Minutes – December 15, 2016

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Thursday, December 15, 2016

6:30 pm

Lake Delhi Trustees Administration Building

Delhi, IA

The regular meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 6:30 pm.

Trustees present: Leonard, Kramer, Herman, Burger with Colgan, Gifford, and Havertape participating by phone.

Trustees absent: None

Guests: Dan Ward from General Constructors, Inc., Chip Hughes, Ed Schmidt, and Deb Burger

Motion to approve the agenda as posted made by Burger, seconded by Herman. Motion carried.

Motion to approve the November 17, 2016 meeting minutes was made by Burger, seconded by Herman. Motion carried

Kramer presented payment claims for approval. Payments from the General Fund in the amount of $45,902.74 for electricity, supplies, internet/phone, copier usage, lobbyist, asphalt work, guardrail installation, electrical work, legal fees and engineering services were presented. Payments in the amount of $5,079.90 for dam operations, debris removal and engineering services were presented from the Dam/Spillway Project Fund. Motion to approve payments as presented made by Herman, seconded by Burger. Motion carried.

Kramer presented the financial reports for November. The General Fund had revenues of $4,396.76 and expenditures of $3,495.81 with an ending balance of $322,613.51. The Debt Service Fund had revenues of $8,265.21 with no expenditures with an ending balance of $181,548.57. The Dam/Spillway Project Fund had revenues of $1,398.52 and expenditures of $27,427.87 with an ending balance of $1,802,369.0. Burger motioned to file the financial reports as read, Colgan seconded. Motion carried.

Steve introduced Dan Ward from General Constructors, Inc.   Dan was present to discuss the late fees relating to the Phase II dam construction delays and Stanley Engineers recommendation as it relates to change order 10.5 that was signed in March.   Dan asked to be put on the agenda so he could explain his concerns regarding the project and the late fees with all the board members. He said his company was very grateful for the opportunity to be a part of the project. He acknowledged that this was for first dam project his company had ever been a part of but noted that his company does heavy civil work which is what this project was.   Dan said his main interest in the project was because he had friends who had a place on the lake and he was familiar with the area. When he saw the damage that was left from the breach of 2010 he felt compelled to help. From a timing standpoint his company also had the resources available so it made sense to bid the project.   He explained that the company left over a $1m dollars on the table. He did a lot of re-evaluating of his numbers but he said he felt comfortable with them and the plan for the project. He said the project got off to a good start until June 15th when the cofferdam broke. He said his company takes full responsibility for that but said they were able to work through it although it caused a month delay. That event was very instrumental that caused a lot of issues moving forward. The next setback they encountered was the unsuitable materials below the earthen embankment dam. They had to pay to have the unsuitable material removed and also had to bring more till in. It was difficult to find the right material and the quantity went up by 120%. That work pushed the project into the winter months. The wet weather during the winter months created many problems.   On December 14th the high flows almost breached the upstream cofferdam and they decided to open the gates and sacrifice the downstream cofferdam which flooded the work on the lower side. That created more delays.   In January, February and March there was very little progress.   Trying to install the till materials to 100% compaction was very difficult given the weather conditions. Once the weather broke things progressed quickly and the concrete work started moving forward. In March there was an agreement made to compensate the District for the engineering services provided by Stanley for the months of March and April plus liquidated damages for every day past May 1st. Dan stated his interpretation of “substantial completion” was defined as being able to pass water over the structure which he thought meant having the C & A slabs done. Then in subsequent discussions Bill Holman stated all the concrete work needed to be done before water could pass and then he also stated the cut-off wall needed to be done as well as fill around the sheet pile. The materials needed were changed to till material which caused a two week delay. Then the final definition of “substantial completion” was that the cofferedam needed to be removed and be inspected by the state. Dan felt the “substantial completion” definition was a moving target from the time of the initial agreement. The last obstacle was to get the cofferdam out of the water. Even though a two week extension was given to GCI, the delay caused the removal of the cofferedam to occur during a high water situation. In order to do that they mobilized more equipment and had to bring in more rock material to keep the equipment out of the water. Overall, the June failure of the cofferdam created more work, more overtime, more sub-contractor costs and more equipment costs. Dan said he felt his company did it’s best to get the dam project completed. In summary, Dan said the project was important to his company and they gave it special attention. He felt they provided the District with great value on bid day. He noted that they certainly underestimated the risk. He stated the cofferdam failure was their fault. But he noted that they had other existing issues that created the problems such as unsuitable materials. He said his company made the best effort they could to get the lake back. He felt the project started well and finished well because the lake is back. He understands that there were extra costs to the District with Stanley because of their delays and he accepts that but noted those costs were not close to the $1M that GCI gave us on bid day. Dan said he would accept whatever settlement on late fees that the Board felt is fair. Leonard thanks Dan for his information.

Leonard shared with the Board the information he was given by Bill Holman from Stanley Engineering regarding the additional costs to the District for the construction delays.   The total costs from March through July was $80,715.37. Leonard stated that Bill’s numbers are conservative and that these are the numbers Bill felt comfortable with.   Initially, Bill’s figures were in the $105,000 range. The $30,000 difference equates to 15 days at $2,000 per day which can be related to the two week delay that created issues dealing with the removal of the cofferdam. Colgan made a motion to reduced the retainage owed to GCI by $80,715.37, Kramer seconded the motion. Dan Ward asked that Stanley give him a change order based on the decision by the Board so that he can complete the contract and have an accurate paper trail. Leonard asked for comments from the Board. Colgan thanked Dan for coming to the meeting. He stated Phase II was not an easy project. He agreed with the timeline of that project that Dan presented.   Colgan agreed that Dan and his crew did the very job given the issues that were created by time delays. He also comments that we got great value for the project.   Burger asked for clarification on the retainage. Herman asked if we settle at $80,715 do we take the “substantial completion” out of the picture. Dan Ward stated the $2,000 /day was to cover Stanley’s costs. Leonard said he thought it was an arbitrary number. Colgan commented that it was his understanding the number came from taking Stanley’s average monthly bills and dividing them by 30 days to get to the $2,000 figure.   Dan stated the $80,715 is to cover the charges from Stanley. Herman stated that he felt with the quality bid we got and the quality project we got there should be no reason to go higher that the $80K. Gifford said he agreed with that figure. Havertape said he knows the project was frustrating and he felt comfortable with the settlement. Leonard acknowledged that the project was confronted with all kinds of issues including weather and soil compactions. The point of the settlement was to recoup our additional costs.   Kramer added that she attended the weekly construction meetings and saw firsthand the frustrations the crew was going through trying to get the right compactions through the winter months. She felt they did their very best and is extremely pleased with the outcome. Leonard added that by having Dan involved in the project it showed his commitment to getting the job done.  He was impressed by the additional time, energy, financial resources and commitment that Dan put into the project. Dan added that the quality of the project was very important to GCI. Colgan commented that the labyrinth spillway slopes six inches downstream and the water flows over uniformly. That was done perfectly. Leonard asked for a vote by the Board. All members voted to approve the motion.

Leonard asked Colgan to speak to the Board regarding the quote he received from Rotork on a spare gearbox/actuator. Colgan stated he’s been working with Rotork since last summer to come up with spare parts that the District would need to adequately insure operations 20 plus years into the future. He received their quote this past week and forwarded a copy to all the board members to review. Basically, there are three pieces of equipment that we need. A spare motorized actuator, spare gearbox and a spare threaded drive bushing. He explained how each piece of equipment works and why they are needed. The total cost is $38,265 which is one fraction of one percent of the total project. He stressed that it’s a 14-16 week delivery and the need for the parts is crucial because without them any problems we encounter in the future would cause multiple issues that we don’t want to have to deal with. Burger asked Colgan where the parts would be stored. Colgan stated he would recommend shipping them to Lunda since we have a service agreement with them through 2017. Eventually we would store in our facility but right now that area is not cleaned up and not suitable for storage. That is something we will need to address in the future. Burger made the motion to purchase the equipment from the Rotork quote for $38,265. A second to the motion was made by Herman.   Leonard asked for any other discussion. Herman asked about the shelf life of the equipment. Colgan said he felt they should be good for at least five years or more at which time we could send them back to be re-serviced if necessary. After more discussion regarding the gearbox Colgan stated that a service agreement with Rotork is being work out that would include inspection of equipment and repair work. Leonard asked for a vote. All ayes. Motion carried.

Leonard asked Colgan to highlight the next agenda item regarding a pay down of the Lunda Construction retainage.   Our current retainage is around $120,000 which we’ve held for over 18 months. The issue has always been the gate we just talked about. Now that we can quantify what’s left which is under $15,000 worth of work we should be able to release some retainage.   Bill Holman has given us his recommendation and an invoice from Lunda for the release of $73,453.43. Colgan suggested we hold off until January and resolve the retainage at our next meeting. Kramer explained that we have a specific invoice for the $73,453.43 and suggested we should pay that amount this month.   It was again noted the only thing left for Lunda is to finish the gate work so paying this invoice still gives us a cushion of around $50,000. A motion was made by Herman, second by Burger to approve the partial payment release of $73,453.43. Motion carried.

Leonard asked Kramer to present information relating to the next agenda item concerning closing out the current Stanley Consultants supplemental agreements and move towards a “service as requested” agreement. Kramer indicated that at the time Stanley was hired as our dam engineering firm specific tasks were developed relating to different aspects of the rebuilding process. Now that the project is almost complete there’s little invoicing left from Stanley that relates to the dam rebuild.   Kramer has talked with Bill Holman from Stanley and he indicated that there’s some invoices left that relate to Phase II but it would appear that once those are paid we can close out the project with Stanley and move to a “service as requested” agreement which would mean as projects develop that we need their services they would quote as an amount per project. Leonard mentioned that Kramer as well as himself have had conversations with our county auditor, Carla Becker, who would like to see us move to closing out the project which includes not only Stanley but Lunda and GCI as well. Kramer also mentioned that once the closeout is complete we will be able to move the remaining funds from our Dam Spillway Fund into our General Fund as it was a sub-fund of the General Fund from the beginning. Burger asked if the Board will have discussions regarding any service agreement with Stanley before they are hired to do any other projects for the District. Leonard stated that is correct. What makes sense is to clean up the current contract and start fresh with agreements for projects that don’t relate to the rebuild project. Kramer asked Colgan to explain some projects he’s aware of that will need attention from Stanley. He stated that one project is the damaged done to the downstream riprap from the September 22 flood than needs to be re-done. FEMA may be involved in the project but it’s work that needs to be done in 2017. Another project is the erosion problems we have near the SCADA building on the south side of the dam. Leonard stated that we know there will be areas around the dredge site that Stanley is going to be involved in. Leonard said to answer Burger’s question he thinks it would be important for the Board to make a master list of projects that need Stanley’s services and then put a contract into place for each project with a “not to exceed” dollar amount.   Kramer indicated the actual close out with Stanley for the dam rebuild will occur in January and after that the Board can look at service agreements with Stanley for future projects as needed. No action on this agenda item was taken.

The next agenda item was regarding a possible change in the monthly meeting date. Gifford stated that since we’ve had our meetings on Thursday for years and since some times family events fall on Thursday nights he thought maybe we could change the date. Kramer expressed concerns that Monday and Tuesday nights are not particularly good nights and that she would like the meetings to remain in the third week of the month because she has to prepare the financial reports after she receives them from the county and that usually happens in the second week of the month.   Both Herman and Burger stated that Monday and Tuesday nights are their busy nights because of business meetings. Burger suggested that possibly we could hold the meetings on a Wednesday or Thursday depending on schedules. Leonard suggested the possibility of have the meetings on a six month rotation where the first six months the meetings are on Wednesday and the second six months they would be on Thursday.   Kramer said she feels people have an expectation that our meetings will be on a certain day of the month. Herman agreed. With no motion made, there was no action.

Committee Updates:

Beach Maintenance – Leonard asked Herman to give a brief update regarding recent discussions with FEMA. Herman stated there are three or four potential projects that the District could look at based on the 2016 flood. One of those projects includes Lost Beach. Herman stated that he has met with FEMA representatives several times and they have been to the area to review and take pictures. They agree we are eligible for funds because it is a public beach. They would put together a project to restore the beach at 75% cost to FEMA, 15% District and 10% state. They also stated that if the District could provide them information that this could be a reoccurring type of damage and present to the them a proposal called a “hazard mitigation” project we could possible get additional funding for protective measures around the beach. Herman stated it would be nice to include some sedimentation catch although he does not know if FEMA would consider that as part of flood prevention. Herman said he has talked with Burrington Group because we will need their help in putting together the scope of the project. Leonard asked if there needs to be three bids. Herman stated we aren’t required to have three bids but it would be best if we did that or evidence that we sought other bids. Herman mentioned other projects that might be eligible for FEMA funds include debris removal. There’s debris sitting on the spillway and there’s debris below the spillway. If the overall cost is $3,000 or more we could possibly get some fund. The money spent having experts on the dam the day of the flood event falls into a “protective” measures category and we may be eligible to be reimbursed for those costs. Another project could be the work done to pull out the riprap after the flood event. They would pay us back for that because the work was done as an emergency protection measure even though we didn’t bid it because the work needed to be done right away. We could potentially look at funding to re-do the riprap if we could get a scope of the project and bids.   Leonard asked Herman if he was wanting guidance from the Board to get Burrington Group involved in putting together a scope of services for the Lost Beach project and Stanley Engineering for the riprap project. Herman stated he needs direction from the Board to getting moving in the next few weeks. The general concensus was to have Herman move forward to organize what is needed to move forward.  Burger expressed concern that the Board needs to work with the private landowners.

Lake Recreational Maintenance Issues – No report

Dredge – No Report

Dam Operations – Colgan commented that the bubblers are working on the dam and we will be watching for spring runoffs in the future

Water Quality – Leonard said December and January regarding the Watershed Management Authority. There’s a total of 58 eligible members including cities, counties, soil water conservation districts, etc.   Things are moving well and hoping to get a large grant in the near future

Finance/Funding – Kramer reported that she has picked up the budget worksheets for our next fiscal year and will be starting the process to build next year’s budget after the holidays.

Legislative – Leonard mentioned that we are working to get adjusted language approved to help us with the refund of bonds and that our lobbyists are working on this along with Lee Hein and Dan Zumbach.

Public Comments:

Chip Hughes said he found it interesting that there was a statement made there was flood damage done to Lost Beach. He wasn’t aware of the damage.

Ed Schmidt said he noticed that in the Manchester Press there are grants available through the Future Foundation of Delaware County and was wondering if that is something the District could participate in. Kramer stated that she thought you needed to be a non-profit organization to get grant money but would check into it.

Motion to adjust by Burger, second by Kramer. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

January 7, 2017
By :
Category : Lake Delhi Trustees 0 Comment

Comments are closed.