Delaware County Board of Commissioners,
Delaware County (OH) Board of Commissioners · 2026-06-22
Transcript
Delaware County Commissioners' Session- June 22, 2026
would you please join me in the pledge
of allegiance?
I pledge allegiance
>> to the flag
of the United States of America, and to
the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
>> All right, thank you. I'll do
introductions. I'm Jeff Benton,
president of the board this year. To my
right is vice president and fellow
commissioner Gary Merrell. To my left is
fellow commissioner Barb Lewis, our
administrator Tracy Davies, deputy
administrators Dawn Huston and Eric
Clouse settle over here.
And our clerks are Kathy Melvin and
Jennifer Walraven. We can begin.
>> Resolution number 26-428
in the matter of approving the
electronic record of proceedings from
regular meeting held June 15th, 2026.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? Vote?
>> Vote on motion 26-428.
Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> We do not have any public comment today.
That brings us to item number three.
Resolution number 26-429
in the matter of approving purchase
order.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? Vote?
>> Vote on motion 26-429.
Mr. Merrell?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 26-430
in the matter of a new liquor license
request from SR Square and forwarding to
the Ohio Division of Liquor Control with
no objections and no request for a
hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? [clears throat]
Vote?
>> Vote on motion 26-430.
Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 26-431
in the matter of accepting and approving
the recommendation of the Union County
Board of Commissioners for a maintenance
assessment of 40% for the Ottawa Run
Joint County Ditch.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? Vote, please.
>> Vote on motion 26-431.
Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrill?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 26-432.
In the matter of approving travel
expense requests.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? Vote?
>> Vote on motion 26-432.
Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrill?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 26-433.
[snorts] In the matter of approving the
request for qualifications and technical
proposal for an NFPA
70E arc flash and 70B electrical
maintenance program assessment for
Delaware County facilities.
>> So moved.
>> Second. Discussion?
Vote.
>> My name's Laura Hatcher. I'm the safety
coordinator for the county.
Uh good morning, commissioners.
I'm here because I want to recommend the
approval for the request for technical
or for qualifications and technical
proposals for the arc flash and
electrical maintenance program
assessment. Uh this will be for all
Delaware County facilities.
I am recommending this because the
project's going to evaluate the county's
electrical equipment and electrical
safety programs to identify hazards and
improve system reliability.
The assessment supports compliance with
OSHA, per NFPA,
and
NFPA 70B standards while providing
employees with the training and guidance
needed to work safely.
By proactively addressing these
electrical hazards through analysis,
maintenance, training, and program
development, the county reduces risk,
protects employees, and supports
reliable operations.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
Um any questions or comments?
>> No. Thanks for
it.
>> Yeah.
Well done.
Uh vote please, Jennifer.
>> Vote on motion 26-433.
Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Resolution number 26-434.
In the matter of authorizing the
submitting of an application for the
Victims of Crime and State Victims
Assistance Grant for Victim Services.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion?
>> Good morning, Commissioners. Sorry, I'm
losing my voice. So
I'm Nicole Ford with the Delaware County
Prosecutor's Office. The Victim Services
Unit of the Delaware County Prosecutor's
Office would like to apply to renew our
grant of Victims of Crime Act and State
Victims Assistance grants. The grant
period runs from October 1st, 2026
through September 30th of 2027.
We're requesting partial compensation
for our Victims Director, Trish Wright,
and our three Victim Advocates, Megan
Powell, Maggie Dillman, and Caitlin
Grow. They continue to support our
Victims of Crime as well as uphold the
law by statute to provide Victims
Assistance. We are requesting federal
VOCA funds in the amount of $79,726.50,
which does include a local match of
$15,945.30.
We are also requesting $2,106
in state SBAA funds, which requires no
local match, and we would have the
opportunity to renew
um next year in 2027.
>> And I believe we
filed for this in the past.
>> Yes, correct.
>> Yeah, a long number of times.
>> A long time. Yes, I think since 2020 or
2003.
>> Oh, really? Okay. Good.
Uh questions or comments? Further ones?
Jennifer?
>> Vote on motion 26-434.
Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Thank you, Commissioners.
>> Thank you.
>> Resolution number 26-435
in the matter of establishing new
organizational keys and approving
supplemental appropriations for the
Emergency Management Agency.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion.
>> Good morning, Commissioners. Alex
McCarthy, Director of Emergency
Management for Delaware County. Um
recently in conversations with Karen
first and Brad Higgins uh regarding a
couple grants we work with, um we
decided that it would be good to
establish two new organization keys. One
to cover the funding we received for
local emergency plan committee efforts.
Those efforts to focus on hazmat
planning in the county. And another
organization key for a hazmat grant
we've received uh the 2025 through 2027
hazardous materials emergency
preparedness grant. In addition to that,
we're also requesting supplemental
appropriations. Um first of which uh
would be 12,900
for hazmat trainings through the HMEP
grant. The second which would be 1,700
to cover uh conference travel uh which
would also be reimbursed through the
HMEP grant. We're also requesting 3,000
supplemental appropriations for a
license subscription for a software
called EM1. It's an AI emergency
management software.
>> Okay.
Questions or comments? Uh vote, please.
>> Vote on motion 26-435.
Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell?
>> Aye.
>> Thank you.
>> Good. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Resolution number 26-436
in the matter of approving the owner's
agreement for Berlin Farms West section
8 and Berlin Farms West section 9.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion.
>> Good morning, Rob Riley, Chief Deputy
Engineer. Uh this is our standard uh
owner's agreement for the street and
storm water improvements
uh for Berlin Farm West section 8 and 9.
Uh this is being developed by MI Homes.
It's located just north of Berlin High
School.
>> Okay. Questions or comments? Vote,
please.
>> Vote on motion 2-6-436.
Mr. Batten?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Maro?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 2-6-437
in the matter of approving a
professional services agreement with WSP
USA Incorporated for the project known
as Dell CR5-2.15
South Section Line Road and Clarkshaw
Road intersections.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion?
>> Yes, we're asking for your approval uh
for this design uh contract with WSP
uh to design a uh single-lane modern
roundabout at the intersection of
Section Line and Clarkshaw Road. Uh
we've worked with WSP before and they've
they'll do a nice job with this.
Uh we were successful in receiving 100%
funding uh through the federal and state
highway safety improvement program for
this intersection.
Uh so we will be res- that's for the
construction phase. We will be
responsible for the design and
construction engineering as well as the
purchase of right-of-way. Uh but aside
from that, the uh federal and state
funding will cover the cost of the
project. So
currently scheduled uh for construction
in 2030. Uh so we've got a few years to
to get through the design, utility
relocation, and and purchase of
right-of-way.
>> Okay.
Um
how many bids did we get for this this
contract?
>> This is a professional services
agreement. We selected WSP through a
qualification-based selection process
that we go through
um
every year uh for various projects.
>> Okay.
Um would there be road closures with
this one?
>> The intersection will need be closed. Uh
typically we're we're building these
single-lane roundabouts uh
in in about 6 weeks, uh maybe quicker.
>> Okay.
All right. Questions or comments?
Jennifer, vote.
>> Vote on motion 2-6-437.
Mr. Batten?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Maro?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 26-438
in the matter of a permit right-of-way
work permit, Sam Rishi.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion.
>> I have six permits for your approval
today. These are all typical utility
installations.
>> Okay. Questions or comments? Vote,
please.
>> Vote on motion 26-438,
Mr. Merrill.
>> Hi.
>> Mrs. Lewis.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Benton.
>> Hi.
>> Thank you.
>> We do have another business item today.
Resolution number 26-439
in the matter of delegating temporary
authority to the county administrator.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion.
Vote.
>> Vote on motion 26-439,
Mrs. Lewis.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Merrill.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Benton.
>> Hi.
>> We still have a few minutes before we
are permitted to start our 9:45 um CDBG
hearing, so that can bring us to
administrator reports. Nothing today,
thank you.
I have nothing, thank you.
>> Eric, you always have something.
>> Yes.
>> All right, I guess not.
Uh
Commissioner Merrill.
>> Uh just a couple things. Uh regional
planning uh was moved till this
afternoon rather than last
Wednesday, so that'll be this afternoon.
And we're attending that. I was
privileged or honored uh a couple of
people when I worked the Board of
Elections
were interested in Delaware County, so I
gave a
fairly lengthy tour to them both, and I
think
the advantage of that is people who
don't really know what goes on in the
county.
I was I think they would both tell you
they were very impressed and very
enlightened by the 3 hours we spent
together.
>> Oh my.
>> And
uh we we saw much of this campus. I took
them out to Bixby as well. And we took
them out to Home Port because one of
them has some involvement as a voter in
that previously, so uh
uh it's I think it was very I think they
would tell you it was very informative,
and I uh think it gives them a good idea
of what goes on in Delaware County, so
that's all I have.
>> Yeah, I'm going to do a really nice job
of it.
>> I'm sure it was.
>> Actually, just a question for Rob.
So, this is great. And that's good. Now,
um first of all, Rob, thank you so much
for keeping us uh informed about the
railroad crossings. And I noticed uh
Cheshire is it was postponed, and then
there was something else. I forget what
road it was that
or what crossing it was that was
postponed. But, anyway, just wondered
uh if there's any updates on on that,
Cheshire in particular.
>> Yeah, we're we're getting updates uh
typically on a daily basis from the
railroad. So, we'll we'll certainly post
the information as soon as we have it.
Um but, I think Berlin Station might
have been the other
>> Oh, I Okay.
>> I'm uh Lee has been handling a lot of
that, and he's been doing a good job of
getting that information out.
>> Has he?
>> Mike, Mr. Lewis, I use Cheshire
>> a lot.
>> Yes.
>> And uh we look forward to getting that
one done. And I again And of course, we
have dual railroads. So, one's fixed,
>> Right.
>> and one's not. [clears throat]
>> Yes.
>> So, uh we've still got work to do. I
assume the other railroad at some point
will
uh be constructive in doing their part
of the
process.
>> It sure would be nice if they worked
together at the same time.
>> You would think while they're there,
they could maybe work out a deal where
they do both and reimburse the other
one, but I guess that's
>> [clears throat]
>> too much.
>> Yes.
>> What is the construction going on then
just uh east of uh
southeast of Cheshire, the intersection
there with with the railroad and then
Cheshire?
>> Yes, we currently have the intersection
at Piatt and Peachblow closed. Is that
what you I think you're referring
>> Right. And there's a huge building
There's already one huge building back
there to the right, south.
>> Yes.
>> But, I wonder if they have It's all torn
up as far as
They're moving a lot of dirt.
>> They are. That is
>> [clears throat]
>> That's a new single-family home uh
development.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Um right at Cheshire and Pyott Road,
kind of that southwest corner. Um
And the name of the development's
escaping me, but um
>> That's okay. Yeah, just wondering about
it.
>> Yep.
>> Oh, okay.
Probably approved.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.
I have nothing else.
>> Okay. Um just a couple of things. Uh we
got
roughly 30 seconds. Uh we don't have
session this Thursday. We do have a
regional planning commission Thursday
evening.
Got a SEECO board meeting Friday.
And just a reminder, we just opened up
our community enhancement grant program
for 2026.
Deadline, I think it's July 9th for the
applications. So uh
if you
you or you know of anyone who has a
project, uh please make sure you
complete that by 4:00, I think it's 4:00
on July 9th. And it's a
it's a hard deadline, so
>> I've got one more thing, too, when
you're done.
>> I'm done.
>> Oh, you're done. Okay. Um Preservation
Parks has its fundraiser this Thursday
night. It's gala over at uh the African
Center at the zoo. So
So
>> I could not attend, but I did write a
check, so
>> I'm I'm going.
>> Um
Okay.
Jennifer, come in. Is it time we do
>> We
We are permitted to start our hearing.
>> CDBG hearing?
>> Um Justin Nave and Carolyn Thurman with
Civic Uplift um have our 9:45 hearing
for annual action plan to the Community
Development Block Grant CDBG program and
we'll note the time is 9:46.
>> All right.
The hearing is open, and Justin, the
floor is yours.
>> Great. Thanks, Commissioners. Justin
Nawabi, Director of Finance.
Uh here this morning is Carolyn Thurman,
who is the founder and principal with
Civic Uplift. And she's going to be
presenting on the FY26 annual action
plan for the CDBG program.
>> Good morning.
>> Welcome.
>> Good morning. Welcome.
>> Thank you. Uh I know I was here not too
long ago to present on the FY2025 CDBG
program.
Uh just due to some delays with the
federal government and shutdowns, that
program ended up being a little bit um
off schedule than normal. So, here today
we're going to get back on schedule with
the the typical process for CDBG
program.
Uh in order to get the annual action
plan, which is the 2025 grant
application to HUD, into their offices
by August 16th.
So, I'm going to talk a little bit about
the purpose of the hearing today. We're
going to go over the CDBG program, uh do
an overview of the fiscal year 2025
annual action plan, and then allow some
time for public comments.
As part of the CDBG program, the county
is required to have public hearings
twice a year at two different points in
the program process. And so, as I
mentioned earlier, that today we're
getting back in the what would be the
consistent schedule.
And uh around this time of year would be
a public hearing to talk about the
annual action plan before it's submitted
to HUD. And then um the second hearing
would be after the performance report,
so in the winter to talk about what we
had done in the previous year.
So, to talk a bit about the CDBG
entitlement program, it is again a
federal funding program from the US
Department of Housing and Urban
Development. It's really developed to
identify and fund local community
development needs. So, as the
entitlement grantee, the county is able
to determine its own needs and how it
wants to spend the funding, to
communicate that up to the federal
government, and then receives funding to
make
progress towards those goals.
All projects for CDBG funding have to
address a national objective. So, it
could be to benefit low and moderate
income residents. It could also be to
prevent and eliminate slums or blighted
conditions. And I want to point out
here,
I've pulled this just straight out of
the federal regulations. What this
means, it does not mean that any
community is is a slum or blighted or
anything of that nature. It's really
getting at things that are substandard,
maybe
some code compliance issues,
historic preservation, you might have an
older structure in the community that
you want to bring back up to code. This
is some kind of unfortunately language
that they use in there, so I just want
to clarify what that means. And then
also you can address urgent community
development needs. That is very rarely
used. That is the opportunity if for
instance, there is a
like a natural disaster and the county
would have to move quickly, then CDBG
allows you to use them in those cases.
So again, very rarely used, but do want
to communicate that that is one of the
national objectives.
So, what can CDBG be used for? It can be
used for a wide variety of community
development activities. These are
examples, these are not all of the
activities, but just to to give an
overview.
So, infrastructure improvements, that
could be streets, sidewalks, water and
sewer, bridges,
culverts, curb cuts, anything that you
need to build out the physical
infrastructure in your community. Could
be public facilities improvements
including community centers,
park shelters, food banks, anything that
is a building that is used by the
public.
Economic development activities, so this
could be grants or loans to businesses.
It could also be offsite improvements to
support a commercial development.
It can be used for acquisition and
disposition of land.
Can be used for housing preservation.
So,
this would mean if
there were houses that needed repair
costs, maybe they were code
non-compliant, you'd want to bring them
back up to code. Use for historic
preservation, as I mentioned earlier.
And then there is a limit of what can be
used for public services and for
planning administration and fair
housing. So with public services, we're
talking about the operating dollars for
nonprofits, which is limited at 15% of
your annual allocation each year. And
then planning and administration of the
program and fair housing is limited at
20% of the grant.
So what can't CDBG be used for? It
cannot be used for the general conduct
of government. It's supposed to be
building community, so it can't cover
cover staff costs or
it can't cover office space for the
employees of the county.
It can't be used for political
activities.
It can't be used for basic maintenance
of public infrastructure, so you can't
use it to mow the grass at a park. You
can't use it to fill potholes, but you
can use it to build new infrastructure.
Uh it can't be used for new housing
construction.
>> [snorts]
>> And it can't be used to purchase
equipment unless that equipment is part
of a larger CDBG project. So for
instance, if you were building a
community center and you needed to build
out a kitchen in that community center,
then you would be able to buy that
equipment, but you can't do it on its
own.
For uh
fiscal year 2026, we have the same six
communities that have agreed to join the
county's program. So that's Marysville
Township, Orange Township, the Village
of Ostrander, Village of Shawnee Hills,
and the City of Powell. However, right
now communities can agree to join the
2027 program. We have reached out to
communities across the county to let
them know of their eligibility to join
and are in talks with a few communities
who are looking to join for next year.
Uh any other communities that are
interested need to reach out to us and
indicate their interest by July 2nd.
So I'm going to talk a bit about the
annual action plan. As I mentioned
earlier, I was here in January to talk
about the consolidated plan. The
consolidated plan is a 5-year document
where the community does this in-depth
look at identity identifying community
goals and priority needs for that again
that 5-year period. And each one of
those 5 years you have an annual action
plan that says how you're going to spend
that year's allocation. So, for the 2026
annual action plan that was embedded as
part of the the consolidated plan, this
year the document is much smaller. It's
just the action plan portion which is
effectively your budget to the federal
government of how you intend to spend
funds this year.
>> Mhm. Okay.
>> And then that funding then goes down to
the projects for implementation.
Just to give a quick overview of the
priority needs that were identified in
the consolidated plan, we identified a
need to support the construction of
public infrastructure and public
facilities.
And then public facilities for
recreation. There was a priority need
around affordable and workforce housing,
economic development, and then community
development support activities. So, this
is where you get your your code
enforcement type of activities. And then
of course program administration.
And these priorities were identified
through a number of different processes
through the consolidated planning
process. So, we had public outreach and
engagement. There were focus groups
held.
We had a community needs assessment
done, a capacity analysis of analysis of
what types of programming the county can
currently support, and
reach out to all the jurisdictions who
are participating in the county program
to ask their feedback as well as
reviewed existing data and studies and
existing plans.
And through that process we identified
four goals.
Goal one is to invest in community
infrastructure and facilities. Goal two
is to support stable and sustainable
neighborhoods. Goal three is to promote
economic opportunity. And goal four Goal
four is to manage the CDBG program
effectively.
For the 2026 annual action plan, we're
actually using the same projects we had
in the 2025 annual action plan.
Since we are still in the process of
doing that plan,
or that those projects, we're adding the
current year's allocation to those and
increasing that the bucket of funding,
and then we'll go back out to
communities to ask for
new projects.
The reason we're doing it this way is
that last year was the county's first
year as an entitlement grantee,
meaning that we're really creating that
structure to get the money out the door
quickly, to make sure that we're being
effective and efficient with our
funding. So, instead of changing course
now, when we don't quite have a full
year of data to see how it went the
first time, we're going to put more
money into this program, and then, as I
mentioned, there's also a performance
reporting process involved with CDBG,
and at that point we could take a look
and tweak further.
I do want to talk a bit about
the dollars for 2026. So, your annual
allocation this year is $434,811.
You have a projected carryover of
$145,527
from last year. That is just what this
leftover after the awards that were
given to the applicants from last year's
program.
So, that gives you a total of $580,338
for
fiscal year 2026.
So, for project one, administration,
this is 20% of the allocation award for
2026. This does not include 20% of
what's been carried over. This is just
from what you're receiving for 2026.
Project two, which is the Delaware
County Public Services program. This is
how we're supporting nonprofits in the
county. This is 15% of the fiscal year
2026 annual allocation. So again, it is
not 15% of what's carried forward, it's
just 15% of what you're getting this
year. And then project three is where
we've included that carry forward, and
this is the money for to support
infrastructure development and public
facilities in the county.
So I do want to talk a bit about what
has changed from last year to this year.
And as I mentioned earlier, it's not
much that has changed.
Now that the consolidated planning
process is done and that you don't have
that administrative burden going into
2026,
our goal is to work with community
partners and further refine these
programs and build out these projects
with a little bit more specificity in
the next year.
One of the first steps to that is the
public infrastructures and facilities
program from 2025 has been renamed the
community infrastructure and facilities
program just to make it more clear what
we're looking to get from that pot of
money.
And we're also going to update that
program to allow the use of more
national objectives so that cuz
2025 everything we're looking at low to
moderate income populations. Now we're
going to allow for slum and blight on a
spot condition. So if there's a specific
building or structure in a community
that they need to remediate or need to
bring to code or need to demolish, this
flexibility will allow them to apply for
that funding.
We will also update some of the language
to include more projects promoting
economic development. So this is offsite
improvement type of work,
infrastructure that is needed in order
to get
economic development uses into a
community.
And then we will also be working with
community partners to build out a
pipeline of projects. As you can kind of
see so far, this money it comes every
year, it can quickly catch up to you.
And so
with Delaware County previously being in
the state program where the county
wasn't as competitive for funding just
because of the state's formula, the
state really
their formula
makes it easier for communities that are
lower income to get funding, and
Delaware County is one of the higher
income areas of the state, and so
because this funding really wasn't
available to the county in previous
years, that pipeline of projects hasn't
fully been been built out. So, this year
our plan is to work with communities and
make sure that we're building that
pipeline up, and that we can spend the
money as quickly as we can get it.
And with [clears throat] that, I want to
open the floor to comments.
If anyone would like to provide comment,
they're free to speak during today's
hearing. They can submit
written comments, and we've got my email
address, and also Cheyenne, who's our
assistant planner, her email address is
on the screen as well. And the full
action plan will be available on the
website, the economic development
website for the county, which is listed
above. The public comment period will be
open from June 23rd through July 22nd.
With that, I'll
turn it over for questions [snorts] and
comments.
>> Okay.
Thank you. Anybody
in the audience for public comment?
I guess not.
Your talk was so informative, nobody has
any more questions.
>> That's always the goal, right?
>> Um, open it up to the commissioners.
>> Sure.
The the various
like Marlborough Township and others
that have joined, you say someone else,
if if another like Genoa Township
decides to join, they just have to let
you know before July 2nd.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> And then we can get them included into
the program with HUD, and that will
allow them access to this funding.
>> Okay. Are the are the ones the the
groups that are in the program now,
they're the ones that came up with the
various goals?
>> So, we I the survey and the engagement
to the community county wide, but when
the one-on-one conversations it was the
jurisdictions that were participating.
So, from residents it's county wide, but
from local government it is those
jurisdictions, yes.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Do they have specific projects
identified?
>> Some of them they they have projects
that are in the pipeline. Um like I
mentioned earlier, just because the
county really wasn't competitive for
CDBG funding under the state program, a
lot of people hadn't identified projects
that fit with CDBG, but in talking to
these communities they're working on
that now and there's a couple of of
items as they've worked through there.
They've got to get to, you know, level
of design first before they can apply
for funding, but there is some interest
there. Yes.
>> Yeah, I know I've heard of one community
that Post Engineers is working on a
project, so.
>> Yes.
>> And again, it's great to
make our county and all of our
communities aware of because there
there's some, you know, some significant
money and some really nice improvement
opportunities.
>> That's right.
Right. Really are. Very nice
presentation.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Very clear.
>> Staff, any
>> Uh Tracy Davies, administrator. Just
wanted to thank Carolyn and team for all
of their work. You have really done a
good job helping us administer this
program and we wouldn't be as successful
without all of your efforts, so thank
you. I know it it's gone rather
smoothly, so we appreciate it.
>> I thank you. I appreciate that.
>> Absolutely.
Okay. Very well. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much.
>> All right. We will close that hearing
gentlemen.
>> Yes, we'll note the time as 10:01.
>> Which means we can now open
>> We can note the time as 10:01. We'll
just for clarity we'll go 10:02. We're
going to open our public hearing for
consideration of the Zerbe-O'Keefe
number 265 watershed drainage
improvement project and Mr. Betney you
can have a sheet there you can
explain what what going to do.
>> All right, I will um
go through the notes. The hearing is now
officially open.
I'll go through the notes of what will
happen today
um so everybody is familiar with the
process.
And with that, I will welcome everyone
to the final hearing for the
consideration of the Zerby-O'Keefe
number 265 watershed drainage
improvement project. There is a sign-in
sheet circulating the room. We ask you
please sign the sheet to indicate you
were in attendance.
Um we will now hear a summary of the
final hearing report from the county
engineer and the soil and water
conservation district. Following the
summary presentation, there will be time
for questions from the board.
After board questions, the board will
hear from any interested owners that
wish to testify. The those speaking for
or against the petition must be an owner
as defined in section 6131.01 of the
revised code, and we really have to
stick with that. We've had some issues
with that in the past. If you are not an
owner or an attorney designated by an
owner, you are will not be allowed to
speak. We apologize, but we have to
follow the code.
Um the board will acknowledge receipt of
any landowner written testimony before
hearing live testimony. We'll first call
all those wishing to testify in favor of
the project.
We will then call all those wishing to
testify in opposition to the project.
Before testifying, you'll be asked to
take an oath.
Um after all those test wishing to
testify for or against the project have
been heard, there will be an opportunity
for responsive or rebuttal testimony.
The board will then close the public
hearing after all testimony evidence has
been presented. After listening
testimony and report of the engineer,
the board will decide whether to find in
favor of the improvement, affirm the
previous order, confirm the assessments,
and approve the payment schedule, or the
board may dismiss the petition and set
aside the previous order.
The board must consider in the following
three factors in making its decision,
whether the pro proposed improvement is
necessary, whether the proposed
improvement will be conducive to the
public welfare, and whether the cost of
the proposed improvement will be less
than the benefit the improvement
provides. So, those are the That's the
process and the ground rules for today.
Should we Eric, should we address the
exception letters first at this point or
do we do that now?
>> receipt of them. Yeah.
>> I'm sorry, what?
>> Acknowledge receipt of any Yeah.
>> So, Jennifer, we did receive several
>> um three um
three letters today. Um two of them
would be considered um exceptions from
Julie. One is from Julie and Shawn
Havens, and the other is from Kathy and
Bill Rauch. And then we did receive a
letter from Linda and Gary Graham um
against the um petition. So, those are
the three written things we have
received at this time.
>> Okay. So, we've acknowledged we've
received it We've received three
letters.
Um
Should we do the exceptions at this
point, Eric, do you think?
>> Um you have a resolution to acknowledge
um
receipt.
>> Okay.
>> So, you can go ahead and do that now.
>> Um it is tied to
Resolution number 26-440.
In the matter of the Delaware County
Board of Commissioners acknowledging
receipt of the written objections and
exceptions to the assessments filed in
the proceedings for the Zerbe-O'Keefe
number 265 watershed drainage
improvement project.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Any further discussion?
>> These are specifically the exceptions uh
filed by Julie and Shawn Havens and Bill
and Kathy Rauch. And we can deal with
the actual exceptions later in the in
the hearing.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So,
this resolution just acknowledges that
we received these two requests for
exceptions. Correct. Okay. Further
discussion. Vote please Jennifer.
>> Vote on motion 26-440.
Mrs. Lewis.
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrill.
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton.
>> Aye.
>> All right. With that, we will now turn
it over to our esteemed colleague from
the Soil and Water Conservation
District. Brett, take it away.
>> Thank you Commissioner Benton. Good
morning Commissioners. Brett Bacon,
Deputy Administrator of Soil and Water
Conservation District. I will do the
brief presentation on the project and
then be happy to answer any questions
the board might have.
The Zerbe-O'Keefe petition specifically
asked in Delaware County, Brown
Township, within the Zerbe-O'Keefe
number 265 watershed, and generally
following but not limited to the course
and termini of the existing
improvements, to generally improve the
drainage both surface and subsurface to
a good and sufficient outlet by
replacing, repairing, or altering the
existing improvements as required, and
or creating new surface and subsurface
drainage mains or laterals as requested
by this petition.
Project timeline.
Petition was filed by Gary Graham and
Linda Graham and others on November
22nd, 2019. February 20th, 2020, the
view was held. May 14th of 2020, the
first hearing was opened and continued
to October 1st of 2020.
October 1st, 2020, the first hearing was
uh
continued to June 10th, 2021. And on
June 10th, 2021, the first hearing was
concluded and the board directed the
Soil and Water District and the engineer
to proceed with engineering for the
project.
The watershed is approximately 249
acres. It is 75% agricultural, 11% rural
residential, 11% woods, and 3% road
right-of-way. The original petition was
signed by seven individuals representing
10 of the 21 parcels in the watershed.
Section one, you can see noted by the
black and white line,
is surface drain shaping and grading,
subsurface drain tile replacement,
erosion control measures, clearing and
snagging, and seeding and mulching.
Section two is an existing surface drain
and subsurface drain tile that if
approved would be accepted onto the
drainage maintenance program in its
current condition.
Project cost estimate, section one,
total construction cost $258,321.
$320.91.
This is the only construction portion of
the project.
We have the additional maintenance base.
There's a section surface drain for
section one that does not need work. The
value of that is $12,574.98.
And then the section two value is $29,
$224.23
for a total maintenance base of
$300,120.12.
Assessments. The revised code instructs
county engineer to calculate assessments
to the property owners based on the
benefits received.
The code further goes on to say, quote,
"Lands that have been removed from their
natural state by deforestation,
cultivation, artificial drainage, urban
development, or other man-made causes
shall be considered as benefited by an
improvement required to dispose of the
accelerated flow of water from the
uplands."
We use three factors in determining this
the assessments. Acres benefited times a
land use factor times a percent use
equals a parcel assessment factor. The
parcel percent share then is the parcel
assessment factor divided by the sum of
all the factors. And the parcel
assessment then is the percent share
times the total estimated cost.
Landowners have two options to pay their
assessment. It can be paid in full
upfront within 30 days of this final
hearing, or they can choose to have the
assessment placed on their property tax
bill as a special assessment. Choosing
the second option will incur interest
fees and the auditor treasurer uh 2%
collection fee.
Quick amortization example.
Our total estimated cost of 258,320.91.
The average assessment not including the
right-of-way parcels is $7,450
or a 2.9% share of the project.
Eight-year repayment interest of
assuming 3% would be $1,788
total dollars.
Eight-year total construction assessment
then $9,238.
15-year example 3% total interest will
be $3,345
with a total of 15-year construction
assessment of $10,795.
The auditor treasurer's fees for 8 years
and 15 are $185 and $216 respectively
for a total assessment then for 8 years
of $9,423
and 15 years $11,011.
You can see divided out into the
repayment schedule. For 8 years this
would equal a 16 semi-annual
installments of $588.94.
And for 15 years 30 semi-annual
installments of $367.03.
All proof projects would be advertised
for public bid with the lowest and best
bid to be awarded the contract. The bids
may not be accepted if they are in
excess of the final hearing engineers
estimate.
The final schedule assessments would be
reduced pro rata by the difference
between the estimated cost and final
cost if the project ends up costing
less. And up front payments would
receive a refund in this case.
>> [snorts]
>> ORC 6137 requires all completed projects
to be placed onto drainage maintenance
with the purpose of maintenance being to
keep the project operating at its design
capacity. Maintenance funds are also
collected as a special assessment and
maintenance activities commonly include
inspections, seeding repairs, and
erosion control.
Maintenance assessments are determined
based on the final schedule of
construction assessments, and most of
our projects average between 2 and 1/2
to 5% annually for those collections.
The collection percentage can vary
annually depending on the maintenance
needs of the project, and drainage
maintenance is perpetual.
Going back to our amortization example,
our construction assessment example of
$7,450
times a 3% annual maintenance collection
plus the auditor's treasurer's fees
would equal a $227.96
annual maintenance assessment, and you
can see that equals $113.98
per half.
Cost benefit, the benefits of drainage
improvements exist for both agricultural
and residential parcels, with the
benefit to agricultural parcels being
realized by the increased yield as a
result of good drainage. Estimated yield
increases given the soils in the area
would average 46 bushels per acre for
corn and 14 bushels per acre for
soybeans given the appropriate drainage
improvements are in place.
Using a USDA USDA average crop price
from 2021 to 2025 of $4.99 per bushel
for corn and $12.26 per bushel for
soybeans, you can see our average
benefit uh for corn would be $42,694,
and for soybeans $31,295
producing an average annual benefit of
$37,309
assuming an equal distribution of corn
and soybeans.
Uh this would be a potential 20-year
return of $746,190.
These figures do not take into account
consideration of individual farm
management practices and are meant to
provide a broader overview of the
benefits of improved drainage.
Individual properties may see more or
less than the average benefits presented
based on a variety of factors including
their own individual farm management
practices, utilization of the improved
drainage, and seasonal fluctuations.
The provided examples do illustrate the
fact that good drainage is a key factor
in farm profitability and would reflect
positively when considering a
cost-benefit analysis for this
watershed.
It's fair to consider potential benefits
as potential losses if the system ceases
to function as a good and sufficient
outlet.
Benefits to resident residential parcels
focus on quality of life, neighborhood
perception, and home site sewage
treatment systems. A failed home site
sewage treatment system can cost $15,000
to repair or replace.
When looking at new developments, we
find that the developers average around
$16,000 per lot to provide adequate
drainage outlets. With two residential
parcels in the watershed, this equals
$32,000
potential benefits. Excuse me.
Project sections.
Section 1 can be approved independently
of Section 2.
Section 1 must be approved to approve
accepting Section 2 onto drainage
maintenance.
The approval of Section 1 would include
accepting portions of the infrastructure
within Section 1 onto drainage
maintenance in its current condition,
and denial of Section 1 necessitates
denial of Section 2.
If the decision is to deny, it is
recommended to distribute the costs
incurred to this point to the leaning
owners in the same ratio as determined
by the final schedule of assessments.
These estimated costs to date equal
$17,500.
Engineer's recommendation.
Based on all of the information gathered
and generated, I believe this project as
proposed is technically feasible and
would serve as an adequate outlet for
the drainage needs of the watershed.
Furthermore, the parcel assessments for
this project are within the range of
assessments that can be expected for a
project of this scope. The testimony
brought to the Board of Commissioners by
the landowners as to whether the
benefits of this of this project exceed
the cost should be given significant
consideration in the decision to move
forward with this project.
>> Okay. Thank you, Brent.
Um open up for questions from the
commission.
>> I have no questions.
>> No.
>> Um I got a couple questions for you,
Brent. Um in the original uh phase or
the first hearing, the land in the
project was 448 acres. Now it's 200 and
249 acres. What what happened in the
>> Um
there there was a sub-watershed that was
included in the larger watershed at that
point. Um that by request of the the
petitioners was removed and and wasn't
included in this final proposal.
>> Okay.
Um
the
Uh
you probably can't consider the role I
don't
know if that's the right way to phrase
it. There is development you know,
moving that direction. Can
that be considered in your report and
your your findings?
>> Um the the
No, I mean the drainage system is
designed per our normal
design parameters, which we feel
adequately
sizes a system to accept drainage coming
out of development that it has been
properly engineered for the the release
rates and even though that
development is not in the county, it's
in the city of Delaware.
I am familiar with uh
I'll say superficially familiar with the
city of Delaware's design standards and
they are very close to the county. So,
I'm confident that the system as
designed would handle that.
>> Okay.
Um one other question. The the cost in
the in the first hearing the estimated
cost was roughly the same as in the
final hearing, but you subtracted 200
and some acres.
>> Uh is remember the first hearing
estimate was done pre-COVID.
>> Yeah, I'm assuming that's cost
construction escalate inflation.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Just want to make make sure it
sound seem like that's what it was the
case.
Okay, I don't have any other questions.
So, at this point, we will open it up to
um
those wishing to testify in favor of the
project.
And I will ask anyone testifying to
stay take an oath.
Again, you don't have to testify,
but certainly want to encourage those
who who are interested to testify if
they want to.
All right.
Last chance for those wishing to testify
in favor of the project.
All right. We will now turn it over to
those who wish to testify in opposition
to the project.
I'll ask you to come up to the podium,
identify yourself, your address, parcel
number [snorts] if you can, and then we
will
uh swear you in.
>> My name is Ron Graham.
Um we're one of the stakeholders who I'm
representing
uh my parents
as being a lease holder of the largest
stakeholder and the
Zurbuch Heath.
>> Okay.
Um
do you know the parcel or number on the
map?
If you don't, address is good.
>> it's number three on your map.
And
um the Graham family is the one that you
received the letter for, too, on
>> Right. And you were the originator of
the original petition.
>> Correct.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Mr. Graham indicated he was representing
his his parents. I had a conversation
with an attorney who represented the
Grahams and he can testify as a tenant
because that's your interest in the
property is as a tenant farmer for the
property, but he cannot represent his
parents. We will just take into
consideration the written testimony that
they provided.
>> Okay. Okay.
Um
could that be read?
That letter?
>> If the commissioners want to
If you want to read the the letter into
the record, you could do that, but I
mean it's already in the record. I think
>> We have it.
>> Yeah, we have it. We read it.
>> it.
Yeah.
>> Um
So,
um okay. The location
the address, do you have that address?
Just want to make sure I get the right
>> On your copy of the final hearing
report, there's a map. Number three is
the Graham
>> Number three, okay. Okay. We're good.
Um
So,
>> Yeah, it's number three.
>> Brad's going to pull up the map.
>> So, it's my understanding he cannot
testify.
>> That's my understanding, yes.
>> My understanding is he's a tenant A
tenant counts as an owner under the
revised code, so he can testify
>> Okay.
>> based on his own ownership interest in
the property.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> [clears throat]
>> All right. Well, I'll tell you what,
we'll we ahead with the testimony and
Brett, we we have maps in front of us
here. So, if you want to go ahead, Mr.
Graham, and
and uh
I will I will swear you in.
>> Okay.
>> Uh do you solemnly swear the testimony
you're about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
>> I do.
>> Okay.
Proceed.
>> So, um
I guess a lot has changed in 6 years, as
previously pointed out. Um
my family has gone to a lot of expense
to
um
make um
drainage improvements, as stated earlier
in um Brett's uh comments.
Um
we do not feel that uh
the benefit
um is worth the cost.
>> Okay.
Succinct. We appreciate that.
>> Yeah.
Um
just uh sidebar, um I did some
calculations.
We
um
I personally was involved with uh
clearing and snagging 1,800 ft of brush
and disposing of that, and then there's
about 2,500 ft of main that we put in,
as well.
>> Okay.
Very good. Thank you.
>> Mr. Bean, for the benefit of those in
the room, I think it'd be helpful to
read Mr. Graham's letter.
>> Okay.
>> So, if I I read it, is that
>> Go go right ahead.
>> I'm going to read it for the record,
just so everybody has the same
information.
Uh
we received this uh Tuesday, July 12th,
2026.
Uh regarding Derby O'Keefe 265 Watershed
Range Improvement Petition. Delaware
County Commissioners,
unfortunately, we're unable to attend
the June 22nd, 2026 final hearing for
the Derby O'Keefe number 265 Watershed
Range Improvement Petition.
Our son, Ronald Graham, who is the
leasehold farmer for the subject subject
parcels will be there to speak on behalf
of our family.
At this stage, we no longer support the
Zerbe-O'Keefe number 265 watershed
drainage improvement petition and
request that the commissioners deny the
petition.
Based on the recommendation Delaware
County Engineer and the Delaware Soil
and Water Conservation District, we
believe that the cost to implement the
petition is too high. Additionally, in
the 5 years since the initial petition
was filed there has been significant
development near the watershed. At this
stage, we are concerned that development
pressure may continue, decreasing the
likelihood of a return on the investment
for the project from an agricultural
perspective. Sincerely, Gary and Linda
Graham.
>> Just thought it'd be helpful to have
that read read into the record. All
right.
>> Yeah. That's fine. That's fine. [snorts]
>> Uh very good.
We will continue with uh anyone wishing
to testify in opposition to the
to the petition.
All right.
Welcome, sir. If you could identify
yourself for the record.
>> Thomas Davis. Um 2061 State Route 521,
Elm Valley Farm.
Do you need the uh number
or not?
We have four parcels that are actually
in that watershed.
>> Okay.
All right. I will uh
>> 16, 17, 18, 19 on your map.
>> Yeah.
Total of 27.37
acres.
>> Okay. Let me swear you in.
Uh okay. Do you solemnly swear the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
>> I do.
>> All right. Proceed.
>> Um
This came up several years ago. We've
been um
I can't say I'm for it. I can't say
against it. But right now, I'm probably
against it, but I have a lot more
questions about it. Um
One main thing is uh due to the that
some improvements to the east of us, we
have flooding now because a pump station
added to a drainage system, which is
totally illegal, which puts a lot more
water
when it's draining onto us. That's
dumped into a shallow ditch that
actually does drain through the woods.
And that's become an issue.
So,
basically, in the state of Ohio, that's
a civil matter has to go to court, so
that cost me money to take care of a
problem that somebody else created. Now,
this would cost us money, which would
probably
correct the problem of damage to our
property and everything else.
However, most of that um
um of the 21 acres
12 acres is woods, which we would
receive no benefit from drainage or
anything as far as that go. The woods
actually
is a benefit to the drainage cuz it
absorbs a lot of it. A lot of that pump
water does drain into the woods, and in
the woods in the dry time, the woods
takes it up and does it.
That tile for us
was uh fixed
uh which was then the Davies property,
which now is Wilcox, that corner
that crosses the railroad tracks, that
was fixed 8 10 years ago. We got
permission from the Davies farm to uh
replace that tile. It was all overgrown
and collapsed and everything. So, the
tile on us is working. We actually have
some field tile.
It's off it's draining real well
as far as what it can handle.
Granted the age of it and everything.
>> [clears throat]
>> Um the one other issue we
we have a problem with the easement
through the woods. I know um I talked to
Grant that um
it would have been a 150-ft easement
through the woods, which is totally
unacceptable for all the wood that's in
there and everything. So, that was one
of the big concerns.
Um
and along that line, as far as the
development, I can tell you in the next
50 years there will be no development on
that property.
So, it kind of stops where we're at.
So.
Just to let you know. So.
>> Okay.
>> That's all.
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir.
All right. Others wishing to speak in
opposition?
Um again,
one more chance. Anyone else wishing to
speak in opposition?
Okay.
With that,
we will
look at comments from the commissioners
or
any any other
comments, approvals, etc.
>> I've heard nothing today that would make
me believe that we should continue move
forward on this petition. It would seem
to me that uh
the proper course of action would be to
uh
deny.
>> Deny.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, that's that's where I am as well.
The costs have significantly escalated.
>> The
>> Um
and there is
some improvements that have been made in
the area to help the drainage side. I
guess that's that's where I am as well.
Okay, so now
we we close the hearing, Eric, or do we
address the exceptions or
>> I mean, if it's the the wish of the
board to deny the petition, the claims
to the exceptions would be moot. You
wouldn't need to deal with it.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> We'll note the time of the hearing
closing at 10:27.
>> Okay. I would ask you to read the
resolution to deny.
>> Resolution number 26-441
in the matter of the commissioners
setting aside the order for and
dismissing the petition for the Zerbe
O'Keefe number 265 watershed drainage
improvement project due to
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> All right, any well further discussion?
>> I just uh
give them the reasoning for this. Based
on the testimony I heard today, it is I
>> [snorts]
>> I can't support it and following the
criteria that we were asked to make our
decision based on
uh is the proposed improvement
necessary? I don't believe it is based
on what I heard.
Will the proposed improvement be
conducive to the public welfare? Same
thing. I don't believe it I won't
support it. And mainly because the pro-
proposed improvements will be
uh
greater than the benefits received and
on those bases I
I'm supporting the
uh conclusion I get to to remove the
resolution.
>> Okay. You wish me to vote on this?
>> All all the We received uh letters in
opposition to uh the They were people
who originally supported it including
the person who brought the uh petition
about. So uh No, I mean I I I agree
there's uh
no reason for us to move ahead. It does
not meet the criteria listed.
>> I agree it doesn't doesn't meet the
criteria.
Therefore,
um let's I think we're dis- done with
discussion. Jennifer, let's vote.
>> Vote on motion 26-441.
Mr. Merrill?
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Benton?
>> Aye.
>> Mrs. Lewis?
>> Aye.
>> Resolution number 26-442
in the matter of ordering that the cost
of the proceedings of the Zerbe O'Keefe
number 265 watershed drainage
improvement project including the cost
incurred by the board of commissioners,
the county engineer, and the Delaware
Soil and Water Conservation District in
making surveys, plans, reports, and
schedules We be distributed to the
landowners in the same ratio as
determined in the final estimated
assessments presented at the final
hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? Any further discussion?
All those in favor? Let's vote,
Jennifer.
>> Vote on motion 26-442,
Mrs. Lewis.
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell.
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Batten.
>> Aye.
>> Okay. So, like we talked before, that
does make the exceptions dressing up to
be a moot point since we have denied the
petition going forward.
We do need to go into executive session
for a few topics.
>> session, resolution number 26-443,
in the matter of adjourning into
executive session for consideration of
employment and compensation of a public
employer, public official, to consider
the purchase of property for public
purposes, for pending or imminent
litigation, and to consider confidential
information related to economic
development.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Discussion? Vote.
>> Vote on motion 26-443.
Mrs. Lewis.
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Merrell.
>> Aye.
>> Mr. Batten.
>> Aye.
>> All right, we're now in executive
No segments match your search.