MINUTES

WARRICK COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD

COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM

107 W. Locust St. Suite 303

Boonville, In 47601

August 10, 2005

3:00 P.M.

 

 

 

The Warrick County Drainage Board met in regular session with President Carl Jay Conner presiding, also in attendance was Don Williams, Secretary, James E. Niemeyer, Surveyor and David K. Zengler, Attorney for the Board. Also present was Sean Owen, Deputy Surveyor. Vice-President Phillip Baxter was not in attendance.

 

Minutes recorded by Cheryl D. Embry.

 

President Carl Conner called the Warrick County Drainage Board meeting of August 10, 2005 to order.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Carl Conner: The first order of business is the approval of minutes from July 27, 2005 are there any changes or deletions?

 

Don Williams: Mr. President, I have one, my correction is on page 2, where I am speaking, second line down, Cheryl has already made the change, I believe, I called her earlier, it says it is my understanding was that water was being impeded, that is the way it should read, ď my understanding was that water wasĒ should be put in there.That is the only correction I have and on that I would make a motion that we approve the minutes.

 

Carl Conner: We have a motion on the floor to adopt the minutes of July 27, 2005 with the correction over on page 2, which has already been taken care of ďthat water wasĒ do I have a second. Iíll second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero. Jim, Drainage plan approvals.

 

DRAINAGE PLAN APPROVALS:

 

HUNTINGTON RIDGE:

 

Jim Niemeyer: The first one on the list is Huntington Ridge.

 

Jim Morley, Jr. from Morley Associates, project engineer and Ken Ubelhor, President of Maken Corporation came to the podium and introduced themselves.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Kenny is planning, is in the process of building a subdivision called Huntington Ridge, it is about an 1/8 of a mile West of the intersection of Frame Road and Outer Lincoln Drive. Weíve been through the plans, from a drainage perspective and everything appears to be in order.

 

Carl Conner: Do we have any plans?

 

Ken Ubelhor: Do you want to see a set of plans? Iím not questioning you I was just asking as we have a set.

 

Don Williams: Usually, the Surveyor has plans for us.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Well, the primary was already accepted, it was Drexler Estates and they changed the name to Huntington Ridge.

 

Don Williams: Is this just a name change?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: The drainage plans have never come to this Board yet.

 

Carl Conner: Letís look at the drainage plans.

 

Mr. Ubelhor and Mr. Morley presented the Board with a set of the Drainage plans of Huntington Ridge Subdivision.

 

Jim Morley, Jr:This is the plat.

 

Don Williams: I saw this one earlier.

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: This whole piece of ground drains this way now, down into Asher and Stonecreek Subdivisions are down here, all this ground now drains to them, what weíre going to do is catchÖ.

 

Carl Conner: Is this North?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: This is Lincoln Avenue, right here.

 

Carl Conner: Oh, okay.

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: And what weíre going to do is, weíre going to catch everything basically from here (pointing on the drainage plan) take it to basins and backyards will go into these subdivisions, but before they got all of this water, now they only get this, which will be a lot less water.

 

Don Williams: Your basin drains toÖ..?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: It drains to an existing ditch down here on the corner, the same ditch that this basin drains to, they all drain to an open ditch here.

 

Don Williams: This is designed to a 50:5 requirement?

 

Carl Conner: Okay, so this then is over on Frame Road, in that direction adjacent to Stonecreek Subdivision?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.:Yes, this is Stone creek and this is Country Place. Mr. Morley explained the drainage but since he was not on the microphone it was not audible.

 

Carl Conner: Kenny, do you have anything to add? Okay, Dave, did you have something? Why donít you come forward here and state your name and who you represent.

 

Dave Meyers: Iím Dave Meyers and I have Stonecreek Subdivision right next to Kenís new development and my drainage pond and his are going to be right next to each other and they are discharging into a meandering stream, a drainage ditch that goes through the old conservation club that Tom Merrill had and I did dig that all out all the way out to the highway so that it would drain properly. However, itís not going to be that way forever, Tomís not going to maintain it, but he said if we go along the edge of the property, maybe 8 or 900 feet to where it hits, where the ditch follows the edge of the property, he agreed to work with the Drainage Board and dedicate that so that you guys could take care of it on an ongoing basis, so that it will always drain all that area.

 

Carl Conner: Put a legal drain in?

 

Dave Meyers: Yes, I guess thatís what you call it, a legal drain and thatís what I was asking Ken if he would consider working with Tom to dig that drainage through there if you guys would then do a legal drain and maintain it.

 

Carl Conner: We would have to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners to make that a legal drain and there is a number of hoops that we have to go through to get that done, but we have done that in the past, you got a problem with that suggestion, Kenny, orÖ

 

Kenny Ubelhor: I donít have any problem with it other than I feel like itís like you say, itís several months down the road before you figure out if you can even do it.

 

Carl Conner: Right.

 

Ken Ubelhor: I am always concerned about taking care of all the drainage, buta lot of times you canít legally do it you know, so I donít have a problem with his suggestion, you know where you get to the point where it could be done.

 

Don Williams: A legal drain would require a 75-foot easement on both sides of the ditch.

 

Dave Meyers: Well, or he would be right next to the property line and where there is some easement there, but thatís what he was talking about, because right now that ditch goes right through the middle of theÖ.you know through a hundred feet out, a hundred fifty feet out into the conservation club and if he wanted to develop that property later on or sell it to somebody that wanted to develop it, it certainly wouldnít with that ditch right there. So thatísÖhe would be in agreement to putting it along the edge of the property and you know where that is, where Iím talking about. Iím still having trouble with my pond, my retention pond, because I had to lower it because I couldnít get the water out of it, the ditches were filled, so Iíve gotten that cleaned out pretty well now.

 

Ken Ubelhor: The only problem I would have with that and problem is not the right word, is I donít know how that ground rolls, but if its next in line and if the ground happens to be way high, if you had to dig a ditch too deep, you would have a problem maintaining the banks, you see what Iím saying, now when we get next to Country Place, I just donít know how the contour looks now, if he said the ditch is out 100 feet now and it goes up, there is a big hill that goes down along Country Place there now, if you was to dig a ditch through there, you might have really a big ditch, youíll have a hard time maintaining the sides. I donít know how the contour looks in there.

 

Dave Meyer: I would be happy to walk through there and show you what Iím talking about.

 

Ken Ubelhor: Like I said I donít have any problem with it other than that would be the only problem I could see, if the contour was such that the ditch would be a lot deeper and bigger then it would be hard to maintain.

 

Carl Conner: If I recall correctly, itís pretty flat in there.

 

Ken Ubelhor: It probably is, I just donít know. Iím willing to work with people on that type of stuff if they figure out what needs to be done.

 

Carl Conner: Ok, thanks, Kenny. Do you have anything else.

 

Sherri Rector: Sherrie Rector approached the podium and introduced herself. He might have said this and I didnít hear him, was it a part of the Vectren agreement that the drainage easement be allowed within their easement? You might want to reflect that in your drainage plan approval, Vectren has a 40-foot easement going on the North boundary line and they have given consent for the drainage to be in it.

 

Carl Conner: Thatís this encroachment agreement that Jim just gave me? So, weíre covered, Okay, any other comments? Any questions or concerns from the Board? Hearing none I would ask for a motion?

 

Don Williams: After reviewing the drawings, I would make a motion that we approve the request of Huntington Ridge drainage plan.

Carl Conner: We have a motion on the floor to approve the drainage plans as presented for Huntington Ridge, second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero.

 

 

BARRINGTON DEVELOPMENT-LEXINGTON SUBDIVISION:

 

Jim Niemeyer:Iíve asked Barrington or Bruce Miller to come up this afternoon, Bruce is building or developing or about to develop this subdivision East of Ferstal Road and it contains approximately 55 acres. They want to go ahead and proceed with this, but I think one of the things that a decision is going to have to be made as to whether retention is required or not required for this subdivision.

 

Carl Conner: State your name for the record.

 

Bruce Miller: Bruce Miller of Barrington Development. First I would like to apologize to the Drainage Board and to Jim Niemeyer for not communicating better my intentions that during the submission of the Lexington project, over a year ago this piece of property was purchased and preliminary discussions in the layout of the project as the County Commissioners know, I have been before them as far as rezoning the project, so itís been an ongoing process and part of this process I met with the Warrick Area Plan Commission subcommittee to just go through a conceptual drawing over a year ago on what I intended to do to get their input, if there were any major concerns that they had about the concept of what I was going to do in a planned unit development. The County Surveyor and the Engineer and the Warrick Area Plan Commission director at that time did not appear to have any major concerns of the conceptual idea on the basic layout. The County Surveyor at the time, Karan Barnhill had indicated to me that because of the close proximity of the subdivision to the river and because the major drainage ways that surround the project, Pecka Ditch and the Summer-Pecka or Cypress Creek and Summer-Pecka that it would not be required to have retention on a piece of property. Unfortunately that was a verbal conversation and nothing was ever documented in writing, so that means basically nothing transpired, it was verbal, based on that, I on my part failed to contact the new County Surveyor when he took office to explain that basic conversation that came out of the subcommittee and also from the former Surveyor. My proposal and Iím hoping itís looked positively on by the Drainage Board is that because of the close proximity to the river the major ditch ways that can carry this water away, my feeling from a common sense standpoint, it would be better to get the water in the ditch and get it to the river, rather than retaining it. Itís my understanding that retention/detention is based on the fact of a piece of property very far away from a major waterway, that you want to hold that water and slowly allow it to come into a small tributary thatís going to run 10-15 miles until it gets to a major river. I have brought this point forward on a subdivision that I did at Windsor Point Subdivision and the Town of Newburgh that has close proximity to the river, which is at Ellerbusch and Hwy 662, there is no retention on that particular piece of property, also I am a part of the Newburgh Development Group, who did Huntington Creek Subdivision, which is in close proximity to the river and was allowed due to the proximity to the river to not have a retention basin at that point also. Those are my comments and I would like my Engineer to maybe take a few minutes, if he may to explain some of the technical aspects of where we are coming from. Thank you.

 

Carl Conner: State your name for the record, please and who you represent.

 

Andy Easley: My name is Andy Easley, Civil Engineer in Evansville, Indiana. I have some notes here I would like to hand out. (he passed them to the Board) here is a USGS map which I think is rather important, the property is about here (pointing on map) and thereís about 5,000 feet of Cypress Creek to this real wide area that goes into the river. As my notes say, storm water detention is necessary when the downstream storm water drainage system is not adequate to carry the accelerated peak flow from a storm event or when an accelerated peak flow will cause flooding downstream. Cypress Creek is approximately 60-feet wide top of bank to top of bank and has at least 12 to 14-feet of freeboard from the top of the bank to the flow line during normal flow conditions, according to Indiana GIS atlas, the water shed is 31 square miles with the preponderance of this area being above the proposed site. I take issue with that 31 square miles cause I counted land sections onÖ..thereís 3 maps there and I got 60 miles a square foot which would be over 30,000 acres and as Bruce Miller said there are subdivisions they have waived drainage because of the close proximity to the river. I think the most important thing is the storm water detention, if you could visualize along this creek if we had small dams on all the tributaries to Cypress Creek and then they have a rain event and it rains real hard and everybodyÖ.when water arrived at the creek they opened the sluice gate and let the water flow into the creek, if every little tributary did that and our water was released simultaneously, our water would be in the river before the water from the headwaters ever got down to our location and hydrology and storm drainage matters, it doesnít make a whole lot of sense to require retention on this location and we have requested that you give us a waiver on it.

 

Carl Conner: Any other comments?

 

Andy Easley: No, I really donít.

 

Bruce Miller: Mr. Chair, could I speak?

 

Carl Conner: Sure, go ahead.

 

Bruce Miller: Mr. Biggerstaff, who is an engineer here in Warrick County just made some brief comments to me that I think would be appropriate to this discussion.

 

Carl Conner: Please state your name.

 

James H. Biggerstaff: James H. Biggerstaff, one of the things and I own all the property to the South along the river there which borders Cypress Creek, but when the locks and dam was built the original discharge was there right in front of the locks and dams and that bridge was moved. So, they have a flowage easement in there which maintains about a 3-foot elevation, so as far as storm retention, you know that whole area in there which you see as wetlands now is all retention and I think that this huge drainage way that the Corps of Engineers built through there is a discharge right out of this property, so Iím in concurrence, you know, your right there, your right at the point of it and I own everything on the South side, which discharges through me and that thing is huge which was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and I donít think a lot of these old topoís reflect that. So, if youíve ever driven down there, you notice that area raises up and down, but there is a flowage easement on all that property and that was all designed as a part of that project. There are a lot of records on that in reference to that.

 

Carl Conner: Are you speaking of the present drainage into the river ditch thatÖ..

 

James H. Biggerstaff: Yes, I call it the new Cypress, its actually, everybody refers to it as Cypress, but that was constructed approximately 30 years ago as a new drainage way and thatís a direct discharge from their property to the river.

 

Carl Conner: Thank you, Jim, do you have any comments?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Yes, I feel like, of course, Warrick County has a drainage easement, and it says that thereís to be retention on all developments. There were some of those that has been relaxed like in 1998, but at that time it was a different board and there were no requirements for drainage, but there is now and I also have to look at down the road here. The County is going to have to comply with the federally mandated MS-4 Stormwater Quality Drainage Management Project and this is going to become extensive. So, right now I donít really feel that we should immediately pass on this because we donít know what the extent of the drainage programís going to be and also at the same time the County is developing itís own storm water drainage ordinance that is still under preparation and we hope to have it in place by 3rd quarter by the end of this year.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, in that ordinance that was passed in 2000, is there any exceptions to the requirement of having a retention.

 

Jim Niemeyer: I donít believe so.

 

Carl Conner: Do you have it there in from of you?

 

Jim Niemeyer: I thought I brought it up here.

 

Don Williams: Mr. Easley, could you come up here? It looks like a lot if it is indeed going towards Cypress Creek, is not some of it going this way also?(pointing to the drainage plan) I looked at the elevations, course it looks like this is kind of a hill.

 

Andy Easley: Thereís a little bit of a ridge through here about 10-15% of this property is in a flood way of Cypress Creek and there is really no low ground that is suitable to put retention on.

 

Don Williams: Without modifyingÖÖ..

 

Andy Easley:We would have to almost put retention on some higher ground, your not supposed to put retention facilities in the flood way. Its an unusual piece of property and ifÖ.truly I had an article that I tried to find that they have done computer studies show that most of the drainage systems would be better off if they didnít have retention as far as causing downstream flooding. My analogy of awhile ago about having some dams and sluice gates that could all be opened simultaneously if you can visualize that slug of water and the time it takes to get to the various points along the channel of Cypress Creek, the water from this development would be in the river beforeÖ.so it really isnít going to eliminate downstream flooding and as far as NPDES, thatís a different picture, parking lots are supposed to try to remove 80% of the suspended solvents from the first flush, first hard rain the solvents that run off and that takes grass and thereís some other technology available. But the retention basin really doesnítuh.. isnít going to contribute to that and it really isÖ.If we have to take area out of, you know that canít be devoted to houses thereís going to be lost taxes, the Indianapolis area is starting to debate the desirability of retention basins, theyíve had some drowningís up there, thereís the Nile Virus with mosquitoes and the Health Department, I donít think would vote in favor of it and I predict that within the next 10 years it will be seriously re-examined, they should spend the money on improving the channels so they can carry the run-off to the rivers or to the big creek.

 

Carl Conner: Okay, any other comments?

 

Bruce Miller: Just a brief summarization of what we had discussed, due to a close proximity of the project right on the Ohio River and also I think very important the comments that Mr. Biggerstaff made who has been an Engineer in Warrick County for many years and is a neighbor of mine on this particular piece of property and as a owner of that educated me today on the basis of the New Cypress Creek and the retention capability that is already existing right there before it enters the river. I mean, thereís a huge retention basin already there, additional retention of water on the higher part of this particular ground, when I have creeks all around me, as Andy said, anywhere between 15 & 18% of the particular project already is in a floodway or floodplain. I mean, there is already an established low ground and again I would ask you to consider this based on the fact of itís immediate proximity to the river and secondly we have separate set of Engineers for the Town of Newburgh have allowed a waiver of retention on Windsor Point and the Warrick County Surveyorís also allowed a waiver of retention on Huntington Creek, all projects are in close proximity to the river. Thank you, gentlemen.

 

Carl Conner: Thanks, Bruce.

 

Andy Easley: One other point, weíve been working on these plans for a year and we had a preliminary review as Mr. Miller has said and we asked, do you approve of this conceptual plan and you know if your going to require retention, we need to know about it now and I really think that we have a little bit of a Grandfather status and I would beg you to consider that.

 

Carl Conner: Okay, thank you. Any comments or questions from the board?

 

Don Williams: Yes, I look at this and I see most of it running toward Cypress Creek also, but I am not a licensed Surveyor, what I would like to do with this and I know that Jim has a licensed Surveyor retained. I would like to table this for two weeks and have a licensed Surveyor look at this and make sure at what weíre seeing is a fact, Iím not willing to go against it without that.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, is that possible?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Thatís agreeable

 

Carl Conner: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion or is that a motion?

 

Don Williams: Yes sir, I would move that we table this for two weeks and see if a licensed Surveyor will certify that no drainage retention is required.

 

Carl Conner: What is the date of the third meeting?

 

Don Williams: August 24th.

 

Carl Conner: August 24th ,Okay.

 

Don Williams: It looks like a nice subdivision, I donít have any problems with the subdivision, I just want to make sure.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to table the request until August 24, 2005 meeting, have a second? Second. All in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero.

 

STONECREEK-AMENDED PLAT:

 

Jim Niemeyer: Dave Meyers is owner of Stonecreek and wanting to amend the plat for a change of drainage and vacation of an easement.

 

Carl Conner: State your name for the record please.

 

David Meyers: David Meyers and I own Stonecreek Subdivision and this isÖretention pond that there are some calculations that were different on a couple of documents so we need to probably put it off two weeks to get the approvals, we had already talked to Jim earlier.

 

Carl Conner: So you just want us to table it until August 24?

 

David Meyers: Yes, table it for two weeks until we get those all straightened out.

 

James H. Biggerstaff: What weíre going to do is do a has built which shows 35,000 cubic feet ( the rest of what Mr. Biggerstaff said is not decipherable as he was not on the microphone).

 

Don Williams: Move to table Stonecreek Amended plat.

 

Carl Conner: Until August 24, 2005. Thank you, Gentlemen. Okay, Jim?

 

Don Williams: Thereís a motion on the floor to table, it needs a second.

 

Carl Conner: I didnít think weíd have to do that, but I second it, all in favor state by saying aye

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero.

 

Don Williams: Doesnít it require a motion like that to keep it on the agenda?

 

David Zengler: Yes

 

REBURN VS JACOBS:

 

Jim Niemeyer: This is a very short report, Mr. Reburn would like to terminate his complaint that he filed and I have a signed letter that he provided.

 

Don Williams: Yes, we have a copy. I move that the Reburn-Jacobs issue be removed from the agenda, based on the request for termination.

 

Carl Conner: Second. All in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero.

 

RETENTION POND DRAINAGE-GOURLEY PLACE-PAM TRICKEY

 

Jim Niemeyer: At this point I would like to have Pam Trickey come to the podium.

 

Carl Conner: Do you want to state your name for the record, please.

 

Pam Trickey: Pam Trickey, I have some documents to provide for everybody, if you donít mind me giving them out.

 

Sherri Rector:I wrote her a letter because we received a complaint in our office that they had constructed a fence within the retention area and the legal drain. You are required to get permits for fences now and sheíll have to get a variance if she wants to leave it there, for her first step is she needs to get permission from you to leave it within the legal drain Right-of-Way or there will be no reason to even file for the variance, so that is how she got here.

 

Carl Conner: Then sheíll file for the variance if we approve it.

 

Sherri Rector: Yes, if you allow the fence to remain there.

 

Carl Conner: She files that then with Area Plan?

 

Sherri Rector: Yes.

 

Carl Conner:Thanks, Sherri.

 

Pam Trickey: Iíve got some documentation here for you, Iíve got 2 pieces of documentation, one is what I call just notes and timeline and the other one is documentation again from Sherri, specifically starting this process. On the packet of information thatís not the notes and timeline, the letter indicates again that we have a fence that is encroaching in the Gardner-Webb Ditch Drain Right-of-Way, going to the timeline for a moment, just to give you a brief reference of where things started. When we started our new home on 7640 St. Jordan Circle in August of 2004, proper permits of course were filed, we completed our home in February 2005. What really started happening in February of 2005 is that we noticed several unsupervised children coming into the area and Iíve listed about 10 separate events of unsupervised children somewhere between the ages of 2 & 12. They would fish or sit down by the pond and so from my standpoint and my husbands standpoint ( we also have two children) very concerned about the safety of this retention pond. I couldnít tell you how deep it is right now, Iím sure with all the silt and everything else that comes from the subdivision, itís probably a lot more shallow than it was. But, Iím sure itís more than 3-feet deep is all I can say on the retention pond.

The retention pond actually is the drainage for Part 8 of Gourley Place, it is the entire drainage for the area, there are two retention ponds in Gourley Place, I have lot 18 & 19 that are part of this retention pond. The other retention pond is, I believe itís lot either 43 or 45. My request is to allow our fence to encroach in that drainage area to give us some ability to maintainthat retention pond. The sides of the retention pond where the retention pond butts up to Part 7 there is no area to maintain that pond, itís right up on the edge of Part 8 to Part 7. So, basically, what I wanted to do is to point out that the request is specifically for those two lots and thereís only another lot that has a retention pond on it. The information that I had received for seeking a variance is that I needed to talk with the utility providers to seek a consent agreement from them. So, in the packet youíll see that I have pursued the consent agreement from SBC, I have that consent agreement, Chandler Utilities and then also SIGECOM, Iím working with Vectren, Iíve been speaking to several individuals there, Thomas Athaposey, Jack McKindry and also another gentleman, Rick, I believe is his name, trying to make sure that we can make coordination between investigating what the fence is sitting on etc. So, Iím still waiting on their information. You can see a drawing, actually I have a scale drawing here if anyone did need to see this on the plat itself, this is just a larger version of the drawing that I have right here, you can see that our lots of lots 18 & 19 are highlighted in yellow and you can see the pink area (sorry for the pink) the pink highlighting shows where that fence encroaches upon the drainage area, according to some footage that you can see available on that drawing, its about, at the shortest edge 39-feet to top of ditch or center line of ditch and the largest area is 56-feet from center line of ditch to the edge of that fence. Again, my request is to allow us that extra area where we encroached in that drainage area, so that we could maintain the pond that is the easiest area for us to maintain that pond. From a maintenance standpoint as well you can see on the color photos that Iíve given you in this packet, the color photos you can see a straight shot where you can see the Gardner-Webb Ditch and also that 39 to 56-foot extension area thatís still available behind that fence from an excavatorís standpoint, weíre thinking that that would be, hopefully ample area for an excavator on that side, which also from a backhoe and excavator standpoint on the other side of the fence is what we were looking for from that standpoint. The last piece of documentation that Iíve included in here, Mr. Niemeyer had received an inquiry about the maintenance of that retention pond, that just documents that Lot 18 & 19 which we own, we are responsible for the maintenance of it, there was just some concern of some weeds that are growing in there and I didnít realize how challenging it would be to maintain a retention pond. My background is copper sulfate was supposed to take care of everything, so we treated it with copper sulfate and that did not take care of the weeds, it only takes care of the slimy stuff, the algae. So, I did talk to the County Extension Agent and he came out and suggested using the clyfomate 41, I treated that, so from our standpoint again, we really absolutely will do whatever it takes to maintain that retention pond, whether itís the weeds, the treating of algae etc. So I would request that you allow encroachment to that drainage area, so that we would have ample room to maintain that pond.

 

Carl Conner: Any other comments?

 

Pam Trickey: No

 

Carl Conner: Jim, do you have any comments?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No

 

Carl Conner: Don?

 

Don Williams: Yes, I have a question. In looking at your color photographs, thatís Gardner-Webb Ditch behind the fence there?

 

Pam Trickey: Yes, thatís correct.

 

Don Williams: How far is that off the ditch, I think you said that but I didnít write it down.

 

Pam Trickey: On the shortest side, as your looking at that top photo, on the shortest side thatís the 39-feet and then the largest extension was 56-feet.

 

Don Williams: Thatís what I needed to know, thank you.

 

Carl Conner: I have one question for our attorney. I think that we have an ordinance that says that basically, there should not be any structures in water Right-of-Way or we opening ourselves to any potential liability if we would grant her request to allow that fence to continue to be where it presently is?

 

David Zengler: Actually the question is, itís really a state law that provides that 75-foot easement, as in any liability, I guess the easy answer for the attorney is yes, I guess there would be some liability.

 

Don Williams: It seems to me there would be less with the fence.

 

David Zengler: Yeah, that is sort of where I was going, it may be less with yeah, your chances of something happening would probably be less with the fence.

 

Don Williams: I know with the, when we have to change drains to Urban Drains, we go down to 35-feet without any problem and I think thereís plenty of room to get in there and clean that area, but I would be willing to go ahead and approve her request, of course with the understanding that the fence would come down if it got in the way of cleaning out the ditch.

 

Carl Conner: That was the only question I have, I would look for a motion from the Board.

 

Don Williams: Mr. President, I would move that we grant the request to allow the encroachment stay in the legal easement with the understanding that it will be removed should that drain need cleaned and it became necessary to remove it.

 

Carl Conner: I have a motion on the floor to approve the request, need a second, got a second, passes two to zero. Thank you.

 

Pam Trickey: Thank you very much, we appreciate it.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Has that chemical worked?

 

Pam Trickey:It is working, I actually have done it for 4 or 5 days now and the weeds are dying. I am very pleased.

 

Jim Niemeyer: I thought that maybe Gary might give you an answer.

Pam Trickey: He had the right answer and he has a folder for treating the exact weeds, so thank you very much.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, claims?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Yes sir,

 

Carl Conner: We have claims totaling $4,333.00, is there any questions?

 

Don Williams: I have none.

 

Carl Conner: Do I have a motion to approve?

 

Don Williams: Motion to pay claims.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve to pay the claims in the amount of $4,333.00, do I have a second? Second, All in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero. Jim, do you have any other business?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No, sir.

 

Carl Conner: Don, so you have any business?

 

Don Williams: I have no business.

 

Carl Conner: Dave, do you have any?

 

David Zengler: No.

 

Carl Conner: Having no other business, I would look for a motion to adjourn.

 

Don Williams: So moved.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to adjourn, have a second, second, all those in favor state by saying aye. Aye

 

Don Williams: Aye.

 

Carl Conner: Meeting is adjourned, thank you.