The Delaware County Board of Commissioners voted to proceed with survey and engineering design for drainage improvements in the Warren No. 129 watershed, approving Resolution No. 25-919 after a Nov. 3, 2025, preliminary hearing.

Brett Bacon, Deputy Administrator of the Delaware Soil and Water Conservation District, read the first‑hearing report into the record and told the commissioners the Warren No. 129 watershed, as defined for the hearing, measures approximately 813 acres with about 500 acres in agricultural production. Bacon said the existing drainage system shows multiple structural failures, including subsurface pipe blowouts, and ‘‘does not appear to meet the specifications of a good and sufficient outlet for either agricultural or rural residential drainage.’’

The petition was filed April 16, 2025, by Richard R. Lehner and Earl E. Lehner and was later amended (accepted by the commissioners) to include improvements in the Mooney No. 132 and Hills No. 195 lateral/sub‑watershed. Bacon told the board that if the petition is approved to proceed, the county engineer will prepare plans, reports and individual schedules of assessments in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code. Those assessments would be charged to benefiting landowners by the benefit received and may be added to property tax bills for up to 15 years or paid in a lump sum before placement on property taxes.

Preliminary cost estimates presented at the hearing separated the Warren No. 129 main work and the Mooney/Hills amendment. The Warren No. 129 main estimate lists construction at $424,610; project administration, survey and engineering at $20,000; and first‑year drainage maintenance startup at $21,230 — a subtotal of $465,840. The Mooney No. 132 / Hills No. 195 amendment estimate lists construction at $361,680; administration/design $20,000; and first‑year maintenance startup $18,084 — subtotal $399,764. The combined preliminary construction estimate is $865,804. Bacon emphasized the figures are preliminary, do not include contingency, and that typical contingency ranges from 10% to 20% (he gave 15% as an example, ≈ $86,000). Final costs will be determined after detailed survey and engineering.

Bacon cited benefit factors the board must weigh under the Ohio Revised Code, including reduced flood damage, improved functioning of household sewage treatment systems and increased crop yields. He referenced Ohio State University Extension research showing yield increases from subsurface drainage and offered a rough estimate — using current two‑year average prices — that the watershed’s drainage improvements could potentially deliver an average annual agricultural benefit in the range of about $89,500, based on the watershed’s crop acreage and assumed distribution of corn and soybeans. Bacon also noted unfavorable factors including temporary land‑use disruption during construction, tree and brush removal and potential assessment burdens for some owners.

Three property owners testified in favor. Earl Lehner of 709 Radnor Road described ongoing deterioration and recurring blowouts in old tile and said the cost to maintain and repair the system had become unsustainable for the landowners. His brother, Richard Lehner of 2360 Donny Troy Road, said prior soil‑conservation ditch work had helped but the old tile ‘‘are just getting out of hand.’’ A representative of Preservation Parks of Delaware County, speaking on behalf of Gallant Woods, expressed support for the petition but asked that the alignment be evaluated so improvements avoid reforested areas on park property. The parks representative noted a section of 15‑inch solid plastic pipe installed on park property in 2013 that could be camera‑inspected and, if it meets specifications, accepted into maintenance as‑is. Bacon said rerouting and the condition of park‑installed pipe would be considered during survey and engineering and characterized the design phase as having ‘‘a blank piece of paper to work with’’ to find least‑cost, least‑impact routing where feasible.

Following the presentations and public testimony, Commissioner Miller indicated support for moving the petition forward. The board then introduced and moved Resolution No. 25‑919 "in the matter of proceeding with the project survey and design for the Warren Number 129 watershed drainage improvement petition by Richard R. Lehner and Earl E. Lehner and others." The motion was seconded. The recorded roll calls in the transcript: "Mister Benton? Aye." "Mister Merrill? Aye." The chair subsequently announced the hearing concluded.

Resolution No. 25‑919 was approved to proceed with survey and design. The report and testimony at the preliminary hearing make clear that detailed engineering, final cost estimates (including contingency), parcel‑level assessments and a final hearing will follow if the project advances. The county emphasized that individual parcel assessments are not calculated at this preliminary stage and will be determined for a second or final hearing.