Delaware County drainage board approves reconstruction, hires engineering firm and greenlights multiple tie-ins

The Delaware County Drainage Board on Tuesday approved moving forward with a petition to reconstruct a regulated drain and authorized hiring Lochmuller Engineering to survey and design the project.

The board opened a petition hearing on a reconstruction request tied to property associated with Dale Connor and discussed whether the work should extend up to Hogg (Hog) Creek. After members said there was adequate landowner support, a motion to proceed with reconstruction of the new section passed on a roll-call vote. An unidentified board member moved the reconstruction motion; recorded "Yes" votes in the transcript were from Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Miss Reagan, Mister Christie and Mister Boffo.

Board members said they had spoken with Lochmuller Engineering by Zoom and that the firm has an engineer assigned to the project. "I am in favor of hiring Lochmuller to provide their services for this reconstruction project," a board member said during discussion. The board then voted to contract with Lochmuller; recorded votes in the transcript were 'Yes' from Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Mister Ginn, Mister Christie and Mister Welcome. The board requested a written proposal and a scope of services to be presented at a future meeting.

The board also considered and approved requests to connect private perimeter tiles to county-regulated ditches. Members discussed a proposal from Rick Wood of Earthworks Land Services to tie a 6-inch perimeter tile into Ferguson Creek and approved the connection after staff indicated no regulatory conflict. The motion passed with recorded 'Yes' votes from Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Miss Reagan, Mister Christie and Mister Balco.

Separately, staff described a request by a property owner (referred to as Mr. Winter) who had hired a contractor to tie a 15-inch drain into an existing 18-inch regulated drain near Walnut and 800 North to serve roughly 150 acres. The transcript records staff estimating the potential flow into the regulated drain at about 2,000,000 gallons per day. The board approved that tie-in after discussion of onsite issues such as sinkholes and contractor qualifications.

The board reviewed an updated debrushing list for county ditches and agreed to write specifications and seek quotes for multiple locations, adding higher-priority items including the Abe McConnell reconstruction and debrushing on No Name Creek. A surveyor noted weather and holiday schedules had delayed some surveying and topographic work but expected activity before the January meeting if conditions allow.

Finally, the board discussed a contractor invoice with a 20% retainage for cleanup related to a prior job and voted to approve the maintenance claims. A board member explained that withholding 20% until completion is a common practice to ensure final cleanup. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn and holiday wishes from members.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to proceed with reconstruction of the new regulated drain (petition referenced to Dale Connor): Passed (recorded 'Yes' — Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Miss Reagan, Mister Christie, Mister Boffo). - Motion to hire Lochmuller Engineering for reconstruction engineering services: Passed (recorded 'Yes' — Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Mister Ginn, Mister Christie, Mister Welcome). - Motion to approve Earthworks tying a 6-inch perimeter tile into Ferguson Creek: Passed (recorded 'Yes' — Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Miss Reagan, Mister Christie, Mister Balco). - Motion to approve tying a 15-inch drain into existing 18-inch regulated drain (Walnut/800 North): Passed (recorded 'Yes' — Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Miss Reagan, Mister Christie, Mister Buffel). - Motion to approve maintenance claims (including an invoice with 20% retainage): Passed (recorded 'Yes' — Mister Whitehead, Mister Hamilton, Miss Reagan, Mister Christie, Mister Buckle).

The board asked staff to secure formal proposals from the engineering firm and to return with cost estimates and scopes of work at future meetings. No final construction contracts or final engineer-approved plans were presented or adopted at this meeting; the votes documented here authorize the next procedural steps.