Jasper County, Indiana



THE JASPER COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD MET ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2014 AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE COMMISSIONERS ROOM, JASPER COUNTY COURTHOUSE, RENSSELAER, INDIANA WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD MAXWELL (CHAIRMAN), KENDELL CULP (MEMBER), AND JAMES WALSTRA (MEMBER). ALSO PRESENT WERE VINCE URBANO (SURVEYOR), JOHN CASEY (ATTORNEY), JACK HABERLIN (ENGINEER), RHONDA ELDRIDGE (SECRETARY), AND ROBERT HALL (SPECIAL MEMBER).Chairman, Richard Maxwell called the meeting to order.1:00 P.M. JOSEPH NAGEL DITCH #155 – PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATIONBARKLEY TOWNSHIPDue to a conflict of interest, Kendell Culp recused himself from all matters pertaining to the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 county regulated drain. Robert Hall had been appointed by the Jasper County Drainage Board to replace Kendell Culp in all matters pertaining to the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 county regulated drain.The Surveyor stated during the September 2, 2014 public hearing regarding the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 there were a couple landowner’s which had discrepancies in the watershed created by the Jasper County Surveyor’s office. The Surveyor stated the landowner’s with discrepancies were to provide the Surveyor’s office with an engineered profile confirming the alteration to the watershed. The Surveyor stated, as to date, there had not been any engineered profiles received contradicting the watershed developed by the Surveyor’s office.Urbano stated there were a couple modifications made to the watershed to improve the accuracy of it.The Surveyor stated the proposed Estimated Total Cost of Reconstruction of the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 is $31,191.03. This proposed project would be collected for a period of five years and the annual collection would be $28.731 per acre with a minimum of $5.00 for tracts five acres or smaller. This proposed assessment would be established throughout the entire watershed to pay for the proposed reconstruction.The proposed cost of periodically maintaining the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 would be $10.33 per acre for 1,085.6236 acres with a $5.00 minimum for tracts of five acres or smaller for a collection period of four years or until the maintenance fun totals $11,214.88.James Walstra made a motion to approve the reconstruction schedule of assessments for the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 at a rate of $28.731 per acre with a minimum of $5.00 for tracts five acres or smaller and the maintenance schedule of assessments for the Joseph Nagel Ditch #155 at a rate of $10.33 per acre with a minimum of $5.00 for tracts of five acres or smaller for a period of four years or until the maintenance fund totals $11,214.88. Robert Hall seconded the motion. Motion approved.APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 6, 2014 MEETING MINUTESKendell Culp made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2014 meeting. James Walstra seconded the motion. Motion carried.NIPSCO GOODLAND MONTICELLO – OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILDSEAN B. FOX – NATURAL RESOURCE PERMITTING COORINATOR 2During the July 7, 2014 Jasper County Drainage Board meeting Sean B. Fox, Natural Resource Permitting Coordinator 2, NIPSCO advised the Drainage Board of the replacement of each existing utility pole with a new pole and adding new conductors as well to connect the substation in Goodland to the substation in Monticello down State Highway 24. Jack Haberlin, Jasper County Engineer, suggested the execution of a Hold Harmless Agreement for the purpose of any county regulated tile which may be damaged during the installation of a pole by NIPSCO. Richard Maxwell stated the NIPSCO Goodland Monticello Overhead Transmission Line Rebuild project could proceed with the execution of a Hold Harmless Agreement.Drainage Board Secretary, Rhonda Eldridge, stated that Drainage Board Attorney, John Casey, prepared a Hold Harmless Agreement for the NIPSCO Goodland Monticello Overhead Transmission Line Rebuild project and was signed by the representative from Northern Indiana Public Service Company. This Hold Harmless Agreement was in need of being signed by the Jasper County Drainage Board.James Walstra made a motion for the execution of the Hold Harmless Agreement for the NIPSCO Goodland Monticello Overhead Transmission Line Rebuild project. Kendell Culp seconded the motion. Motion approved.SCOTT WUETHRICH – WATERSHED DISCREPENCY Scott Wuethrich, Landowner, stated he has a concern regarding the Ringeisen and Lower Ryan watershed. He has owned a sixty acre parcel for many years and twenty acres had always been assessed to the Lower Ryan Ditch. Recently he received an assessment and noticed the benefited acreage had changed.Wuethrich stated he had addressed the issue with the Surveyor’s office personnel last winter when he had received the new assessment. At that time, the surveyor’s office staff advised him they would view his property onsite which never happened. Wuethrich provided his private tile maps for the Surveyor’s review. A letter was sent to the assessor’s office advising them to leave it as it currently is.The Surveyor stated Scott Wuethrich came into the Surveyor’s office at which time he questioned his ditch assessments. Urbano stated he ruled Wuethrich’s assessments would not be changed currently due to the fact that he was notified of the Ringeisen public hearing and he had failed to attend. Urbano stated Wuethrich is bringing this issue up after the fact. Urbano stated there has not been time to go onsite and review Wuethrich’s issues at hand.Urbano stated when a watershed is developed, it is calculated by way of two foot contours and the natural lay of the land only taking into consideration county regulated drains. If the landowner has a contradiction to the watershed developed in the Surveyor’s office they need to hire a licensed engineer to provide a profile proving the alteration in the watershed.Richard Maxwell inquired if Wuethrich had contacted the Surveyor’s office prior or following the public hearing. Wuethrich stated he did not contact the Surveyor’s office prior to the public hearing and did not attend the public hearing.Richard Maxwell stated it is not likely to change things on a watershed after the assessment has been set. Wuethrich stated he understood not being able to change a watershed after the assessment had been set.James Walstra stated a watershed cannot be changed after an assessment has been set.Wuethrich inquired if the funds that he has paid into the Lower Ryan Ditch could be refunded to him. Vince Urbano stated Wuethrich’s assessment has recently been changed so he is not being double assessed for two separate ditches for the same acreage. Richard Maxwell stated there really is not a way of refunding.Kendell Culp inquired if Wuethrich was being double assessed for the acreage he had benefited. Wuethrich stated he was not being assessed double of the acreage he had benefited.1:15 P.M. LAWTON DITCH #166 & LATERAL #1 TO LAWTON #166 – PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATIONKANKAKEE TOWNSHIPThe Surveyor stated during the September 2, 2014 public hearing regarding the Lawton Ditch #166 & Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 reconstruction there was a couple discrepancies in the watershed presented which needed to be addressed prior to a decision being made. The Surveyor stated the landowner’s with discrepancies were to provide the Surveyor’s office with an engineered profile confirming the alteration to the watershed. Urbano stated several years ago the town of Tefft flooded. At that time, the Jasper County Surveyor’s office and the Jasper County Highway Department dug a roadside ditch to allow the water to drain north out of the town which flowed into a private drain and then into the Sands Ditch county regulated drain. This alteration in drainage eliminated the use of the county regulated tile that was filled with sand and allowed the flooding of the town of Tefft. At the time of the alteration in drainage in the town of Tefft, the Surveyor discussed with the drainage board the possibility of abandoning the county regulated tile that is no longer functioning and adopting the private drain along County Road 400 East as well as the private drain that runs to the west and dumps into the Sands county regulated drain.Urbano stated the elimination of using the county regulated tile which runs through the town of Tefft removes approximately forty-four lots from the Lawton Ditch #166 watershed. Urbano stated this re-routing of water has made a big improvement in the drainage to the town of Tefft.Kendell Culp made a motion to exclude the lots/acres within the town of Tefft which should be included in the Sands Ditch due to the re-routing of the water from the Lawton Ditch #166 watershed. Jim Walstra seconded the motion. Motion approved. The Surveyor stated the proposed Estimated Total Cost of Reconstruction of the Lawton Ditch #166 & Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 is $36,800.33. This proposed project would be collected for a period of five years and the annual collection would be $22.848 per acre with a minimum of $5.00 for tracts five acres or smaller. This proposed assessment would be established throughout the entire watershed to pay for the proposed reconstruction.The proposed cost of periodically maintaining the Lawton Ditch #166 & Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 would be $6.10720 per acre for 1,609.5761 acres with a $5.00 minimum for a collection period of four years or until the maintenance fund totals $9,917.45.Drainage Board Secretary, Rhonda Eldridge, presented letters and pictures from affected landowner’s within the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 watershed for the boards review.Richard Maxwell stated landowner letters presented in regards to the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 reconstruction were from Martha Cavinder, Anne L Sheafer Trustee, Matt H Sheafer Trustee, Romelle Schoff, Paul Sands, David Duttlinger, and Ben Duttlinger and are all in favor of the reconstruction. A letter was received by Mac Quigley who stated he is against the reconstruction of the Lawton #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166.Hans Markland, representing The Markland Family Limited Partnership, stated the proposed assessment is fairly high. Markland stated he does not mind paying for drainage, but does not want the beavers to take over and back the water up. Markland stated the brush will need to be removed from both sides of the drain or it is a waste of taxpayer’s money to proceed with a reconstruction. Urbano responded the agencies are in control of how much brush and trees can be removed from a ditch bank during reconstruction. Markland inquired if the ditch bank would be sprayed to keep the brush down. Urbano responded the ditch bank would absolutely be sprayed as needed to keep the brush down which is the purpose of the proposed maintenance assessment. Markland stated when a beaver dam is present, you cannot wait a couple weeks to remove them. They have to be removed immediately.Laura Bapple, Landowner, inquired if the reconstruction of the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 was moving forward. Richard Maxwell stated the reconstruction of the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 would be voted on after public comments. Bapple stated she is on a fixed income and would not be able to afford the assessment for the reconstruction. Maxwell responded a project cannot be abandoned due to one party not being able to afford it. Bapple responded she is not the only one that cannot afford the assessment, Mr. Quigley also is against the reconstruction. Maxwell stated he understands, but the majority rules.Matt Sheafer, Landowner, stated he wanted to address the fact that during the September 2, 2014 public hearing it was stated there is a lot of fall throughout the ditch (approximately 32-33 feet) which sounds like a lot, however, if you look at the actual length of the drain, the fall is like 0.2 percent fall which is very little. On the profile of elevation the first 6,000-8,000 feet the fall is approximately twelve feet and then it turns flat. When the drain approaches State Highway 10 the elevation then again jumps up another 8,000-10,000 feet. So the middle is very flat. The Larry Bucher farm is the highest elevation for the first portion of the drain.Steve Deardorff, Landowner, stated the drain along his property has good fall. Deardorff inquired if the drain would be seeded with grass after the reconstruction. Urbano responded if there is a grassy area which is disturbed, it would be reseeded. Most of the property along the reconstruction of the Lawton #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 is farm ground and the material would be bulldozed back as close to the original status. Maxwell stated if there is a buffer zone which the landowner is getting paid from the conservation service to leave a buffer, it would be reseeded, however, crop land would not be reseeded.Matt Sheafer inquired if it would be reseeded to the original status. Urbano responded any reseeding will not be to the CRP due to the expense. It will be reseeded with a basic waterway mix.Hans Markland stated on the CRP ground if the spoils are laid on the ditch bank, it will re-seed itself.Paul Sands, Landowner, stated he did some research in the Surveyor’s office and discovered the Lawton Ditch #166 was originally two separate ditches. One was named the Finn Ditch which started at the Kankakee River. The Lawton Ditch #166 was added to the Finn Ditch. On February 11, 1892 the paperwork was signed to clean the entire drain. Since 1892 there has not been a whole lot of cleaning done to the drain.Kendell Culp inquired why Paul Sands has not cleaned the drain along his property. Sands replied he was unaware that he had the opportunity to clean the drain along his property. There was no point in cleaning the drain when the landowner downstream had not cleaned his.Sands stated the ditch to the north has two dams in it which has been a problem for him. Urbano inquired if the dams are currently in the drain. Sands replied as far as he is aware the dams are still in the drain and have been in there a long time. Kendell Culp stated those dams will need to be removed. Urbano stated if the dams are not permitted by the agencies and have been reported to the Surveyor’s office they would be removed if the Surveyor detects any harm being done. Urbano stated if a dam is causing harm, they will order them removed or remove them ourselves.Jack Haberlin, Jasper County Engineer, stated Jasper County has an ordinance on file regarding dams which states if there are boards that are holding back water during certain times of the year, they will need to be removed. Some landowners have been known to leave them in all year long. This cannot be done and that is when they need to be checked on. Kendell Culp made a motion to approve the reconstruction schedule of assessments for the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 at a rate of $22.848 per acre with a minimum of $5.00 for tracts five acres or smaller and the maintenance schedule of assessments for the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 at a rate of $6.10720 per acre with a minimum of $5.00 for tracts of five acres or smaller for a period of four years or until the maintenance fund totals $9,917.45. James Walstra seconded the motion. Motion approved.Laura Bapple stated letters had not been sent regarding the continuation of the Lawton Ditch #166 & Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 reconstruction public hearing. The Surveyor replied during the public hearing held on September 2, 2014 for the reconstruction of the Lawton Ditch #166 & Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 it was motioned to continue the hearing until December 1, 2014, so therefore letters were not required to be sent.GEORGIA PACIFIC – WHEATFIELD – DRAINAGE PLANNEW PARKING/STORAGE LOTMARK MCDONALD – TITAN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.Mark McDonald, Titan Construction & Engineering Services, Inc. presented a drainage plan for the proposed new 8,400 square foot gravel parking/storage lot at Georgia Pacific in Kankakee Township, Wheatfield.The Surveyor inquired if the proposed 8,400 square foot gravel parking/storage lot at Georgia Pacific would be draining directly into the Davis Ditch county regulated drain. McDonald responded the proposed gravel parking/storage lot would surface drain directly into the detention pond.Kendell Culp made a motion to approve the drainage plans for the proposed 8,400 square foot gravel parking/storage lot at Georgia Pacific in Kankakee Township, Wheatfield as presented by Mark McDonald, Titan Construction & Engineering Services, Inc. James Walstra seconded the motion. Motion carried.JIM WAIBEL – GUSHWA/MOSQUITO CREEKJames Waibel inquired why Jasper County had cleaned a portion of the Gushwa ditch, but had not continued cleaning east into Newton County. Vince Urbano responded a project had been set up a couple years ago and cleaning was completed to the bridge which gave Newton County an outlet to clean out their Mosquito Creek. Urbano stated there is a crew removing sediment on the Gushwa presently.Vince Urbano inquired why Newton County is not cleaning the Mosquito Creek. Urbano stated Newton County is supposed to be cleaning the Mosquito Creek up to and into the Iroquois River.Waibel stated he spoke with the Newton County Surveyor, Chris Knochel, and he stated that Jasper County is holding up the progress of cleaning Mosquito Creek. Dick Maxwell responded that Jasper County is not holding up the progress of cleaning Mosquito Creek as stated by the Newton County Surveyor.Kendell Culp advised the Jasper County Surveyor to send a certified, return receipt letter from the Jasper County Drainage Board notifying them that the cleaning of the Gushwa is complete in Jasper County and there is a landowner inquiring when Newton County will be cleaning Mosquito Creek. Also include a copy of the meeting minutes where it is discussed during the Newton-Jasper County Joint Drainage Board meeting.Vince Urbano suggested Waibel bring his concern of the cleaning of Mosquito Creek to a Newton County Drainage Board meeting. Richard Maxwell and Kendell Culp stated they have an upcoming meeting which the Newton County Commissioner’s would be attending. Maxwell and Culp stated they would be sure to speak with the Newton County Commissioners regarding the cleaning of Mosquito Creek.BERNARD SEEGERS – ORDINANCEBernard Seegers stated that Jack Haberlin admitted there is an ordinance which boards need to be removed from dams and he would like to know what the ordinance is. Jack Haberlin responded that if it does not exist in Jasper County it was in place in Porter County. Haberlin stated after the time of irrigation the boards would have to be removed and the boards cannot be place again until irrigation time this time includes certain dates.The Surveyor stated the only thing he can recall is the obstruction law which states if a landowner calls and states their neighbor has boards in a dam and he sees the boards are physically doing harm upstream on landowners he will order the boards removed, but if he does not see any harm being done by the boards being placed he will not order them removed. The dams are to be permitted by the DNR, but the DNR does not act on these dams due to there being so many not permitted.Seegers stated the county is taking federal money from the DNR for federal crop insurance and an ordinance was signed stating that they were to abide by this ordinance and the entire county is not abiding. Urbano stated if there is harm being done, the boards are being removed.Seegers stated he is so sick and tired of “if there is damage”. He has to take federal flood insurance now on his house because of the placement of dams. If there are dams placed on the Hodge and Cook ditches and there is a big rain his basement will flood. Urbano inquired if the dams on the Hodge and Cook ditches were installed by Seegers. Seegers stated he did not install them, however, he did pay for some of them but he has all the paperwork stating that all the neighbors have received permits from the Surveyor and DNR to do it and that was the only way he would let them go in. Seegers stated Urbano stated there were not permits on these dams. Urbano replied he has never seen permits. The neighbors signed an agreement that they received all the permits and would abide by all the regulations of Jasper County and they have not. Seegers said now he is suffering with his basement flooding when they place the dams.Seegers stated he wants that ordinance. Seegers inquired if Urbano would like to see the ordinance that the commissioners signed. Seegers said Urbano saw it several times because he brought it to him and he does not enforce it. It states in the ordinance that you are not allowed to block obstructions in ditches, not allowed to take sand. The commissioner’s signed it and let it go. Seegers inquired if Haberlin was going to get him the ordinance. Haberlin stated if it was in Porter County, he will get him a copy of it. Seegers stated if Jack does not know that there is an ordinance, he should not say there is. Seegers stated it is on record. Haberlin stated if he did say there was an ordinance in Jasper County, he is sorry.Richard Maxwell stated Haberlin will look for the ordinance.LAWTON DITCH #166 – PRIVATE DRAINKENDELL CULPKendell Culp stated after the Lawton Ditch #166 and Lateral #1 to Lawton #166 Public Hearing on September 2, 2014 he spoke with Aaron Knezivic, Assistant Surveyor, regarding the purchase of property from Stalbaum to Larry Bucher which private ditch drains the town of Tefft. The Surveyor’s office has tried to contact the current owner, Larry Bucher, to inquire if he would allow the county to adopt the private drain on his property for the continued drainage of the town of Tefft.Culp stated he believes the county needs some sort of easement or something to ensure that the private drain is not blocked in any way to allow the continued drainage of the town of Tefft. Urbano stated the Surveyor’s office has reached out to the new landowners of the property which has the private drain that drains the town of Tefft and they have not responded.Richard Maxwell inquired if the previous landowner had given permission for the county to drain into his private drain and the property sold would those rights carry over with the new landowner. John Casey, Drainage Board Attorney, responded yes and no, if the prior owner had given verbal right and it was in the form of an easement and if it was open obvious and notorious you may be able to claim you had a right of continuing easement but it is not easy to assert those. Casey stated in Indiana anything involving real estate they typically require some sort of writing.Kendell Culp and Richard Maxwell advised Vince Urbano to work with the Drainage Board Attorney to compose a letter to try to gain an easement of the private drain that drains the town of Tefft.Jack Haberlin stated he believes it is in the drainage code that if there is an issue which involves a regulated drain that drains through a private drain the county does have some rights.John Casey inquired what the board is wanting to accomplish in regards to the drainage issue with the town of Tefft. Urbano responded contacting the current landowner whose private ditch drains the town of Tefft to inquire if they would be willing to allow the county to adopt their private drain for the purpose of the continued drainage of the town of Tefft. Casey inquired the length of the drain the county would like to adopt. Urbano replied the length of the drain which the county would like to adopt is approximately a quarter of a mile.ADJOURNKendell Culp made a motion to adjourn the meeting. James Walstra seconded the motion. Motion approved. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download