Commissioners dismiss Nelson No. 131 drainage petition after public hearing; petitioner opposes proceeding

The Delaware County Board of Commissioners dismissed the Nelson No. 131 watershed drainage-improvement petition (filed Oct. 1, 2024 by Hardscrabble Farms Inc. and others) after a preliminary hearing and review of an engineer's report and landowner testimony.

Deputy Administrator for Soil and Water Brett Bacon read the engineer's first-hearing report into the record, summarizing existing conditions and a preliminary cost estimate. Bacon said the watershed (as defined for the hearing) measures approximately 339 acres, is predominantly agricultural and contains existing subsurface tile infrastructure that appears to be functioning as a good and sufficient outlet. The report's preliminary current-value estimate (construction plus survey, administration and first-year startup of maintenance) was $226,566.80; the report noted that this figure is preliminary and that contingency (typically 15%--20%) would be added only after a detailed survey and engineering design.

Bacon also explained assessment rules under Ohio Revised Code Section 61.31 and said annual maintenance assessments are typically in the 2%–5% range of the construction assessment. He recommended that the board consider all testimony, the engineer's analysis of factors favorable and unfavorable under ORC 61.31 and whether benefits exceed costs before deciding whether to proceed to the survey-and-design phase.

During the hearing petitioner and landowner Gary Skinner, who owns property at the outlet and also owns lands within the watershed, testified under oath and said he opposed the petition moving forward. Skinner said the existing tile mains are in excellent condition, noted prior private investment (a privately installed smooth-wall pipe installed in 2015) and said he had recently purchased additional parcels in the watershed; Skinner told the board he could not support proceeding because the potential long-term maintenance assessments would create an unnecessary burden when the system appears to be functioning.

The clerk reported one written letter of opposition from Jean Jumper (1140 Jumper Road), which was placed into the record and provided to the board.

After hearing staff and landowner testimony, commissioners discussed the statutory factors. Each commissioner said they did not find the petition necessary or did not believe that the benefits exceeded the costs given the current system condition and the petitioner's expressed opposition. The board passed Resolution 25-241 to dismiss the petition; the recorded vote was unanimous (Lewis: aye; Merrill: aye; Benton: aye).

Ending: Because the petition was dismissed at the preliminary hearing, no survey-and-design work or assessment schedule will be prepared unless a future valid petition is filed. The petitioner's bond will be returned per the staff'reported procedure.