Delaware County commissioners voted unanimously to approve the Chancell Gate Watershed drainage improvement project and to confirm the schedule of assessments after a final public hearing in which more than a dozen landowners testified for and against the petition.

The project affects a roughly 84-acre watershed in Concord Township and was proposed by petitioner Stephen Corvey and four others. County and Soil and Water officials presented an engineer’s estimate and assessment method under the Ohio Revised Code before the board considered written objections and live testimony.

County Soil and Water Deputy Administrator Brett Bacon summarized the proposed work and cost. He told the board the project would include surface drain swales, subsurface drainage tile, a blind inlet, erosion-control structures, clearing of vegetation and seeding. He said the engineer’s construction estimate is $81,568.44, with planning/inspection costs of $10,935.57, first‑year maintenance of $4,625.20 and a $13,000 contingency for a total estimated project cost of $110,129.21. "The parcel assessments for this project are within the range of assessments that can be expected for a project of this scope," Bacon said.

The engineer and Bacon explained assessment math the board must use under Ohio law: assessments are allocated to property owners based on acres benefited, land‑use factors and percent use, and state statute requires uplands that have been altered to be considered benefited by a drainage improvement. Bacon summarized payment options: landowners may pay in full within 30 days of the final hearing (with a notice‑of‑intent deadline) or have an assessment placed on the property tax bill as a special assessment that could include interest, bonding costs and the auditor/treasurer’s collection fee.

Petitioner Stephen Corvey, who signed the original petition, urged approval on grounds of property damage, erosion and public‑health concerns. "We really just need to move the water from this pond as it comes in from the inlets and outlet and get it towards the river," Corvey testified, describing repeated flooding of lots and damage to septic systems and yards.

Opponents argued the petition improperly includes all 54 parcels in the mapped watershed when only five parcels would directly benefit. Daryl Miller, who identified himself as Parcel 22, said: "If it's not a regional retention pond, then what is it?" He, and several other residents including civil engineer Rob Court and homeowner Mark Selmick, said most properties sit at higher elevations and lack conveyance to the pond, and therefore should not share assessments. "I think it's easy to say that of 49 of 54, the project is not necessary," neighbor Chad Ellis told the board.

Bacon told the board he did not hear testimony that would change his recommendation and reiterated a technical point the pond itself is not the primary reason for the proposed work: "The drainage problems exist because of a lack of sufficient surface grade, and a lack of an adequate subsurface drainage outlet for the watershed," he said. He also told the board that because many of the subdivision improvements predate modern county stormwater regulations, county inspection or prior county responsibility was not part of the original construction process.

Before taking the vote, the board acknowledged and denied two written objections: resolutions 25‑569 and 25‑570 denied exception claims filed by SDATTA and Paul Parsons, respectively. After hearing live testimony and questions from the board, commissioners voted in favor of a resolution finding in favor of the improvement, affirming the previous order and directing that the project be advertised for competitive bid (Resolution 25‑571). The vote was recorded as Mrs. Lewis: Aye; Mr. Benton: Aye; Mr. Merrill: Aye.

Following the finding in favor, the board voted to confirm assessments, approve the payment schedule and order letting of contracts for the project (Resolution 25‑572). The same three commissioners voted Aye.

The board and staff noted a few implementation details. All approved projects will be advertised for public bid and typically are awarded to the lowest and best bidder. Projects of this type are "typically not subject to prevailing wage," Bacon said. If bids come in under the engineer’s estimate, final assessments would be reduced pro rata and upfront payers would receive a refund. The board also retains discretion whether to assess landowners for costs already incurred if the petition is denied; Bacon estimated the county’s cost to date at about $6,000.

Opponents asked the board to limit assessments to the parcel owners who would directly benefit; the commissioners said state law (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 6131) requires the engineer to consider all uplands that contribute water to the improvement as benefited for assessment purposes. Commissioner Merrill said he sympathized with those who objected but concluded the testimony and the statutory framework supported moving forward. "The benefits to be derived to the watershed exceed the cost," Merrill said.

The board ordered the next steps for the project: confirmments of assessment schedule, decision on bonding/repayment period, and advertisement for bids. Landowners have an option to pay in full within a 30‑day period (with a notice deadline) or to have the assessments amortized on their property tax bill with interest and collection fees. The board did not set the repayment period at the hearing; that will be included in the final schedule if the project proceeds to bidding.

Supporters said the work would reduce future repair costs to septic systems and yards and improve neighborhood maintenance; opponents said the cost is unfairly spread to owners who will see no direct benefit and urged the board to limit liability to those directly affected. The board approved the petition and assessments by unanimous vote and directed staff to proceed with advertisement for bids.

Proposed next steps: the county engineer will advertise the project for competitive bid and return to the commissioners with final contract recommendations and the exact assessment repayment schedule once bids are received and the board decides whether to bond the project.