Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After testimony and new objections, Delaware County commissioners dismiss Zerbe‑O'Keefe watershed drainage petition
Summary
Following engineer testimony on feasibility and cost and written and in‑person objections (including petitioners withdrawing support), the commissioners voted unanimously to dismiss the Zerbe‑O'Keefe No. 265 watershed drainage improvement petition and to distribute costs already incurred to landowners.
The Delaware County Board of Commissioners closed a multi‑year petition process on the Zerbe‑O'Keefe No. 265 watershed drainage improvement project by dismissing the petition after hearing engineer findings and landowner testimony.
Brett Bacon of the Soil and Water Conservation District summarized the petition scope: surface and subsurface drainage improvements, tile replacement, erosion controls and associated work for a watershed of about 249 acres that is roughly 75% agricultural. Bacon presented a construction estimate for Section 1 of $258,320.91 and a total maintenance base of roughly $300,120.12, described the assessment methodology (acres × land‑use factor × percent use) and illustrated amortization examples showing average assessments and payment schedules. He concluded the proposed work is technically feasible but urged the board to weigh landowner testimony on benefit versus cost.
During testimony, the board announced receipt of three written letters objecting or filing exceptions to the assessments, including one from petition originators Gary and Linda Graham. Ronald (Ron) Graham confirmed on the record that his parents no longer supported the petition and asked the board to deny it, saying implementation costs are too high and nearby development reduces agricultural return. Thomas Davis, an owner of four parcels in the watershed, raised concerns about increased flooding from an upstream pump station, contested the value of proposed easements through wooded parcels, and questioned whether many acres would realize benefit from the work.
Commissioners said the record did not support the statutory factors required under state law—whether the improvement is necessary, conducive to the public welfare, and whether benefits exceed costs. On that basis the board voted to set aside the previous order and dismiss the petition under Resolution 26‑441. The board then voted on Resolution 26‑442 to distribute costs already incurred (estimated at $17,500) to the affected landowners in the same ratio as the final estimated assessments presented at the hearing. Both motions passed on unanimous roll call votes.
