks to catch the debris that clogged the pipes. I worked out west for five years, and the debris racks in this area are a little bit hard to understand, and, perhaps, unknown. Here is a (Inaudible. Stepped away from mike.) to look at these, and then pass the yellow markers...if you have an important culvert or something that must discharge water, you need to have a debris rack. Now, we don’t use them here very often, but when I was Chief Assistant City Engineer, we had to put some in, and I don’t know that I installed any when I was County Highway engineer, but I’m a great believer in them. We have, we requested, many months ago, permission to add these. The question has been raised, who will remove the debris? All of the lots in this subdivision have been sold, and, in my opinion, there probably isn’t anybody left to remove the debris than perhaps county forces. We’re asking for permission to add these debris racks, and we’re asking for permission that you might direct county forces to keep an eye on them, and, occasionally, I don’t think, except during a real hard runoff, that they’ll have to be attended to. So, that is item number one.

Commissioner Mourdock: Andy, can I interrupt? I have a question. What is the source of the debris? Is the debris coming from Ashley Place?

Andy Easley: It’s coming out of wooded areas to the, to the east. Let me, I have more pictures, okay. This is the wooded area to the east. This is another part of the watershed of this particular little valley. It’s impossible to police it, because, I guess, trees die, blow over, and fall down. There was a video that was taken by one of the homeowners, and they had, I declare, I saw, maybe Bill Jeffers can help me, but they were 8" diameter logs, 4' length, that....now, did I give you any pictures of debris in front of those, or am I....let me see. Alright, here’s, I do have one photograph of something that, in this particular, and Rick Broerman who is here will tell you that they found, this particular culvert was pretty well choked, wasn’t it?

Rick Broerman: 2/3 full.

Andy Easley: 2/3 full. It will not function. It is going to threaten houses if it isn’t maintained, and we want permission to add these debris racks, and someone is going to have to be designated to...and I think the only person, the only people left is the county maintenance forces. So, that’s, and okay now, the next item on Ashley Place–

Rick Broerman: Let me make a comment. My name is Rick Broerman. I’m the developer of this. We had an approved drainage plan, back when we originally started this subdivision. It didn’t work. So, the County Surveyor asked us to put in this emergency overflow, and we did that. This, that doesn’t seem to work. Without these debris racks, and this device over the top of the inlet structure, it’s going to continually get clogged, it’s never going to work right. I think the point is, we had an approved drainage plan. We could have put that drainage plan in, and walked away from it, actually, but we’ve done two steps since then, and we’re trying to do a third step now to try and resolve the problem. This, we’ve just gone way over and above what’s been required by the approved subdivision plans.

Andy Easley: Okay. The next item on Ashley Place is the ditch along the southerly side of the subdivision has had it’s problems in getting it stabilized. This is the only picture I have. I think I gave one of these, you might, this was very badly eroded, and I was asked to try to address the erosion, since the planting didn’t seem to be able to correct the problem. I had a meeting out there one day, and I said that perhaps we can get...this was in front of Jagoe that their representative that was building the houses...we had thought about check dams, I said perhaps we could put, get permission to put a pipe in here that would, would cut down on the erosion. I said maybe we could get permission to get a pipe in here, and I said perhaps a, we could, uh, I said perhaps a 24" pipe might carry the flow. This is one of those times I shouldn’t have said anything, but about three days later I heard that Jagoe had put in a 24" pipe. I know the chain of command about drainage, having been a Navy officer, and you get things approved before you act. This is just a sketch of what was put in. Low and behold, then I had, after it was put in, I think it sort of upset Mr. Jeffers and John Stoll that it was put in. I have proven that the smoothness of the pipe, and the little swail over the top of it, it will carry 100 year flow, this pipe that went in. We’re asking that the plan be, be amended to, and the county allow this to remain in place. It has functioned quite well, and has not clogged. This too needs a debris rack on it. This, if you saw that erosion picture, this is now what this used to look like, this is now what that looks like. Here was the severe erosion. Very, very badly eroded. It looked like a miniature Bryce Canyon. Then this is now what it looks like. It is clear, and operating, and it doesn’t have the greatest amount of cover on it, but all it ever gets is a lawnmower. I have got the blessing of the people that made the pipe that it, that it has adequate cover, and will function in this case. This is a drawing showing where the location of that pipe, and I know I’m throwing an awful lot at your intelligent heads. This is the pipe right here, and all the water...there’s two lakes to this debris basin; one comes in here, and one comes down here.

Commissioner Mourdock: Where, where, when you were first talking about where you need the debris racks, where is that?

Andy Easley: It’s right here. This is the outlet structure, and then there’s an overflow, the emergency overflow needs this. The debris rack, we need a debris rack in front of the outlet. We need a debris rack here. Now there’s one other pipe that got stuck in here, and I don’t know who put that one in. It just overflows. It could, maybe, perhaps have a debris rack, and we would be willing to put one in there. It was put, I think, they said that SIGECO installed that pipe. I don’t know how it got there, John.

Commissioner Mourdock: But, it’s within Ashley Place?

Andy Easley: It’s within Ashley Place. It just appeared, so, we’ve...and then we have one other (Inaudible. Stepped away from mike.) Here they are. The, and there are drainage swails that go in back of the houses at Ashley Place. You can glance at these, and pass them. Some of the swails, when they did the final grading, drifted a little bit over the center of the easement, but they are all, basically, within the easements, the drainage easements, and they have been planted, and improved, and I think it’s a little bit of concern to your, to the County Engineer. It would be a major public relations nightmare to go in there and center, re-center the swails. If you could imagine, if you had a backyard that you have seeded, and having looked good, we’re asking that, if you want to call that waving an informality, is that a legal term, Counselor? To accept the swails the way they are. Now, that’s, I think I’ve completed my presentation, and I appreciate your patience. Mr. Broerman, have you got anything to say?

President Mosby: Bill, and do you have a comment?

Bill Jeffers: We’ve always had a concern about using natural watercourses that pre-existed development. Natural, well-defined ditches that carry a substantial amount of water. We’ve always resisted using them as detention basins, however, there is nothing in our ordinance that prevents this practice. The developer and his engineer insisted on using this detention method, of basically damming a stream. It caused some problems. The problems were basically resolved by altering the outlet structure, and constructing a new emergency overflow, as Mr. Easley explained. That pretty much resolved the threat of flooding the last three homes on the street down there. There was a distinct possibility that those homes would flood during extreme conditions. So, that’s why that stuff was taken. The debris racks are a good idea. The debris racks will probably be a method of collecting floatable debris, one method, that will probably be implemented in the future, in our MS4's, when Rule 13 takes place, and we’re required to collect floatable debris before it enters waters of the state. However, that particular legislation has not been enacted at this time, and so, we remain unable to service debris racks and other pollution control devices that we may have to in the future. We have not yet decided who’s going to be responsible, in private subdivisions, who’s going to be responsible inside county right-of-way, etcetera. So, the assignment of maintenance is a problem there, because, as Mr. Easley pointed out, the lots are already owned by a multitude of individuals. At this time, our ordinance requires everything outside of county street right-of-way to be maintained by the property owner. So, for this board to approve a modification of that sort, we would be also burdening the existing property owners, lot by lot, wherever those debris racks would be located. We’re burdening them with an additional maintenance responsibility that was not reflected in the original plan. So, you may wish to consult your attorney with that question of whether we should notify those individuals who would, who are not at this time maintaining the debris rack, but, who in the future may have to, if we were to approve that. Although I’m not opposed to collecting floatable debris, it is something we will have to do in the future. I question right now, we haven’t had any hearings of any sort to change the way we maintain storm water conveyances, at this time. With regard to the pipes that were added, without approval, yes, things happen, and, yes, someone apparently working for SIGECO, or representing SIGECO put one pipe in. Of course, that was put in because the ditch, and the detention basin also occupies 100' wide SIGECO easement. That was another concern we had, at the time of planning, are you guys going to be able to coordinate with SIGECO every time they want to do something. Or in this case, now Vectren. Each time they want to come in and service their facility, are you going to be able to coordinate what they do, and the damage they may...you know, SIGECO doesn’t have a habit, or didn’t have a habit of coming and asking the County Surveyor squat. You know, if they saw a ditch, they just put a pipe in it, and crossed it. So, yes, we always had concern about that, and continue to have concern about it. Now, the other pipe that was put in, was deliberately put in, as Mr. Easely said, by the sub-developer, Jagoe, and Mr. Easley acknowledges that it would require a 36" pipe to pass the required drainage, but only a 24" pipe would fit in there–

Andy Easley: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. I said that it might, I didn’t say absolutely. I went on to prove that the 24 functions. Don’t hang me with a 36, Mr. Jeffers.

Bill Jeffers: I’m reading from a letter dated September 11, 2000.

Andy Easley: That was an early letter before it was analyzed. I have since proven, with the best hydraulic calculations that the 24 will do the job. So, let’s don’t even discuss the 36.

Bill Jeffers: It remains a fact it’s a matter of record in our office. All the letters that have transpired between us. Be that as it may, whether a 36 or a 24 is required, the ordinance does require that all pipes be placed in conformance with written manufacturers recommendations. John Stoll and I have both inspected the pipe, and it’s our determination, at this time, that the pipe is not installed in accordance with manufacturers recommendations. It’s my understanding from John Stoll that the developer wishes to submit $2.00 a lineal foot, so that the county will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of that pipe, should it fail.

Commissioner Mourdock: Let me ask a question, because I want something clarified here. You’re saying the manufacturer, you went out and looked at it, and it doesn’t meet specs. Is this the same one, Andy, I heard you not five minutes ago–

Andy Easley: Yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: –they’re saying it does meet specs?

Andy Easley: It does. What are the deficiencies that you’ve–

Bill Jeffers: They’re not covered by one foot of earth or more.

Andy Easley: It doesn’t really, absolutely have to have a foot of dirt. The manufacturer said it didn’t have to have a foot of dirt.

Commissioner Mourdock: Is that the sole argument for that pipe? If it’s placed properly, is what the amount of cover is? Is that the sole argument? Not that it’s an invalid one, but is that the sole one?

John Stoll: That’s the biggest issue, from what I’ve seen.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

John Stoll: You can see in that picture from the storms earlier this spring, because of it’s lack of cover, the dirt has peeled away from the top of it. My concern is that over the long haul, if that same pattern continues, the pipe will float away, and then we’re on the hook for replacing it, when it was never put in properly.

Andy Easley: Well, you want me to put a paved concrete over the top of it, which, I think, is a little bit unnecessary.

John Stoll: I wouldn’t want the county to have to maintain that either. Because I could see that getting scoured out, just like the spillway that you saw in the pictures that are in that pack of information I gave you.

Bill Jeffers: The concern that our office has, and I think it’s shared by John Stoll and his staff, is that we are, basically, bound to enforce regulations equally, among all developers, and all developments. We have a minimum set of standards that our ordinances, and our codes ask us to enforce. We feel that we should enforce them equally among all developers, and developments. In this particular case, I believe we’re being asked to assume maintenance of a pipe, which we believe, is not installed according to minimum standards.

President Mosby: Thank you. John, did you have anything you wanted to add? Or anything different that Bill didn’t cover?

John Stoll: I guess, one of my on-going concerns about this subdivision is for years we’ve been trying to get the developer to get the ditch on the south side of the subdivision stabilized, and that has never taken place. In those pictures you’ll see where the banks of the ditch are severely eroded in some locations, and in the punch list you can see they date back to 1999. That’s a recurring item on the punch list. That ditch has never been stabilized. So, I would hate to see us take final action on everything until the subdivision is truly in a final condition, ready for final action. We have received complaints from the property owners, who abut that ditch, that they are concerned, they see severely eroded banks, and they’ve never seen it stable, I’ve never seen it stable, and they just want to know what kind of time tables we’re looking at on when it will finally get finished.

President Mosby: When should it have been finished?

John Stoll: The ordinances do not specifically give exact time frames on when it has to be done. We’re still holding letters of credit on this, because it’s not been resolved. There’s not really a specific time frame that’s enforceable.

Commissioner Mourdock: Arguably, the developer could never turn it over to us, as long as he was doing the maintenance. I mean, the whole, the only reason there is a date out there, at all, is just at some date it would pass from being the developer’s burden to being our burden.

John Stoll: Another issue that Andy brought up in regard to the drainage swails in the back lots of the subdivision, the north-south ditches between the cul-de-sacs, those, in the past, like Bill could probably attest to, he’s brought them in here before when things were not built exactly as planned, the final drainage plan has been amended to address the locations of the swails, and their as-built conditions. Typically, don’t you notify each of the property owners to let them know that that is the case? That even though the swails don’t lie entirely within the easements, that is the final condition, and their, basically, accepting that, unless they remonstrate it, against it.

Bill Jeffers: We have done that in at least one situation, because the subdivision code and the drainage code both require that all channels be located within suitable easement. In some cases, because of natural terrain considerations, large trees that people did not want to remove, I mean, you know, really nice, large oak trees, etcetera. Or possibly in a case, such as Mr. Easley has pointed out where everything is built out, people already have their fences, and swimming pools, and landscaping in place. What we’ve done is notify each individual property owner where the swail did drift out of the easement, and tell them that we were having a final hearing, and that we were going to accept the location of those swails, understanding that they were slightly out of the easement here and there, and that the private property owner would have to maintain them in that way, and not ever obstruct or block them in any way. We reached a suitable agreement with the developer that that would be okay. He notified everyone of the homeowners that was affected in that way. It went forward, and it was approved. I mean, our concern is for everyone who shares an interest in this situation, as an owner.

Commissioner Mourdock: Do, and you said a few minutes ago, Bill, and I want to be sure everybody agrees, the changes that were made, I think I heard you say, eliminated the risk of flooding to those houses that were nearly flooded.

Bill Jeffers: Yeah, those, the changes that were made to eliminate the hazard of flooding was the alteration of the overflow, concrete box overflow at the bottom of the subdivision, and the construction of a new, larger, more efficient earth overflow.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, but we all agree that that was successful? And that risk has been–

Bill Jeffers: I believe that was successful.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Andy Easley: We probably would never have had that problem if there would have been debris racks to start with, and if they hadn’t of put that expanded wire–

Commissioner Mourdock: Who’s they? Who’s they? Who put the expanded wire across?

Andy Easley: Well, the expanded wire cover was put on there by Jagoe’s people, I believe. I never designed it. They just came up with it, and put it on there. Like I said, it caught grass and acorns. You might have well have put a solid concrete cover on it.

Commissioner Mourdock: Is there a neighborhood association with this subdivision?

Andy Easley: No, there isn’t.

Commissioner Mourdock: So much for the easy answer.

Bill Jeffers: The expanded wire was put on because it was about a 54" drop, open top drop basin, and there was concern for kids that might be playing. I mean, this was a substantial stream that drains a lot of acres, before it ever arrives at Ashley Place, and there’s a lot of water that comes down through there, as the film will show. We were afraid that children might be, might foolishly be playing, as children sometimes do, around that structure and fall into it. There’s about a 200' run of pipe before it daylights again, and there have been cases where children have drowned in situation like that.

Andy Easley: Well, we had, we had a grid of pipes on there 12" X 12" that might have passed a basketball, and I think that maybe people from your office were concerned about it, and the word came down to put something other than the 12" grid. Which, I think, if, but that alone, we would of still had stuff that got into the culvert. So, I can’t–

Bill Jeffers: But, if a debris rack of the type your showing us today, which is a fairly standard, and substantially designed debris rack, if one of those had been put on top of that basin, would we be here talking about this tonight?

Andy Easley: Probably not.

Bill Jeffers: With the original plan. I agree. If that had been on the original plan, we probably wouldn’t be talking about debris racks tonight.

Andy Easley: No, we wouldn’t.

Commissioner Mourdock: But, we would still be talking.

Bill Jeffers: About pipes.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. That’s what your saying? I want to be sure I understand.

Bill Jeffers: We wouldn’t be talking about debris racks if one of these had been placed on the outlet structure of the basin.

Andy Easley: That’s true. That’s true.

John Stoll: In regard to the debris racks too, I don’t want to speak for the County Highway Department, but I can’t imagine they want to maintain such a structure, because in the event it got plugged up, and we didn’t maintain it on a regular schedule, I would suspect we would have the liability if any flooding occurred because of that. So, I don’t think–

President Mosby: That was my question exactly.

John Stoll: –that there would be any, any way of assuring that we would have that on a constant schedule where it would always be inspected to make sure it was clean, and didn’t obstruct the flow.

Rick Broerman: Sounds like you’re not wanting the debris racks. If you don’t have those, then this outlet pipe is going to get clogged. Are you going to maintain that? We’re trying, I think we’re trying to keep that pipe from getting clogged with the debris racks. If we don’t put them in, then we’ve met the approved drainage plan.

Commissioner Mourdock: That begs the question, looking at this one drawing, it’s effectively this one and this one, this is a real dumb question at this late date, okay, why is that piped at all? Why is it not just an open flow? An open swail?

Rick Broerman: It was to slow the water.

Commissioner Mourdock: The pipe was?

Andy Easley: It was–

Commissioner Mourdock: I mean, it looks–

Andy Easley: –this is, this is what it looked like–

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so it was a stablization.

Andy Easley: Right.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. That answered it, Andy.

Andy Easley: Tom Hanson with Jagoe, that’s when I had the discussion, I said maybe we can get permission to put in a pipe. I said that, hopefully, we could make, perhaps, show that a 24" would carry it. I shouldn’t have never said anything. I regret that I did. I spent many, many hours now wrestling with this thing. If we take that out, or if we lower it to increase the cover, it’s going to mess up the backyard, and it’s going to go back to something that is going to be, have erosion problems. I think that, I don’t think that the little bit of erosion on top of the pipe is that serious, that it should be, you know, that it should come up. I know John Stoll, I respect him, and I just don’t think it’s that serious.

John Stoll: I would just like to add that, like Andy said, that pipe, it was my understanding, was put in to address erosion. The problem is upstream of this pipe, we still have massive erosion that’s never been addressed.

Andy Easley: I agree.

Commissioner Mourdock: Is that within the subdivison as well?

John Stoll: Yes. That’s part of the punch list that’s been going on for three years now.

President Mosby: That’s all this?

John Stoll: That was taken last week, upstream of the 24" pipe.

Rick Broerman: Now all that, we, John and I, and the contractor met out there last fall, and we agreed on what we were going to do. I think we had a good plan. We were going to do that this past spring, but we couldn’t get the 2' pipe resolved. I didn’t want to do some of this, and then have to go back in there and dig that 2' pipe out, and then try to fix it again. So, we haven’t done anything until we could get the 2' pipe resolved. That’s why we’re here tonight, because we couldn’t seem to get something to be decided and something to happen.

John Stoll: I guess, the only problem with that is, all this is upstream of that 2' diameter pipe. That could have been addressed separate from this pipe issue regardless. I mean, there’s nothing to stop that relative to this pipe.

Rick Broerman: It could have, but what I was waiting to do, try to do all of it at one time. That was maybe a bad decision on my part, but that’s what I was trying to do.

President Mosby: Any other questions or comments?

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I’ll make the comment here. I always, on this board and on the Commission, try to look at being consistent. Having heard Bill’s comment, well, having heard everybody’s comments here, the debris rack, I look at the debris rack that is right here, and it looks exactly like the one that is on the stand pipe at the end of the lake I live on. Twice a year we go down there and pull everything out that the beaver stuffs in there, because it starts backing the water up too high in the lake. That’s not to say that’s a bad design, it’s just to say the bad beaver. I wouldn’t expect that out on this creek you would necessarily have it, but the point is the water does back up, and I think the flooding liability that John talked about is an honest one. We don’t have the forces to do it. I’m sure based on what’s changed in the law, we’re going to end up seeing debris racks somehow.

Bill Jeffers: I think the emergency overflow would address the risk of flooding, most likely. Especially, if the debris rack caught the debris, and kept it from going into the emergency overflow. My concern is, basically, notifying the owner of the lot on which this debris rack will be erected, and having their written consent, in the form of a recordable document that would go with the title of the ground forever, that the owner of that lot would be responsible for the maintenance of that debris rack, and the removal and disposal of the debris, until such time as another agency was able to assume that responsibility.

Rick Broerman: If I owned that lot, I wouldn’t sign that paper. I can’t go to them and ask them to sign that.

Bill Jeffers: I don’t blame you. That’s why it’s my concern.

Andy Easley: Would you give us permission to put the debris racks in, and then walk away from them?

Commissioner Mourdock: Walk away from them meaning, basically, take over this whole thing, accept the $2–

Andy Easley: No, I’m just saying put them in so the pipes, the culverts won’t clog. The outlet structures won’t clog. You know, if they want to have a weeny roast with the debris in the middle of the summer, so let it be.

Commissioner Fanello: Nobody would be cleaning out the debris.

President Mosby: I guess, Kevin, correct me if I’m wrong–

Commissioner Mourdock: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) that question.

President Mosby: –but, if we vote to do that, we’ve probably just accepted responsibility.

Kevin Winternheimer: Well, I would say that I agree with Bill in that if you’re considering doing that, notify the property owner first, let them come down and give their opinion as to, you know, how they feel about this. This is directly going to affect them.

Commissioner Mourdock: Have you ever had any discussions with the owner of that particular property?

Andy Easley: Not with the debris racks, because the debris racks never got that far through the approval process, you know.

Commissioner Mourdock: Is the house on that particular property one of them that was more susceptible to having any kind of flooding or damage?

Andy Easley: One nearby, I suppose.

Rick Broerman: We’re talking about two different, two or maybe–

Commissioner Mourdock: I understand–

Rick Broerman: –three debris racks.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Rick Broerman: Put one of them closest to the outlet structure.

Bill Jeffers: The debris rack on top of the outlet structure would be maintained by one house. I don’t see how we can give anybody permission to go onto somebody’s property and put something on there that he didn’t buy. In other words, it would go back to saying, if this had been in the original plan, we would have been approving a plan, and buyer is visually, is, I mean, the buyer looks at it, says here’s what I’m buying.

Commissioner Mourdock: I understand we can’t make him do it.

Bill Jeffers: Now, I don’t know about these other debris racks. I don’t know why anybody would want to put a debris rack in front of a pipe that isn’t installed in accordance with manufacturers recommendations, and hasn’t been approved. The pipe itself hasn’t been approved. I mean, I say this is a good idea for the outlet structure. The concrete outlet structure from the basin. With regard to the other pipes up through there, I believe that channel could have been stabilized by using erosion control practices that are clearly outlined in the Erosion Control Handbook. Had the correct material been used to address the condition out there, it may have been a mute issue at this time.

Andy Easley: The, uh, if the culvert entrances don’t have a debris rack, there’s an extreme danger of them becoming clogged again. I think we are just not being realistic if you don’t allow the debris racks–

Commissioner Mourdock: But if they do have a debris rack, and the debris is not removed, you still have that risk.

Andy Easley: The, uh, there’s an overflow spillway. Sooner or later someone is going to realize that maybe they should remove the debris. The homeowners, I guess, will be, have to go out there and remove the debris. I think that it’s very important that those racks go in. We, in hind sight, are very sorry we put the debris basin in this natural channel. Aren’t we, Mr. Jeffers? You know, we don’t think that we will ever do that again. It was, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Sometimes when you’re doing things in life, you trip over stones that you wished you hadn’t of tripped over. This one needs to be corrected with debris racks, and I think that, that pipe should remain in place.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I’m not at all comfortable in accepting maintenance of this thing, at this point, with all these questions. I think Kevin’s comment regarding discussion with the owners of those points is something worth pursuing.

Andy Easley: You know, and as far as asking the owners of every lot where those little swails have drifted just a little bit–

Commissioner Mourdock: I wasn’t suggesting that. I was just talking about the debris racks.

Andy Easley: No, no. I was going back to that. I think that is opening a...if you are going to air a two hour debate on people that have a bone to pick with Jagoe, or something, you are gonna, this is not the place to do it. I think that those little swails are fine. They’re not very much , they’re not very much out of the easement. What they are is not worth sending out all those notices. That is a big mistake. Okay, I guess, I’ve said about all I can say.

John Stoll: I’ll agree with Andy, they’re not significantly out of the easements, but what incentive does anybody have to follow the plans if we just disregard these kinds of things everywhere. That’s why we’re pointing them out. I’m not saying they need to go dig them all up, and ruin everybody’s backyards, but they are out of the easements.

Commissioner Mourdock: At this point, the only time, or the only reason you would send out that type of letter, with that type of wording is if we were accepting this for maintenance. Is that right?

John Stoll: What was the situation, Bill, out in Eagle Crossing North? I know there’s were significantly out of the easements, but, like you said, they miss, they’ve went around trees and things like that. Weren’t notices sent out just to let people know, but nobody showed up to say anything.

Bill Jeffers: Right, the developer’s engineer sketched on to a copy of the plat the exact locations of the swails that were outside of easements. Notified each of the affected property owners that they couldn’t obstruct those swails, and, basically, that became a natural surface watercourse easement. If they had any comment to make about that, to appear at the drainage board, and make a comment, otherwise, the drainage board was going to approve the modified plan, and that’s the way it turned out. No one objected, because the work was done to avoid features that they wanted to have in their backyard.

John Stoll: In this subdivision, I would suspect that you would have similar results, because there are plenty of yard barns, and fences, and things like that in those easements, and they’re not supposed to be there, and I doubt they would want to come in and draw attention to those issues either.

Commissioner Mourdock: Did I miss the point there? As far as the timing, when that letter would be sent out, what would kick off the sending of such a letter? Acceptance of the county for that drainage way?

John Stoll: Wasn’t that sent–

Bill Jeffers: Release a letter of credit.

John Stoll: Right. I was going to say, before we release the letter of credit to say everything was fine.

Commissioner Mourdock: Given these other questions, we’re clearly not there yet anyway.

John Stoll: Right.

Andy Easley: And you want to adhere to that policy? I think it’s kind of...if I shaded in yellow the portion that, like this between here and the dashed line, it’s the back of the swail. The back of the swail, like this, is slightly over the line. Maybe it’s just (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Commissioner Mourdock: My point on that, Andy, and I don’t–

John Stoll: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Commissioner Mourdock: –yeah, I agree with what Bill has said, and what John said, I don’t think, in looking at those backyards, I don’t think anybody is going to come in here and complain. I think, certainly, the way the letter is worded can even help keep the attendance at that meeting to minimum levels, if not zero levels. The bigger question that’s before us tonight is do we accept this thing for county?

Andy Easley: Well, we made our presentation, and I, but I do think that the debris racks need to go in, and I think you’re going to have, if they don’t go in, there are going to be great problems out there. That pipe can be completely choked, and who’s responsibility to clean that pipe is. I guess, we’re paying, we’re asking to pay, what, $2 to maintain the pipe? I mean, $2 a foot. I think you are going to have, you’re going to, you’re really going to have your hands full, if those debris racks don’t go in.

Commissioner Mourdock: Again, I’m leaving the door wide open for debris racks. The comment of a minute ago remains standing, in my opinion, which is I would like to hear from conversations that you have, or Jagoe has, or Mr. Broerman has with the people who would be directly affected by those racks, and see what their responses are.

Andy Easley: Alright, but, I, you know, I have a feeling that if there is somebody occupying a couple of those houses there who’s got a, maybe he hasn’t got the greatest heart, or doesn’t have too much energy, or has too much arthritis, he, and is living on a limited income, he’s probably not going to sign off that he’ll maintain the debris racks. So, you know, what’s our next step?

Bill Jeffers: Well, you, again–

Andy Easley: Plan B?

Bill Jeffers: –you’re making my argument for me. I mean, we can’t go into someone’s backyard and arbitrarily plop down, without any....I mean, it’s like (Inaudible. Talking over each other.)

Andy Easley: No, you can, because it’s–

Bill Jeffers: How? You have to go to court and get eminent domain.

Rick Broerman: There’s a debris, I mean, there’s a retention basin drainage–

Bill Jeffers: Well, this is the state of Indiana. This isn’t Checheznia, you know.

Andy Easley: There’s a retention basin and a drainage easement, and this is a necessary improvement that (Inaudible. Someone coughing.) After the thing, phase one was built, we decided that we needed this protection for these structures. I mean, sometimes you guys add guardrails to places that you hadn’t really thought about guardrails.

Bill Jeffers: In right-of-way.

Andy Easley: And you may do things to bridges. Yes, I understand.

Bill Jeffers: In roadway right-of-way.

Andy Easley: But, it is a county drainage easement. It is a county drainage easement.

Bill Jeffers: It remains private property.

President Mosby: Is this easement accessible with vehicles and backhoes?

Rick Broerman: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: Yes.

Andy Easley: Yes.

Rick Broerman: But, Bill, you’re suggesting no debris racks, right?

Bill Jeffers: I said at the very beginning I thought debris racks were a very good idea. But, I don’t see how you can go on a person’s private....if they had been in the original plan, I would have recommended approval. I believe they’re a good idea. We can’t go on to private property, after you’ve sold it to someone else, and plop one down. Just like...do you want one in your backyard? We’ll be happy to come build one, Rick. Do you want one today?

Rick Broerman: No. What I’m saying is that you’re saying no debris racks, so then the plan is, we’re going to just leave it like it is. Because it does work.

Bill Jeffers: It does work.

Rick Broerman: Okay. Let’s quit.

Bill Jeffers: Because there’s an emergency overflow.

Rick Broerman: That’s where we are. Let’s quit.

Andy Easley: When the outlet pipe gets choked–

Rick Broerman: Why don’t you be quiet.

Bill Jeffers: Andy, don’t we design the emergency overflow to carry the entire 100 year flow, as if the pipe is plugged.

Andy Easley: That’s right.

Bill Jeffers: Okay.

Andy Easley: And without the debris rack it will get plugged.

Bill Jeffers: And the 100 year overflow will be carried through the earthen overflow, correct? If your design calculations are correct.

Andy Easley: If you plug it up it will become a pond, and the beavers, and the frogs will–

Bill Jeffers: And I assume that you also followed the ordinance instructions to record covenants and restrictions that make the private property owner, who has the plug piped on his property, responsible for cleaning it out. You didn’t record those?

Rick Broerman: I didn’t do covenants and restrictions.

Bill Jeffers: You didn’t do covenants and restrictions?

Rick Broerman: I sold the lots to Jagoe. Jagoe sold the lots to individuals. There are covenants and restrictions, but I don’t know what they are.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, well, our ordinance requires covenants and restrictions that notifies the property owner that he has to maintain the pipe, free of debris. Okay? It goes on the plat. It goes in the covenants and restrictions that’s recorded in the Recorder’s office. If the pipe fails, that’s what the $2 per foot is, if the pipe fails and collapses, the county has an escrow account to go in and repair it.

Commissioner Mourdock: I want to be sure I understand it, Bill and Rick. If we don’t do debris racks, if we stop right now, and if, and I understand it’s an unknown, but if Jagoe did put in the sufficient covenants and restrictions that the property owner take care of those pipes, are we, meaning the county in that situation, not home free? If those covenants and restrictions are there? The question that Andy’s raised, who’s going to clean it out, is already resolved.

Bill Jeffers: Yes. That’s correct.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: In my mind it’s correct.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, if the stuff exists, which I’m not convinced those covenants and restrictions are there, but if they are there.

John Stoll: (Inaudible. Away from mike.)

Commissioner Mourdock: I’m sorry.

John Stoll: It is on the plat.

Commissioner Mourdock: That the owners maintain those pipes?

John Stoll: Like Bill said, it says individual lot owners shall be responsible, including financially, for maintaining that part of the storm water drainage system, in it’s easements which exists on his or her property, in proper working order, including, and then on item number five it says preventing all persons or parties from causing any unauthorized alterations, obstructions, or detrimental actions from occurring to any part of the storm water drainage system in easements within or attached to this subdivision. So, there is that statement, but I doubt the property owners ever see the plat, like we typically run into, but it is on there.

Commissioner Mourdock: That’s there obligation.

Rick Broerman: But, when a person buys that lot, they bought what was on the plat.

Commissioner Mourdock: That’s right. That’s the (Inaudible), yeah.

Bill Jeffers: They actually sign a document at the bank that says by accepting this deed–

Commissioner Mourdock: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –in conveyance, I hereby accept all covenants and restrictions applicable thereto, etcetera.

Commissioner Mourdock: So, if, in fact, that issue has just been resolved, is the only outstanding issue whether or not the pipe is adequately done by manufacturing standards? Is that the only argument left? In other words, how much cover is on the pipe?

John Stoll: That and the completion of all the drainage facilities according to the original plans. Like the large ditch on the south side that’s still a mess.

Commissioner Mourdock: Upstream of the pipe.

John Stoll: Yes, and also the spillway doesn’t have stable grass cover throughout it’s entire bank. So, there is other issues that are out there as far as finishing the original plan, in addition to that 24" pipe.

Rick Broerman: But, those are readily fixable. Right, John?

Commissioner Mourdock: If they are attended to, I guess.

John Stoll: Right.

Bill Jeffers: If they are attended to during grass growing season.

John Stoll: Right, we’re too late again. So, it’s going to continue to erode again, and get worse until next spring. Hopefully, something will be done next spring, but that remains to be seen. One other thing too, I know Andy talked about his calculations of the 24" pipe, if the 24" pipe is allowed to remain, I don’t believe they ever cut that spillway in across the top of it. Because your calculations indicated that there needed to be a spillway in order to handle the 100 year flood.

Andy Easley: No, I measured that, and that’s what, that is there. That’s existing.

John Stoll: Okay. I stand corrected. I thought the thing, the spillway had to be cut in.

Andy Easley: No. No.

John Stoll: Okay.

President Mosby: So, let me see what I gather here. Do we take this under advisement until the punch list is completed completely?

Commissioner Mourdock: My suggestion would be we take it under advisement until next month to get a report back on whether or not the covenants and restrictions were properly documented when Jagoe sold those lots. Although, again, I guess, based on the argument that it’s on the plat, that one’s pretty well resolved. Then also have a full plan put together to deal with, as you call it, the punch list issues.

President Mosby: Okay. I have a motion by Councilman Mourdock.

Rick Broerman: Can I ask, what about the 24" pipe? Won’t we need a decision somewhere?

President Mosby: I’m going to wait.

Rick Broerman: We’ve been waiting for that since last spring. We would have done that work.

President Mosby: My vote is going to be based on the recommendation that I get back from the Surveyor and the Engineer on the punch list.

Rick Broerman: I think they’ve already made their recommendations. Haven’t you?

Commissioner Fanello: I don’t see a recommendation on here on the pipe.

Commissioner Mourdock: Basically, not to take.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Commissioner Mourdock: Or not to have it assigned to us.

John Stoll: Yeah, my recommendation is–

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

John Stoll: –if the pipe is allowed to remain, that it be the homeowner’s responsibility, not Vanderburgh County’s.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

John Stoll: Because, like I said earlier, I would suspect that if we get excessive rains, like we had in the spring, we’ve seen quite a bit of the cover on one end of it already washed away. I think that will continue to happen. I don’t think Vanderburgh County should be obligated to go out and replace that pipe.

Rick Broerman: I don’t have the guts to go ask a homeowner to maintain that pipe. So, it’s a dead issue. We have to take the pipe out, right?

John Stoll: Well, what provision was made when it was put in? Because, it obviously was put in after the erosion problem was started. So, somewhere, somebody should have said something. I mean–

Rick Broerman: Well–

John Stoll: –what was set up originally?

Andy Easley: Jagoe put it, Jagoe installed it. I can go contact the homeowner, and see...I’m sure he doesn’t want it removed, because it would make a canyon again, and maybe he can agree to maintain the pipe and the debris rack. That would help solve one problem. I think that he would be very foolish if he said to remove the pipe.

John Stoll: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Andy Easley: Huh?

John Stoll: Tell him his other option is that we would move it.

Andy Easley: Okay, alright, I’ll do that. So, the, and maybe we can, I can talk to a couple of people about what they feel about having debris racks in their backyards. See if, maybe, they would agree to give them some cursory maintenance.

President Mosby: Okay, I have a motion by, excuse me, a motion by Commissioner Mourdock to take under advisement.

Commissioner Fanello: And I’ll second the motion.

President Mosby: And a second. So ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: And about two hours ago you had asked me if I wanted to defer one of my motions, and I wish we could have deferred this one until January.

Bill Jeffers: That’s easy enough.

Commissioner Mourdock: I would have traded you because we only have one more meeting.

President Mosby: I’m not sure if Stan wanted to deal with it.

Andy Easley: Thank you very much for listening to all this.

Commissioner Fanello: Thank you, Andy.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: You can make the new guy on the Council the President, or the new guy on the Commission the President of Drainage Board.

President Mosby: That would be mean.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. There have been some things that have happened in McCutchanville Court over the weekend that indicate they have altered the outlet structure, and I would like to move that report forward one month.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay. Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: We’re making progress on the flood plain maps. I would like to move that forward one month, when I have something more concrete to tell you.

Commissioner Fanello: Can I, I have one question on that, because the Commissioners approved some funding. Is this what we’re talking about–

Bill Jeffers: Right.

Commissioner Fanello: So, do we have all the funding from all the sources in place?

Bill Jeffers: I don’t know, I don’t know if there’s adequate, but what we’re trying to do is minimize the field work that is going to be done. We’re trying to target certain areas–

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: –and minimize it until we find out whether we have sufficient funding.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: Do we have any other news on that, John?

John Stoll: Yeah, I spoke to Roger Lehman this afternoon. He said that he was talking with the city either tomorrow or Wednesday to find out what funding they would put towards this. So, Roger is continuing to work on that.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

John Stoll: Once they get that resolved, and when there are some agreements I can bring it to a Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Fanello: Alright. Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Now, this is a cooperative, private sector, public sector–

Commissioner Fanello: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –project. Really a lot of credit goes to the private sector, who has extended their offer of expertise, and some part of the funding possibly from individual developers. It’s being coordinated by the Building Commissioner in the public end of it.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: The County Surveyor is providing personnel and facilities, but a great deal of the credit should go to the private sector for initiating, and helping to fund and man this project. It is moving forward very quickly, and we do expect good results, but as far as a concrete report, I think I would rather wait till next month when I have something definite to report.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: Ditch maintenance claims all are in order, signed, with the appropriate paperwork attached, and the County Surveyor recommends approval of the ditch maintenance claims.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Unless there is other persons wishing to address the board, the County Surveyor is finished.

Commissioner Mourdock: Seeing none, I’ll move, motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Richard E. Mourdock

         Kevin Winternheimer      Bill Jeffers                       Madelyn Grayson

         John Stoll                        David Georgesen           Henry Schlensker

         Bob Wheeler                   Lynne Wheeler               Leland Fehd

         Nathan Waggner            Rick Broerman                Andy Easley

         Shirley Melton                 Others Unidentified         Members of Media

         VANDERBURGH COUNTY

         DRAINAGE BOARD

         David W. Mosby, President

         Catherine Fanello, Vice President

         Richard E. Mourdock, Member

         Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.