The Delaware County Drainage Board voted to move forward with replacing a deteriorated headwall at a tile outfall where a 24-inch tile daylights into an open ditch, accepting a contractor selected by the landowner and a cost-sharing offer from that landowner.

Delaware County surveyor Tom (county surveyor) told the board that landowner Jerry Schroyer brought a new estimate for a concrete headwall for $16,440 and offered to pay half the cost. "He handed me another proposal to do the concrete headwall for $16,440. He did offer that he would pay half of that in order to get this done," Tom said during the board’s October meeting, describing the site as the existing headwall that predated the current, larger tile and has broken down.

Tom told the board the existing headwall had been sized for what was likely a 16-inch tile and could not be retrofitted to the new 24-inch tile. He said failing to replace the structure would likely lead to erosion and washing out around the tile during large spring rain events, which would necessitate riprap or other repairs.

Board members discussed contractor selection and the practical tradeoffs of buying riprap and performing ad-hoc repairs versus installing the concrete headwall designed by NRCS plans. A motion to proceed with the project using the contractor selected by the landowner, with the landowner paying half the estimate, passed on a roll call vote.

Votes at a glance: the motion to proceed carried with the following recorded votes: Whitehead — yes; Hamilton — yes; Reagan — yes; Christie — yes; Bothell — yes.

The board did not record any additional conditions or a formal timeline for construction during the motion. Tom said the replacement should resolve the outfall issue for the foreseeable future because the rest of the installed tile is new except at the outlet structure.

The board will rely on the NRCS-drawn plans for the headwall; Tom said he had not reviewed detailed thickness specifications and that some metal alternatives typically still require poured footings. The board did not specify a follow-up report date in the meeting.