The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Meeting

Monday, January 20, 2014 – 6:30 p.m.

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room

Delhi, IA

The meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 6:33 PM at the Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.

Trustees present: Leonard,  Kramer, Davidson, Schneider and Kray by Skype, Gifford by phone

Trustees absent:  Burger

Visitors: Chris Stender, Jim Locke, Dave Larson

Agenda reviewed by Leonard. Motion made by Schneider to approve agenda, Davidson second, all ayes, motion passed.

Leonard opened public hearing.  Leonard asked if any trustees have received written or verbal comments as it relates to the potential of the land transfer.  No Trustees have received comments.  Leonard opened the session to public comments.   Stender asked for update on the public access work.  Leonard gave an update and reviewed the drawing and plan between the District and the  County. 

Gifford joined by phone at 6:42pm.

Leonard gave total amount of project cost which is approximately $15.3 million and the revenues are approximately $16 million and both are detailed in the 28E agreement.  This 28E agreement details the transfer of the property and the terms and conditions of the $2.999 million bond agreement.  The county will process a request for a marine tax grant to assist with the cost of some of the items of the new public access area.  Any ongoing maintenance costs will be the responsibility of the County.  Stender asked if the federal permit had been issued yet and Leonard advised they expected the Army Corp of Engineers General to sign tomorrow and we are expecting the permit by the end of the month.  With no further comments, Kramer made motion to close the public hearing. Schneider second, all ayes, motion passed.  Public hearing closed at 6:56 pm.

Leonard introduced and read Resolution 1.20.14 to enter into the 28E agreement with Delaware County.  Motion made by Schneider to approve, Davidson second.  Individual roll call requested, all ayes, motion passed.

Public commnet – Chris Stender asked if this agreement will suffice for the State funding requirements and Leonard advised yes.  Stender asked for a specific update on the next steps.  Leonard advised we are anticipating the federal permit by the end of the month and that the final bid package is being worked on.  The bid mailings will begin in early February and will be opened in early March.  We expect work to begin in the spring.  Dave Larson asked what is the estimated time frame for installation of the coffer dam and Leonard said June or July.

Jim Locke asked if the programmatic agreement was a separate issue from the permit.  Leonard explained that the agreement for signature on the agreement takes care of any outstanding issues and also explains what will be allowed for dredging going forward.  The agreement needed to be in place before the permit was given.

Davidson mentioned that it would be nice to have the ability to put a camera on the dam so the public could view construction.  Gifford confirmed we could add a web cam to the Trustee web site.

Locke asked if the District was going to start work on Phase I before we get the Phase II permit.  Leonard said it depends on timing.  The Board will continue to make decisions as to the timing and funding. Stender asked if we expected any delays as it relates to the Phase II permit and Leonard said the DNR is aware of our plans and we are working with the DNR to answer questions as well as working with them through the requirements. 

Stender said he thought the Community Fund needed to raise more funds and all agreed.

Larson asked if elevation maps were still available for dredging and Leonard said yes.  Leonard also added that we will need to prioritize our plan for dredging and it will be dependent on if we have funds. 

Locke asked if adequate soil was found from the borings taken.  When Stanley designed costs of the dam they used the soil types that they found locally.  It will be up to the contractors to deal with owners of the land that have that soil.

Motion to adjourn by Schneider and second by Davidson.  All ayes, motion passed.

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Meeting

Thursday, January 16, 2014 – 6:30 p.m.

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room

Delhi, IA

The meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 6:34 PM at the Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.

Trustees present: Leonard,  Kramer, Davidson, Burger, Schneider and Gifford by phone and Kray by Skype 

Trustees absent: 

Visitors: Larry Peter, Eve Peter, Brooks Ante, Bob Galiher,  Marcheta Cooey Lux, Jim Locke, Chip Hughes, Chuck Figen, Nick Noel, Dennis Ball, Dan Reyner

Brant Vollman (Army Corp of Engineers), Pat Colgan, and Gary Grant by phone

Agenda reviewed by Leonard and asked for ability to change the order of the agenda items when the Army Corp of Engineers Architect joins.  Motion made by Burger to approve agenda, Davidson second, all ayes, motion passed.

Kray requested approval of minutes for the 11/21/13, 12/4/13, 12/20/13, 1/8/14 meetings and the 1/8/14 work session.  Burger made motion to approve, Kramer second.  All ayes, motion passed.

Kramer requested approval of payments for the General Fund as follows: Alliant – $28.74,  Boss Office Supplies – $13.20, Delaware County Auditor’s office for warrants – $80.00, ICAP regarding Fink lien – $5,751.23, L&L Consulting – $2,000.00, and Attorney fees for Oct. and Nov – $780.00.  Payments for the Bond Fund as follows: Delaware County Abstract Office – $1.315.00,  Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergmann – $5659.50, and Stanley Consultants – $22,636.55.  The board did not have their regularly scheduled meeting for December and 2 bills were paid (as within Kramer’s dollar approval to pay) and now asking for formal approval – Alliant $25.25 and L&L Consulting $2,000.00. Motion to pay all billings for the general fund and the bond fund as presented by Davidson, second by Burger.

Kramer reviewed budget reports as of 12/31/2013.  The General Fund had a starting balance of $141,825.14 and after receipts and expenses has a balance of $103,593.57.  The Debt Service Fund had a beginning balance of $152,065.67 and after receipts has an ending balance of $157,723.83.  The Dam/Spillway Fund has a beginning balance of $5,610,861.00 and after an interest payment ends with a balance of $5,615,413.53.   Burger made motion to file financial report, Davidson second.  All ayes, motion passed.

Kramer request a date be set for a public hearing for the 2015 FY budget and recommends  March 6, 2014 at 6:30 pm at the Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.  Motion to approve by Burger, Kray second. All ayes, motion passed.

Leonard introduced Brant Vollman, archeologist, who is one of our key contacts at the Army Corp of Engineers working on the programmatic agreement.  We are very close to an agreement and we must finalize this document prior to the issuance of the federal permit.  Vollman explained the Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for complying with environmental laws and the Historical Preservation Act.  Before the Corp can issue a permit, they need to determine the impact, if any, to archeological sites.  The Lake Delhi dam is eligible for the National Historic Register and in the impoundment area, there were 3 additional sites that were found to be eligible for the National Register as well.     

We now have a final draft programmatic agreement that was sent to Leonard today and tomorrow morning Vollman will prepare memos to forward the agreement to the Colonel of the Corp for signing.  As we move forward with the construction of the dam, there will be some mitigation work that will need to be done.  The majority of the sites studied did not maintain enough integrity to qualify for the national register but we do have to acknowledge the sites and the agreement gives us guidance on how to proceed.   The Trustees will sign the document, however, it is the Corps responsibility to ensure the document is carried out and our permit will have a special condition that we comply with the programmatic agreement.  Leonard also asked Vollman to describe what the District will need to do in order to move forward with any dredging.  Vollman explained that in working with the District, that the Programmatic agreement reviews the plan in detail.  The US Army Corp. will be the party that a dredging permit will need to be issued from.  The primary concern is to avoid dredging into native ground.  Leonard thanked Vollman for all of his work and Vollman left the meeting at 7:01 pm.  Leonard requested motion to sign document and Davidson made the motion, Burger second. Individual roll call taken, all ayes, motion passed.

Leonard discussed 28E agreement and explained there had been multiple meetings with the Delaware County Supervisors and we now are very close to having a final agreement.  This document sets the terms and conditions between Delaware County and the Lake Delhi Trustees for the $2,999,999 bonding and the public access improvements in a shared cost agreement.  The agreement explains that the money from Delaware County will be used for the Phase II construction of the spillway and that as invoices are received, the District will pay them and then forward to the County for a reimbursement of 50%.  The amenities for public access will be on a cost share basis of 50% not to exceed $350,000 so when Delaware County receives the invoices, they will pay them and forward to us for 50% reimbursement.  The improvements will include replacing the bridge, elevate it and and reallign it.  It will be approximately 20 feet wide with an anticipated height of 10 feet above the normal lake level when the dam is rebuilt water. There will be courtesy docks, a boat ramp and creation of a new beach.  A silt catch basin will be added so it will be easier to manage the siltation in that area.  The agreement also indicates that Delaware County will take on the future management of the facility. There will be a public hearing on Monday night for review of the property transfer.  Our approximate cost is $242,000 after the County submits for state grants to assist with the cost.

Committee updates

Finance – will meet on January 25 to recommend budget and review recording secretary position.

FEMA – Leonard explained that Doug Herman has spent hours reviewing the FEMA material and is actively working this issue.  He will be coming to the board with some additional requests in future meetings.

Dam Construction – After signing of programmatic agreement, we are expecting our federal permit by the end of January, beginning of February.  The board has already approved Colgan to move forward on Phase I and Colgan and Holman are working closely to complete that work.  We should be issuing bids shortly after.

Legislative – Gary Grant advised he and Larry Murphy have been working with Dan Zumbach and Lee Hein on the tax issue for 357E organizations.  We believe there was an oversight in this legislation that does not specifically indicated that 357Es are tax exempt for propert and sales tax like other municipal entities.  Grant indicated no special bill should be needed, that this should just be added to the code clean up bill that is always done early in the session.  Kramer asked when the bill would take effect and Grant indicated as soon as it is signed.  We may still need to utilize the appeal hearing scheduled in April to recoup past payments.

Property Management – nothing to report.

Public comment – Bob Galiher would like to know if there may be funding available for the Water Quality team in the budget.  He is requesting the Trustees to consider an allocaiton of funds to the team.  Leonard requested the team come to the board with a presentation as to how funds will be spent.  Discussion surrounded what items would be covered from sea wall improvements to siltation issues.  Galiher mentioned this issue tonight since the Finance committee will be reviewing the budget.  Burger advised we could still allocate funds even if it is not a specific line item in the budget prepared. Galiher will go back to committee when meetings begin again in the Spring and prepare a presentation.

Chuck Fagan asked how the LDRA will be getting funding moving forward. Locke indicated that grants have been used in the past and that currently we have a grant from Rockwell Collins that is being utilized for lake bed clean up.  Fagan also asked about funds available to the District and Leonard gave details.  The cost estimate of the construction is approximately $15,600,000 which includes the Turtle Creek Cove area and we have about $16,000,000 available utilizing all known pledges.  It will be very important to be cost effective in our construction so we can have some funds available for dredging and such.  In addition, we will be continuing our work with the Community Fund to Rebuild Lake Delhi to receive additional pledges.

Burger made motion to go into closed session for the purpose of discussion regarding terms for acquisition of property and property rights for purposes of restoring the lake and dam pursuant to Iowa Code Section 21.5 (1)(j).  Schneider second, individual roll call requested, all ayes, motion passed.

After closed session complete, Burger made motion to adjourn meeting, Kramer second.  All ayes, motion passed and meeting adjourned by 8:35 pm.

The Delaware County Board of Supervisors met in work session this date at 2:30 p.m. with all members present.  Also present were Steve Leonard, Laurie Kramer, Bruce Schneider, Robert Klima, Chip Hughes, Jim Locke, Larry Peter, Garlyn Glanz, Larry Aschbrenner, John Bernau, Anthony Bardgett and Carla Becker.  One member of the media was present. Chairperson Ries called the meeting to order.

The work session began with a review of the amended design for the proposed Turtle Creek access.  In an attempt to conserve the current boat ramp and access on the west side of the cove, the design was modified with less impact on the current road location.  By doing so, County Engineer Anthony Bardgett feels the same level of access can be achieved with the cost of the bridge and roadway being reduced from $506,878.00 to $396,780.10.  This would be a net savings of $110,097.90.  This would also reduce the dirt needs in half which may increase the cost of moving the excess material out of the cove.  The revised plan will also affect the proposed fishing access and beach area.  Not being a high priority item for this project, the additional fishing access may be eliminated.  A new location will need to be found for the proposed beach area.  If the beach is relocated on the west side of the cove, the second ADA restroom will also be located on that side.  However, if the beach area is relocated to the east side of the cove, there may not be a need for a second restroom facility.

Conservation Director Garlyn Glanz redirected the conversation to the need for silt basins with the proposed project.  He is anticipating that these basins will be located upstream from the cove behind the existing park facility.  They will need to have access to them and be positioned for long-term maintenance.  Dredging costs for the cove will also need to be addressed.  With the new design, Mr. Glanz is estimating that 5,000 to 10,000 cu yards of material will need to be removed from the cove at an estimated cost of $44,500.00 ($5.50/cu yard).  However, he did discover that these dredging costs are eligible under the marine fuel tax grant.

Supervisor Ries asked if the project could move forward without the expense of raising the bridge.  Supervisors Helmrichs and Madlom do not feel leaving the bridge at its current height is an option.  At normal water levels before the breach, there was only 5 ½ – 6 feet of clearance under the bridge.  The proposed height would take it to 12 feet of clearance.  Supervisor Helmrichs does not feel the area would be a “true public access” if the bridge were left at its current height. 

According to Mr. Glanz, the new projected cost of the proposed project (exclusive of the bridge and road portions) would be $173,125 of which $113,125 is eligible under the marine fuel tax grant at a 75/25 cost share.  Projected expenditures for FY 14-15 would be $119,125 and $54,000 ($36,000 for the catch basins and $18,000 for the second proposed restroom facility) scheduled in FY 15-16.  The total cost breakdown would be as follows:

Cost of Items for AmenitiesAnticipated to be Eligible for Marine Fuel Tax Grant

Boat Ramp $26,125 Boat Ramp $26,125

Parking $16,500 Parking $16,500

Restrooms (2) $36,000 Restrooms (1) $18,000

Courtesy Dock $8,000 Courtesy Dock $8,000

Dredging of Cove $44,500 Dredging of Cove $44,500

Beach Area $6,000 Beach Area Not Eligible

Fish Access $0.00 Fish Access Not Eligible

Silt Catch Basins $36,000 Silt Catch Basins Not Eligible

   Total $173,125    Total $113,125

Cost Share 75% DNR $84,843.75

Cost Share 25% County $28,281.25

Road and Bridge Expenditures $396,780.10

   Total Cost 569,905.10

Less Projected Grant Receipts -$84,843.75

   Net cost of Project 485,061.35

Proposed County 50% $242,530.68

Proposed District 50% $242,530.67

With regards to the transfer of the Turtle Creek Cove property from the District to the County, an abstract was created and a title opinion issued by Attorney Tom Hanson on behalf of the county.  According to County Attorney John Bernau, Mr. Hanson is finding marketable title in the District’s name.  However, Mr. Bernau would like clarification within two (2) separate areas.  First, a notice of Memorandum of Agreement was recorded which pertained to this property.  He would like to have the copies of the original agreement along with copies of the three (3) subsequent amendments.  The second issue is with the mechanics liens filed against the District. According to research performed by Assistant County Attorney Courtney Vorwald, two (2) of the four (4) liens have been released.  She could not find releases for the other two (2).  Even though the liens are specifically listed as being on the dam property, a quit claim deed filed between LDRA and the District specifically calls out these liens without reference to the land they cover.  He will need clarification on this and may require a Warranty Deed to transfer the parcel.

Conservation Director Garlyn Glanz reiterated the Conservations Board’s requirement that the property be transferred to County ownership prior to the filing of the marine fuel tax grant application.  He also stated that the goal of the County Conservation Board is to maintain this property as public access.  The District would like the property to revert back to them if the County should discontinue maintaining it as a public access. 

Mr. Bernau wondered if the DNR had any restrictions on the transfer of property where state grant monies were utilized.  Mr. Glanz stated he would look into that and get back to the group. 

Steve Leonard, District President, began to step through the proposed 28E Agreement.  He noted the following issues:

Page 1, Item 1 and Page 2, Item 3 – We still need clarification as to what “project” means.  Are they referring to the entire dam and spillway project or just the spillway?

Page 2, Section 4 – Should the agreement have a termination date?  There are portions of the agreement which are perpetual.

Page 2, Section 5.2 – On the last line need to change the verbiage from “receipt of the invoice” to “receipt of the request for reimbursement” since the county handles the District’s finances and would have already received the invoice for initial payment.

Also in this section, Mr. Leonard stated that the District has already incurred expenses relating to the design of the spillway portion. Would they be able to submit for reimbursement on these expenses? Board members did not seem to object to reimbursement for any spillway related expenditure subject to Board review at the time of the request.  However, the Board would prefer that the reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to this agreement be limited to one request within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this agreement. 

Pages 2 & 3, Section 6 – Since the County is proposing to own, operate and maintain the public access amenities at Turtle Creek Cove, portions of Section 6 no longer apply to this section of the agreement.  However, Exhibit B should include these items along with a detailed description of the proposed public access project.

Page 3, Section 6.2 – The District’s attorney has stated that he will not furnish the requested opinion of counsel on the lake property due to frontage issues, etc.  They would like to know what else the District can provide that would satisfy this request. 

Page 4, Section 6.4.2 – The District is simply looking for direction as to what is being required.  Is this for the entire project and public amenities or just the spillway and public amenities?

Page 4, Section 8 – It was agreed that there is no way to measure the requirement for the county to maintain the public amenities “in a similar manner as other County owned property”.  Mr. Glanz recommended that portion of the sentence be stricken, a comma added after the word County in the last sentence and the following verbiage added:

…“including dredging of Turtle Creek Cove and the maintenance of the water shed silt catch basin(s).”

Page 5, Section 9.1 – The District is still having some issues with regards to the requirements of all-risk insurance due to its availability.

Page 5, Section 9.2, 9.3 & 9.4 – These sections were added at the request of County Auditor Carla Becker after speaking with management at Lake Panorama.  Since all-risk property insurance was not feasible after construction, the filing of the 5 year inspection report with the Board would keep them informed of the condition of the structure as well as the District’s response for remediation of any defects. Section 9.4 was also added at the suggestion of Lake Panorama.  Even though there didn’t seem to be direct opposition on the part of the District, it was suggested that deposits into this “Improvement Fund” could begin in Fiscal Year 2016-17.  This would allow the District a year or two to regain a positive fund balance after construction.

Page 7, Section 11.2 – The District is simply looking for clarification on what “partial termination” of the contract means.

Page 9, Section 14 – The District continues to ask for the addition of mediation in the area of dispute resolution.  According to the County’s bonding attorney, Mark Cory, by listing the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, this section is simply stating the “venue” that any disputes would be settled.  That does not mean that it would have to go to court.  He would prefer not to “require” mediation. However, this section does not rule out mediation as a tool.  County Attorney John Bernau concurred with Mr. Cory’s explanation.

The following items are not currently spelled out in the agreement:

1. Transfer of the Turtle Creek cove property from the District to the County subject to the retainage of flood plain rights by the District as well as lake bed usage and maintenance rights for that portion of the transferred property lying north and east of the northern right-of-way of the relocated roadway

2. Understanding that the project must be completed prior to the completion of the dam and spillway to save money.

There being no further business before the Board, the work session was closed at 3:55 p.m.

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Meeting

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room

Delhi, IA

The meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 6:30 PM at the Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.

Trustees present:  Leonard, Kramer, Davidson, Burger, Schneider.  Kray and Gifford participated by phone.

Absent: None

Visitors: Larry &  Eve Peter, Ed Schmidt, Dan Zumbach, Chris Stender, Doug Herman, Dave Larson, Bob & Lola Galiher and Sara Millhouse from the Dyersville Commercial.

The agenda was reviewed by Leonard.  A motion was made by Burger, second by Schneider to approve agenda.  Motion carried.

Leonard presented the Trustees with a letter of resignation from Dave Fry who has been serving as the FEMA CFO Authorized Representative for the district.  Motion by Schneider, second by Kramer to accept Dave Fry’s resignation.  Motion carried.   Leonard commented on the amount of time Dave put in as our FEMA representative and offered thanks from the District for all his work and efforts.  Leonard also commented that Dave shared he would be willing to continue working in the background with the new authorized reps along with any contracted work that may be approved by the District.

Leonard introduced Doug Herman who is currently the city administrator for the City of Monticello. Doug has had FEMA experience, served on the Governor’s Task Force, and has property on the lake.  Doug has indicated he is willing to volunteer his time as it relates to our current status with FEMA. Doug commented that he has work with FEMA since 2008.  He has met with Dave Fry and reviewed the District’s history with FEMA and the 2010 reports.  When Doug moved to Monticello he worked as an attorney and then went into city management.

Leonard clarified that his understanding with communications from Homeland Security is that Dave Fry and Pat Colgan were specifically authorized reps for 2010 event but not 2008.  Since we are removed from the 2010 event we need to officially approve a new Authorized Representative and Chief Financial Officer for the 2008 event.  A motion was made by Burger, second by Davidson to approve Pat Colgan as our Authorized Representative and Doug Herman as our FEMA Chief Financial Officer.  Pat said his main focus is on dam construction but he is willing to help for the time being depending on the amount of time it will take. Davidson said he was concerned about the amount of time this position will take Pat.  He asked Pat to keep the Trustees posted on how things go.  Motion carried.

Leonard briefly reviewed the possible public access options that were presented at the last meeting.  As was discussed at the last meeting, the Turtle Creek area seems to be the best option.

To start the process of transferring the Turtle Creek property to the County there will need to be an abstract for that parcel.  Both Carla Becker, County Auditor and Anthony Bardgett commented that the abstract was necessary to be sure the property is free of any liens.  Leonard explained that it would take two to six weeks for the abstract to be reviewed.  The cost estimate is between $400 and $800.  A motion was made by Schneider, second by Burger to request an abstract of the property and payment for that abstract.  Davidson asked if this will hinder our timeline for the transfer.  Leonard said there will be a push to get the abstract done as soon as possible, hopefully, by the end of December.  He also stated that all other agreements with the county should not be delayed with the abstract if we get the abstract started immediately.  Motion carried

Leonard reviewed a template of a property transfer agreement for Turtle Creek to be submitted to the County Supervisors and asked for a motion to approve the template so the Trustees could discuss.  He also indicated that he and several Trustees will be meeting tomorrow, Thursday, December 5, with the County Supervisors to review the proposal and we need to be able to provide a template for those discussions.  Burger made a motion approve the template, Kramer seconded the motion.  There was the following discussion.  Burger said that past discussions have centered around a 50/50 split with the County on the cost of the project.  He said that since we need an access plan, this would seem reasonable.  The cost estimate is approximately $644,000 and Burger suggested the District pay 50% of the cost up to $350,000 in case of cost overruns.  Burger also recommended the county draw up 28E agreement.  Motion by Burger, second by Schneider to approve the proposed template.    Kramer asked about the lake bed maintenance as referenced in Item 4 and Item 7 of the proposed template.  Per the proposal, Leonard said the County would be dredging inside the Turtle Creek cove as part of the process surrounding the building of the bridge.  Schneider indicated that the County mentioned having catch basins.  The District’s maintenance would involve the area outside the Turtle Creek Cove. 

Davidson mentioned there seems to be three different opinions by the Supervisors on the percentage the County should pay for the project.  He also questioned who will be in charge of the construction of the project.  Leonard indicated that Delaware County will do all the construction of the project and we will reimburse.  Burger said this would be an advantage to the District since the County has the engineering resources as it relates to building bridges.   With regard to the amenities such as bathrooms, boat ramps, etc., Garlyn Glanz, from the County Conservation Board,  has done the research on the related costs.   Leonard said he understands the bridge and amenities will be bid out as one complete project.  Kray brought up differing opinions with the Supervisors.  She expressed concern that the Supervisors were concerned about the maintenance costs.  Leonard said he liked the 50/50 split.  He reminded the Board that this is not just a financial obligation.  We represent approximately 10% of the county so that takes us to approximately a 60% contribution.  Our land value is greater than $1.00. so that takes the percentage to an even higher amount.    Burger made mention that in transferring the property, if it doesn’t work out, the property will come back to the District. That language has to stay in the agreement.  Leonard said he is hoping for a full agreement regarding the transfer and the public access agreement.  Tomorrow’s meeting with the Supervisors is only a work session.  Gifford commented that based on all of our experiences interacting with government entities, a 50/50 split makes complete sense.  Davidson agreed, but said that wasn’t where Supervisors’ heads were after the last meeting.    Gifford believes we need to market the intangible values the District brings to the table.  Leonard agreed with those comments.    Leonard asked for a roll call vote.  All ayes.

A motion was made by Burger, second by Kramer to pay the interest only on LDRA dredge debt that was due December 1, 2013 in amount of $36,625.00.  Motion carried.

Public comment:

Larry Peter – Commented that he understood from visits with the County that the Turtle Creek project would be handled by the County.

Bob Galiher – Bob ask what the District goals are going to be with regard to FEMA and the 2008 event.  Leonard said goals are simple.  There are a lot of questions on how things were done in the past.  Sole source contracts, how payments were made, etc.  We have to justify every item on the monitoring report.  Some items are close to being signed off on and some still need work.  FEMA is pushing Homeland Security to get this done.  We may look at hiring a contractor to help the process.  We hope this will take a short amount of time, possibly 6-9 months.  Our goal as a District is to reduce what we may have to pay back and to make sure the District gets what is due.  Colgan explained that the monitoring report after the 2010 event brought these issues to light. It could be simple or could be drawn out.  Hopefully get done as quickly as possible.

Bob Galiher  – Regarding Turtle Creek.    Does this area totally satisfy the State.  Leonard explained there needed to be a wastewater plan and public access plan for the District to get RIIF monies.  The wastewater plan has been accepted.  Items such as a added boat ramps, beaches, areas for fishing and additional parking were spelled out to state.  The State has given us much latitude.  They understand our budget and cost issues and they have been very cooperative and know that we are committed to this.  Dan Zumbach, our state senator made the comment that we need to look at the DNR as a partner, not an enemy.  The DNR Director has had a positive attitude.  The DNR are supportive and pleased with Turtle Creek plan. 

Lola Galiher  – Is county assuming part of their cost for public access will come from the $3M? Leonard said no.  That is in addition to the $2,999,999.  Schneider said the County amount is earmarked for spillway.

Bob Galiher – If the County gets grant money will that be split with the District.  Leonard said yes that is the way the proposal is designed.  He explained that there is approximately $68,000 in costs that are grant eligible.  The grant comes from Marine tax and would pay 75% of eligible costs.

Lola Galiher – How are the Trustees feeling as far as cooperation with the Supervisors? Davidson said the relationship has been good.  There’s been respect and there have been differences of opinion but we are working well together.  Leonard commented that the County also has limited funds as does the District but the good news is that even though we both have budget constraints.  This is a positive investment for both parties.

Doug Herman – Is the county engineer’s cost being shared.  Leonard replied that our understanding is that it’s at no cost.

There being no other public comment, a motion was made by Burger, second by Davidson to go into closed session.   Leonard asked for a roll call vote.   All ayes. 

After the closed session was adjourned, a motion was made by Schneider, second by Kramer to adjourn meeting.  Motion carried.