MINUTES

WARRICK COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD

COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM

107 W. Locust Suite 303

Boonville, IN 47601

August 24, 2005

3:00 P.M.

 

 

 

The Warrick County Drainage Board met in regular session with President Carl Jay Conner presiding, also in attendance were Phillip H. Baxter, Vice-President; Don Williams, Secretary; James E. Niemeyer, Surveyor and David K. Zengler, Attorney for the Board. Also present was Sean M. Owen, Deputy Surveyor.

 

Minutes recorded by Cheryl D. Embry.

 

Audience that was present at this meeting was Bill Bivins, Jim Biggerstaff, David Meyers, Bruce Miller, Andy Easley and Sherri Rector.

 

President Carl Conner called the Warrick County Drainage Board meeting of August 24, 2005 to order.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Carl Conner: The first order of business is minutes from August 10, 2005, is there any additions or deletions or discussion relative to August 10, 2005?

 

Don Williams: I have none.

 

Carl Conner: Hearing none I would look for a motion to approve August 10, 2005 as submitted.

 

Don Williams: I would make a motion to do that, to approve the minutes, also not part of the motion I would like to just tell Cheryl she really does a good job, I donít think weíve told you that in a while and very seldom do we ever see an error and I really appreciate that, but my motion is to approve.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve and to give an award to cheri (laughter) do I have a second?

 

Phil Baxter: Iíll have to abstain

 

Carl Conner: Iíll second, all in favor state by saying aye, passes two to zero.

 

Phil Baxter: With one abstention.

Carl Conner: with one abstention.

 

Phil Baxter: Iím not abstaining on your good work, (laughter)

 

Carl Conner:Discussion items, Stone Creek Subdivision, Jim.

 

STONE CREEK SUBDIVISION:

 

Jim Niemeyer: We have Mr. David Meyer and Jim Biggerstaff representing the subdivision, they want to have an amended plat approved for vacating an easement.

 

Sean Owen: The calculations were done at a 25-year storm, we usually do 50 now, but the whole thing was approved at a 25 back in 96, thatís why they did it that way, they are going to try and approve it pending some changes to the slopes on these, because the slopes they are at now, they are showing over-capacity. He said that he had some drainage calculation changes to it, but he couldnít get them to me today, this one (pointing to the plat) and this one. He said he was going to change the slopes, which would in turn make it to where they are not flowing at above capacity. We talked to Steve, he said it was fine as long as those were above capacity.

 

Carl Conner: Don, do you want to see these? Phil?

 

They both answered they watched as Sean had shown them to him.

 

Carl Conner: Do you want to state your name for the record and if you have anything to say?

 

Dave Meyers: My name is Dave Meyers and Iím the developer of Stone Creek Subdivision and this is Jim Biggerstaff and he is the Engineer that designed the subdivision.

 

Carl Conner: Does anybody have any questions or concerns or comments?

 

Phil Baxter: I have none.

 

Don Williams: No, this is just a discussion item, right?

 

Jim Biggerstaff: This is an amendment is what it is, we amended it from the original drainage and then I will stipulate we talked about changing the slope on that pipe about 16 hundredths.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, do you have any comments?

 

Jim Niemeyer: I recommend that we approve the amended plat pending receiving the calculation changes showing the pipes are no longer flowing at over-capacity.

 

Jim Biggerstaff:Yeah, we need to be at 1% itís .65 I believe and weíll change that to 1%.

Carl Conner: Okay, do I have a motion to approve the change to the Stone Creek Subdivision?

 

Don Williams: So moved with the conditions that Jim just stated.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve the revised plat as submitted based upon contingencies that were just discussed by the County Surveyor, do I have a second?

 

Phil Baxter: Second

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes three to zero. Thank you, Gentlemen. The next item is Sandals Subdivision Section B, is that plat 2?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Part 2

 

Carl Conner: Learn something everyday.

 

SANDALS SUBDIVISION SECTION B PT 2:

 

Jim Niemeyer: Sandals Subdivision is represented by Mr. Bill Bivins.

 

Carl Conner: State your name please.

 

Bill Bivins: Bill Bivins, Engineer for Murphy Homes, Inc. Iím doing two things, Iíd like to clarify where the top of bank is in Sandals Section B Subdivision, we had the former County Surveyor come out and stake the lots and we shot them in and youíll see the original plans, they differ from the second set of plans, so two things weíd like to do is to establish where the top of bank is and also at that time we re-located the retention basin, which is blue and on the map that you are looking at, in a little different location, but when we changed the size of it, it made it larger. So, if you look at the second plat there, we would also like to move the green drainage easement to the South 15-feet.

(Leaving the podium and pointing on the plat) this was the original proposal and these distance reflect it when that was a 75-foot top of bank. Well, we had some discussion as to where that top of bank really was so I had Karan go out and actually lay it outÖÖ

(there were several conversations going on at the same time without anyone actually talking directly into a microphone, so with all the different conversations this part was indecipherable.)

Don Williams: Why do you want to do that?

 

Bill Bivins: Itís basically because we have a lot right here (on plat) that only has about 40-feet and this will give the lot more room. You still have 35-feet of area from top of the bank to work and Murphy did slope those banks back and seeded them.

 

Don Williams: Is this the center line of the ditch? Or is this the topÖÖ

 

Bill Bivins: That is the property line and it is not exactly the center-line of the ditch, the ditch really varies up and down.

 

Don Williams: This was marked center of Tanglewood Ditch?

 

Bill Bivins: That was what wasÖ.this you could determine from center-line ifthe property line was a straight line but it followed the ditch down. If you look at the second one, Iíll show you what happened with the ditch down here. (Still showing on plat) The ditch is actually down in here so it didnít affect us down here, so it doesnít affect those lots from top of bank.

 

Don Williams: You already have that as Urban Drains?

 

Bill Bivins: Yes, weíve changed them to Urban Drains or not Urban, Itís a Rural Drain. I was telling Jim I went to a continued education class and I found out that we do not have Legal Drains, we have Regulated Drains.

 

Carl Conner: Like I said you learn something new every day. Do you have any additional comments? Any questions or concerns from the Board?

 

Phil Baxter: I have none.

 

Don Williams:No, as long as weíre sure that 35-footís enough, your comfortable with that Jim, getting in there and cleaning.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, do you have a recommendation?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Make a recommendation that we go ahead and proceed.

 

Carl Conner: Do we have a motion to approve the Sandalwood Subdivision section B, is that Part 2?

 

Bill Bivins:Section B, just say Section B, that will cover both parts.

 

Carl Conner: Section B revised plan.

 

Phil Baxter: I move to approve.

 

Carl Conner: I have a motion on the floor to approve, do we have a second?

 

Don Williams: Second.

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes three to zero. Thanks. Next issue is Lexington Subdivision- Barrington Development Group, Jim.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Yes, this will be represented by Mr. Miller.

 

Bruce Miller: Bruce Miller with Barrington Development Group. At our last Drainage Board meeting it was a recommendation of the Board to have a review by a licensed Surveyor to determine if Barrington could be allowed to waive retention in Lexington Subdivision which is located at the intersection of Ferstal and Vanada, at that meeting my Engineer made a presentation on what our thoughts were on why we did not need retention based on the close proximity to the river and major creeks that abut the subdivision all around the subdivision, immediately across the street on Ferstal and throughout the subdivision of the undeveloped section the future section to be developed on that hundred and eight acres. So, I would ask for your input of what you found out and then I would like to ask another speaker to speak on my behalf regarding that piece of property who has ownership of property adjacent to me currently where Lexington Subdivision developed.

 

Carl Conner: Thanks, Bruce. Jim, you want to fill us in, in regards to the report that you have received from Steve Sherwood, the Engineer and any additional information.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Yes, I have a letter that I received from Steve and what he says is that, well, I can just read it to you. Itís addressed to me and it says, in response to your requested memo dated August 9th, I submit the following, any development of any subdivisions in Ohio Township must have retention/detention facilities which is in accordance with your office policy. The lone exception to that policy was Huntington Creek Subdivision on Pollack Avenue, which borders the Ohio River, that subdivision was approved in 2003. There is a subdivision Lincoln Wood Estates up stream of this proposed development on Cypress Creek that was approved in 1998 without retention/detention facilities, but it is in Anderson Township. In accordance with your officeís policy, it is my opinion you must follow that policy unless a specific issue can be justified to the Drainage Board that retention/detention facilities are not warranted. Iíve also attached the letter dated August 5, 2005 to DNR from the Area Planning Commission concerning the proposed development within a flood zone. I believe that a response from DNR should be reviewed prior to completion of a final drainage plan approval. Respectively Steven A. Sherwood.

 

Carl Conner: I guess my first question is, have we received any report back from DNR as of yet?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No

 

Carl Conner: Sherri, are you aware of any?

 

Sherri Rector: They said it would be 6-8 weeks.

 

Carl Conner: Six to eight weeks? Okay

 

Bruce Miller: I would like to make one correction to Mr. Sherwoodís letter which indicated in Ohio Township, which includes the Town of Newburgh, if Iím not mistaken, that Ohio Township is included in the Town of Newburgh, am I correct?

 

Don Williams: The Town of Newburgh is in Ohio Township.

 

Bruce Miller: There are two subdivisions within Ohio Township that have no retention and that is Huntington Creek Subdivision as covered in Mr. Sherwoodís letter and also Windsor Pointe Subdivision within the Town of Newburgh that has been waived on retention based on Commonwealth Engineers, who did their studies and allowed the waiver of that, just a clarification of that letter and Jefferson Park, I apologize.

 

Don Williams: Is it Windsor Pointe or Jefferson Park or is it two?

 

Bruce Miller: It is both, Windsor Pointe, which is a hundred and twenty-one lot subdivision at the intersection of Hwy 62 and Ellerbusch and I will let Mr. Easley speak to Jefferson Park, he was the Engineer of record on Jefferson Park, I donít know how many lots in that particular subdivision.

 

Andy Easley: This is Andy Easley, representing Bruce Millerís subdivision, Lexington Subdivision. Again, I would like to reiterate hydraulically the run-off from this subdivision would be better for Cypress Creek if it went directly to the river, it has about four thousand feet to flow, when you think of the sixty square miles North of this subdivision that water would be en route quite a bit later and itís better for the stream to have the downstream water, if itís close to the ultimate disposal source to be released. I think I discussed that last time that itísÖÖyou know when the fraternity boys sometimes get together and decide itís fun to have a stop watch and everybody flush the toilets at the same time, it overflows the plumbing. Itís better to have it in sequence, it really is. I mean, thereís policies, but I think this is as an outstanding example of a subdivision that you could waive the retention on and not be criticized by anybody.

 

Bruce Miller:I would like Mr. Jim Biggerstaff who owns property adjacent to Lexington to speak to this particular issue, heís had the property, how long Jim?

 

Jim Biggerstaff: About 12-15 years.

 

Bruce Miller: Okay, so he has a fairly good history of the water levels in that piece of property and I would like him to speak on this also, please.

 

Jim Biggerstaff: I would like to address retention. Retention was set up primarily to control the discharge of areas that were increased in the Warrick County drainage, which didnít have adequate capacity. So, Purdue University developed the HERPICS Manual and the whole intent of that is to help the Drainage Board design retention, release it at the original rate it had been released into major drainage ways were inadequate and to me thatís retention. But, here we have the Ohio River, we have Cypress Creek, so it doesnít make sense to have retention discharge into an area that is a flood plain anyway. So, it doesnít seem practical just because itís set by ordinance to have retention in an area that has no effect on anybody downstream and downstream to me is Cypress Creek and the Ohio River flood plain and thatís what they are discharging to, they are not discharging to another ditch or to another area where it would affect anybody downstream., but controls CFS or flow. So, it seems very, very uneconomical to design retention to release water into a flood plain.So, it makes no sense to me whatsoever Engineering wise, mathematical wise or retention wise, why have retention above a flood plain, itís to control drainage ways downstream and this is the Ohio River.

 

Bruce Miller: I would ask the Board to look at the practicality of what weíre asking here today with Huntington Creek, Jefferson Park and Windsor Pointe, all having close proximity to the river, that Lexington, I feel falls within that same category of close proximity to the river and adequate width creeks to carry that water into the river without requiring retention. It was my understanding that when Mr. Williams requested a clarification of this for the Board to have a better understanding, my understanding of that was, the Licensed Engineer was going to get a statement justifying or not justifying this particular situation and what I heard in the letter was a basic regurgitation of what the ordinance is. I did not hear any additional information that related to a specific project whether it was a positive to do this or a negative, it was just a statement of policy and I would request some umÖÖ..a common sense approach to taking a look at this project based on the criteria that was used for Windsor Pointe, Jefferson Park and Huntington Creek due to its proximity to the river. Thank you.

 

Carl Conner: Any comments or questions from the Board?

 

Phil Baxter: Are Jefferson Park and Windsor Pointe in the City of Newburgh?

 

Bruce Miller: Yes, both of those projects are within the town limits. But, again are under the ordinance of Ohio Township.

 

Andy Easley:Jefferson Park property was annexed, they decided that they maybe for political reasons would join Newburgh, but they had to be annexed into Newburgh otherwise it would have been in the County. I think they debated whether or not they wanted to go in the County.

 

Sherri Rector:Jefferson Park and Windsor Pointe were never approved by the county Drainage Board. They were approved by Newburgh Planning Commission and Town

Board so it does not fall under your policies because their in the town, I know is what Phil is trying to point out, they were never approved by this Board. They are in Ohio Township, thatís the only thing.

 

Carl Conner: So, basically, what weíre saying is out of these three that you have named there is really only one subdivision that had County approval to be built without retention.

 

Bruce Miller: That is correct. The point that I would make, I would hope that the engineers within Southern Indiana are all quality engineering companies and Commonwealth Engineer, I know is a major engineering firm, which has its base out of Indianapolis, if Iím not mistaken, so they draw from not only the resources at their local office here at Commonwealth. They draw on the resources out of Indianapolis too and their evaluation of the need of retention, their recommendation as the advising engineers or the Engineers for the Town of Newburgh determined it was not required for Windsor Point nor for Jefferson Park. You are correct, it was not approved here, but the criteria that those engineering firms protecting the Town of Newburgh felt that retention was not necessary.

 

Andy Easley: Just one more comment, the channel and the depth of the channel of Cypress Creek at that point and the width of it, itís a deep creek thatís fairly wide and thereís nobody between this subdivision and the Ohio River thatís going to be protected from flooding and if the water is allowed to be released, their water in a storm if itís an area wide storm, their water will be in the Ohio River long before the water from the sixty square miles upstream ever gets to the Northerly boundary line. And we have to be objective when weíre designing things, if there were a County park going on this property, I would think it would be a waste of property to require the County Parks Department to put in a retention basin, if I were the consultant, I would be telling you the same thing and I think Iím a reasonably competent engineer and the Drainage Board can beÖis competent and I think you need to be objective that this is a case where you can waive drainage and nobody is going to criticize you, there is not a single farmer in that 4,000-feet of stream reach thatís going to be saved from flooding and get his crops in later because of this subdivision when you consider the total drainage area. Now, gentlemen, thatís the truth.

 

Carl Conner: Thank you, any other comments from the Board? Phil, did you have anything else?

 

Phil Baxter: No

 

Carl Conner: Don, did you have anything else?

 

Don Williams: Not at this point and time, no.

 

Carl Conner: Okay, I have two comments. First, I have to say that Iím not an engineer and I probably donít understand 50% of what was said here in regards to the support of not requiring the subdivision to meet standards that have been established by the County. However, I am open to what you have said, but there are some, I believe some, for me anyway to make a reasonable judgment to cast a vote, thereís some additional information that I need. One of them would be that I would like to see the report from DNR and secondly, Iím sure that you all are well aware of the fact that we have drafted a ordinance primarily as a result of regulations that are being put on us relative to storm water. We have hired a consultant, which Iím sure you are probably well aware of, was Bernardin & Lochmueller and we have been dealing primarily with Henry Nordours, my motion would be that we table this request until November 23rd of 05 at which time we can have input and we will have public input from Henry Nordours in addition to that maybe at that point and time we will have the information that Iím looking for back from DNR, thatís a motion, I donít know whether thatís going to float, I just would have to ask for a second and see if we get a second.

 

Don Williams: You said November, you meant 3 months?

 

Carl Conner: November 23rd is the day before Thanksgiving.

 

Phil Baxter: Thatís 90 days.

 

Carl Conner: Well, weíre talking 6-8 weeks or we not to get the DNR report?

 

Sherri Rector: Thatís what they said yesterday.

 

Don Williams: I think it would be premature to approve before we get the report from DNR, but I would like toÖIím willing to look at it as soon as we get that report. I donít know what would be the best way to do that, butÖÖ.

 

Carl Conner: Well, thatís the motion on the floor, do I have a second, weíll take care of the motion thatís on the floor at the present time.

 

Don Williams: Iím willing to table, Iím just not willing to do it for 90 days.

 

Carl Conner: Right, I understand and thatísÖ..

 

Don Williams: Iíd rather table it until the meeting after we get the report back, if we could do it like that, soÖ..

 

Carl Conner: Well, thatís the motion at the present time, so lets see if we get a second, if we donít get a second, then the motion dies for lack of a second. Iíd ask for a second that we table it until November 23, 2005 for purposes of having the DNR report and also having input from Bernardin & Lochmueller.

 

Phil Baxter: I would like to do it in less than that if possible.

 

Carl Conner:So then I assume my motion dies for lack of second. Okay, Iím looking for a motion then in regards to tabling the request until a certain period of time.

 

Don Williams: Any idea how long itís going to take to get DNR back, Sherri?

Sherri Rector: Yesterday they said 6-8 weeks but it could be 4 weeks, you know they said 6-8 weeks because they hadnít even assigned it to anyone yet to start the review.

 

Don Williams: So, it could be November 23rd, I believe. I would make the motion that we table this until the meeting following their getting the DNR report back whenever that may be.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to table it until the first meeting after the DNR report is submitted to the County, do I have a second?

 

Phil Baxter: Second.

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Bruce Miller: Could I, is thereÖ.

 

Carl Conner: One second please, weíre taking a vote.

 

Bruce Miller: YouÖ.thereís noÖyou have to have discussion.

 

Carl Conner: Weíve already had discussion, weíre taking a vote. You can agree with it Bruce or you canít, but this is the way itís going to be done. Iíve asked for a vote, weíve already had a motion, weíve had a second, weíve had discussion, youíve had plenty of opportunity to discuss the issue, now itís up for a vote. What is the vote? All in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes three to zero. Thatís the decision. Now, if youíd like to talk about it go right ahead.

 

Bruce Miller: Sherri, on the DNR report ofÖ..

 

Carl Conner: Excuse me a minute, Bruce if you have comments that are relative to Sherriís position or her office you donít have to do it here in a public meeting, then what Iíd suggest is you make an appointment with her because we have other issues on the agenda, decision has been made by this Board.

 

Bruce Miller: Carl, do you have a thorough understanding of what is expected in the DNR report?

 

Carl Conner: Absolutely not, thatís what I just stated a minute ago.

 

Bruce Miller: Would you like to have a better understanding of what would be expected in a DNR report?

 

Carl Conner: We will have all that information and she can explain it to us when we get the DNR report. Next item on the agenda is claims.

 

CLAIMS:

 

Phil Baxter: I move to approve the claims in the amount of $1,106.84.

 

Don Williams: I second the motion.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve the claims in the amount of $1,106.84, do I have a second.

 

Don Williams: second

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye.

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes three to zero. Jim, do you have any other business to come before this Board?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No sir.

 

Sean Owen: Yes, we do, the Vacation of that easement in Wynntree Villas.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Wait a minute. We have one more that didnít make it in time for the preparation of the agenda.

 

WYNNTREE VILLAS:

 

Don Williams: Is that on our Commissionerís Agenda?

 

Sean Owen: Yes, itís on your agenda for 4:00 today. This is a copy of the original plat, this was actually stated when it was recorded that it was going to be vacated and here is the description.

 

Carl Conner: Does anybody have any questions or concerns?

 

Don Williams: I vaguely remember that.

 

Carl Conner: Do I have a motion to approve the request?

Don Williams: So moved.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve the request for, I think itís public utility and drainage easement, is that correct?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Yes

 

Carl Conner: Do I have a second?

 

Phil Baxter: Iíll second it.

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes three to zero. Phil, do you have anything to bring before the Board?

 

Phil Baxter: No sir.

 

Carl Conner: Don?

 

Don Williams: No

 

Carl Conner: Dave?

 

David Zengler: No

 

Carl Conner: Having no further business, I would ask for a motion to adjourn.

 

Don Williams: So moved

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion to adjourn, do I have a second?

 

Phil Baxter: Second

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes three to zero. Adjourned.