The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District
Thursday, May 16, 2019
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 at 6:30 pm by President Staebell.
Trustees present: Staebell, Davidson, Burger, Leonard, Havertape and Herman. Gifford present by phone
Visitors: Ed Schmidt and Dan Reyner
Staebell asked for a motion to approve the meeting agenda. A motion was made by Herman, seconded by Burger. Motion carried.
Motion to approve the minutes of previous meetings was made by Burger, seconded by Havertape. Motion carried.
Claims were presented for payment in the amount of $8,968.22 from the General Fund for electricity, internet services, dam operation services, printer maintenance, lobbyist expense, clerical expense, property insurance, trailer license and miscellaneous supplies. Herman motioned to approve the claims for payment as read minus the payment of the trailer license. Davidson seconded. Motion carried.
April financial reports were presented. The General Fund had revenues of $160,528.07 from Delaware County and the Community Fund to Rebuild Lake Delhi. Expenditures for April were $$108,884.16 ending April at $1,965,506.84. The Debt Service Fund had revenues of $28,414.00 from Delaware County and expenditures of $236,579.00, ending April at $28,956.39. The Dam Improvement Fund had no revenues or expenditures and ended April with a $20,000.00 balance. Herman motioned to receive and file the financial reports as read, Burger seconded. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Burger, second by Leonard to approve the FY2018 Compilation report by Hunt and Associates. Motion carried.
The next agenda item was consideration of a resolution to consent to assignment of trustee agent agreements; escrow agent agreements; and/or paying of agent and registrar and transfer of agent agreements. Staebell asked Burger to update the Board.
Burger explained that the registrar paying agent that the District original signed up with is Bankers Trust. What they do is they keep track of all the electronic bonds that are out there so all the District has to do is send one check to them. If bonds are sold Bankers Trust distributes the money. They take care of all the paperwork for an annual fee. What happened is Bankers Trust sold their service to UMB bank of Kansas City. Bond council decided a resolution needed to be done to verify the District is okay with transfer. While the actual transfer to UMB Bank has been moved back to July, it’s necessary to get the paperwork completed beforehand. A motion was made by Herman, second by Davidson. Staebell asked for a roll call vote.
Leonard – yes
Davidson- yes
Burger – yes
Gifford – yes
Staebell – yes
Herman – yes
Havertape – yes
Motion carried
Consideration and possible action on a resolution to transfer a designated amount into the Dam Improvement Fund as required by the 28E Agreement with the County Supervisors filed in January of 2014. Staebell explained that this is an annual transfer and in the past two years the Board has approved $10,000 each year for a total of $20,000 that is in Fund 81003. He noted there has been some discussion among the Trustees regarding the amount to transfer. Staebell stated that more discussion about adding more money into the Dam Improvement Fund could be done at the next work session. The requirement from the County is to get to a total of $150,000 in that fund. Staebell asked for a motion to transfer $10,000 into the Dam Improvement Fund.. Davidson made the motion to transfer $10,000, second by Havertape. Staeball asked for a roll call vote.
Leonard – yes
Davidson- yes
Burger – yes
Gifford – yes
Staebell – yes
Herman – yes
Havertape – yes
Motion carried.
The Board considered possible action on a resolution to approve a policy to transfer District lake frontage. Staebell noted that this issue has been discussed for several months and asked Herman to give the Board an overview of the policy. Herman stated that in Resolution 5.16.19 (d) he laid out a summary of how historically the LDRA had sold lake frontage in the past. Although most of the lake frontage was sold there are some areas that remain with the District. The District’s intent is to give up control and sell it to adjacent property owners. While we can’t force the property owners to purchase their frontage the District can prohibit docks and lifts to be placed on the frontage the District owns. While the LDRA transferred property to the center of the lake that could be a FEMA issue. The intent of this policy would be to transfer 50’ from the shoreline. This would be done by a quit claim deed at the same cost that the LDRA sold front which was $10.00 a lineal foot. The property owner would have to pay for the survey and also all recording fees. In the deed the District would reserve the right to enter the property and maintain what was sold if an event warranted it. It would be the District’s cost to move the owner’s docks/lifts and replace them. The District would also retains sole discretion to NOT sell frontage if for some reason that frontage was deemed valuable to the District. Herman stated he felt the deeds will be pretty consistent and if there’s one attorney would could handle all of the deeds it may be a benefit to the owner. The homeowner can choose whoever they want for a surveyor. Leonard stated he felt the $10.00 per foot should go up every year to encourage property owners to take advantage of purchasing the frontage now. He also thought the estimate on the legal fees and recording costs seem a bit low. Leonard stated his concern about putting cost estimates in the policy given the fact that the costs could run higher than the estimate. Herman said the estimate could be removed from the policy but Burger stated he felt there needs to be some language as to the cost. Leonard suggested the policy include a range for costs. Havertape asked how many properties were left that are District owned. Herman stated he thought around 20 or so. Staebell thought it was more like a dozen. Leonard suggested changing the rate per foot to $10.00 per for in calendar 2019 and a 3% inflationary rate thereafter. Herman said he’d rather do $10.00 per foot for the fiscal year 2020 and an additional $5.00 per foot per year thereafter. Leonard asked if the language relating to moving property owner’s docks/lifts reviewed by the county auditor. Herman said he had talked with her but that he would draft language that would go on the deed. Herman said the policy approval could be postponed until after the public hearing. After some discussion, the consensus was to approve the policy tonight and if it needs to be amended that could be done at the public hearing in June. It was also clarified that the policy would reflect a range to the costs for surveying and the legal and recording fees. Leonard asked how is this going to be communicated to the homeowners since some may not know they don’t own their frontage. Staebell and Herman stated they would be reaching out to the property owners who have been identified as not owning their frontage. Herman noted that the language on #4 of the policy would state the rate of $10 per lineal foot would be measured from the point where the district property meets the private property and that the rate of $10 per lineal foot would increase $5.00 annually starting in July, 2020. Davidson made a motion to approve the transfer policy as edited in Resolution 5.16.19 ( c ), Havertape second. Motion carried.
The Board considered possible action on a resolution to schedule a public hearing to approve the transfer of lake frontage owned y the District to adjacent property owners pursuant to the District lake frontage a transfer policy. Said hearing will be held on June 20, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. at the District Office. Herman stated that he had talked with Laurie Kramer regarding the notice for the public hearing. He will be working with her on the language for the notification. A motion was made by Burger, second by Davidson. Motion carried.
The Board discussed action on removal of the wood debris located down by the Nook location near the dam and wood debris at Lost Beach. Staebell stated that Rich Hughes plans to remove the debris on Lost Beach. The question is what to do with the debris in the Nook area. Leonard stated he had talked to Marty Pottebaum. Marty had talked with the homeowner next to the debris and she was comfortable with burning it but there could be some liability to do that. Davidson said he is not in favor of burning. He stated that the decision was made to let the wood dry out for 30 days and then anyone who wanted to take it for firewood could do so. He also noted that Jeremy Klima expressed interest in taking it. Burger stated he had heard from Bruce Schneider who had a lot of trees and wood debris dropped at his place. Burger said if action is going to be taken on wood debris the Schneider property should be included. Staebell also stated that there was a lot of debris in the Klima area also. Because of other debris that is still located in the lake, Leonard made a recommendation to reach out to Jeremy Klima to take another run through the lake. Other discussion was finding someone to haul the debris away. Different options were discussed. Leonard reminded the Board that the President and Treasurer have the authority to expend up to $5,000 to hire someone to remove debris after a couple of weeks. No other action was taken.
The next agenda item involved looking at options for the Wall of Recognition using funds gifted to the Trustees. Staebell began the discussion with some background information regarding monies for the Wall of Recognition. He noted that of the $1,700,000 pledged to the Community Fund to Rebuild Lake Delhi around $1,600,000 was collected. Based on the information on the CFTRLD website there were around 278 donors. The funds collected have been held by the Greater Dubuque Foundation. After previous donations for the dam rebuild the account in Dubuque has approximately $14,100 left. Staebell said he felt there’s need to close this account sometime in the near future. He also noted that the CFTRLD held around $112,000 in their bank account around a year ago. After a transfer to the District of $91,000, the current balance in that account is a little over $21,000. Staebell noted that there were three large fundraising events that happened prior to the completion of the dam in 2016. Those included the pontoon raffle, a cash raffle and St. Pat’s bartending tips. Those dollars amounted to approximately $57,600 of the $91,000. So the balance would be for the wall and LDRA seed money. The balance at Heritage of $21,000 would also be available funds for the wall and LDRA. He pointed out that on the CFTRLD website there was a notice of transparency that stated zero donation dollars would be going toward marketing, rewards, recognition, printing, mailing, etc.
He then asked Gifford to review the wall options with the Board. Gifford stated that in 2011 when the fundraising began it was identified that private funds would drive all the fundraising because the State and County wouldn’t come in unless there was a large private fundraising effort. An important part of driving the private fundraising was having a wall of recognition. The Dubuque Foundation was brought in to develop the trust and tracking of those donations. Because the funds in Dubuque couldn’t be used for marketing, the wall, etc., the other funds went into the bank in Delhi. He presented three options for consideration and noted that the committee to oversee the project included himself, Leonard and Davidson. He noted that while there are three options components of each option could be interchanged so multiple options are available.
Option #1 has a cost of $51,900. This includes the wall, concrete pavers and limestone sitting cubes Lake Delhi “map” inlaid pavers and “piers” would be paid by interested donors. He noted that there is a significant cost to the engraving.
Option #2 has a cost of $65,400. This everything in Option #1 but would include an enlarged concrete space by the spillway which would include a shade sail area and a sculpture area. Those two items would also be donated.
Option #3 has a cost of $81,900. It includes an even larger concrete area and additional limestone seating along with some landscaping.
Davidson asked if the budget difference between #1 and #2 including pulling out the existing concrete pad. Gifford said that was correct. Davidson said the removal of the concrete pad should be done no matter what option is taken. Burger asked if limestone is the best option in terms of cost and durability. Gifford said limestone is a good look and is receptive to engraving. It’s not the cheapest material but not the most expensive either. It was clarified that the material is Indiana limestone. Burger asked if the committee considered several walls versus one large wall that would need bigger footings. Gifford said there was some discussion but concluded that the main wall was the consensus was a main wall was the best choice. Staebell asked if all the names would be on one side and Gifford confirmed that. Leonard also stated a larger wall would be easier to see by water. Herman commented that he liked the idea of it being natural looking and not looking commercialized. Gifford said that was the key to the design. It was noted that the piers were salvaged after construction began on the dam. They have great historical value. Herman asked if there’s a comfort level with the location of the wall. Leonard stated they spoke with the dam safety engineer and the local fire department. A crane was also brought down to see what kind of access they would need. It was noted that all involved in the discussions felt the likelihood of needing a crane for assistance would highly unlikely. Herman said his concern was also regarding creating issues on the embankment. Leonard said that was all reviewed by Bill Holman, our dam safety engineer. Staebell asked if the wall is located on the embankment on is where is it from the current sidewalk. Gifford stated the wall will be much closer to the sidewalk which is a big cost savings. Staebell asked if there were other locations considered. Davidson said the committee talked about some options but this location seemed to be the best area. Herman asked if there was any feedback from residents regarding using taxpayer dollars. Leonard stated it’s no taxpayer money is being used. It’s money that comes from fundraising. Leonard stated the $91,000 transfer made to the Trustees from the CFTRLD was accepted for use for the betterment of the public. Staebell referred back to his initial review of the transferred dollars. His feeling is that the fundraising done prior to the completion of the dam would have gone to the Dubuque Foundation for the purpose of the rebuild but to avoid associated fees the monies went to Heritage Bank. Leonard stressed that the Board accepted the $91,000 was for public benefit and they have some great options to choose from for the wall project. Staebell asked if the committee is looking for a commitment of a certain amount of dollars for the project. The District would be the holder of the contract. Leonard made a motion to approve option #2 in the amount of $65,400 plus a 10% overage for sake of discussion. Havertape second the motion. Davidson asked what are the “paid for by donors” are getting for their donation. Leonard said there was some specific individuals interested in donating toward specific aspects of the wall like the shade sail area. These individuals are looking for guidance from the Board on what projects will be approved. Staebell said he’s comfortable with staying within the $34,000 level and would support paying for contingencies. He also felt the concrete repair costs should be supported by the District. Staebell said he would amend the motion to $34,000 plus a 10% contingency and also the cost to repair the concrete area. Davidson asked what the difference in site prep was for each option. Option #1 is $1,500, Option #2 is 3,000 and Option #3 is $3,400. Gifford stated site prep increased with the size of the project. Davidson suggested the site prep be paid for by the District. Herman asked where the money at Heritage Bank came from. Leonard said it came from fundraising activities. Herman asked if the $21,000 remaining at Heritage Bank could be used for this project. Leonard suggested he sit down with Gifford and Kramer to see what expenditures are left to come out of that account. There’s currently $10,000 of the $21,000 is earmarked for this year’s fireworks. There would need to be input from the Board on how they want to handle those remaining dollars. Davidson asked if it would be agreeable to close out the account at Heritage Bank and Leonard said that could be done. Davidson asked Burger if there was dollars allocated in the certified budget for lake events. Davidson asked if there was money in there for the fireworks. The answer was yes. Staebell asked if there was going to be fundraising for the fireworks and Leonar5 stated the fundraising is done in arrears. Future fundraising would come from the LDRA. Gifford noted the District has a bucket of non-taxpayer dollars that can support the project but Herman stated that some of that money could be used for other things. Burger noted that taxpayer money was used to enhance Turtle Creek and that was for public use. Leonard expressed to the Board that the $91,000 will always be up for debate on how to spend those dollars on any future projects. Havertape noted that when Gifford came to him asking for a donation the for the rebuild project he told him there would be a wall to recognize those donors who stepped forward. Burger asked who is designing the project which includes the footings, etc. Gifford said Culver Landscaping is doing the design and engineer. The DNR will sign off on the project. Staebell asked for clarification on what the DNR will sign off on. Gifford stated DNR has already reviewed the plans and have signed off. Davidson asked who was going to oversee the project? Gifford said Culvers will be the general contractor along with the three committee members. Staebell asked if we need oversight on the footing checks. Burger stated it’s important to protect our property. It was suggested the District hire Burrington Group to oversee the initial inspection. Davidson asked if Culvers will be drafting a contract and Gifford said that’s correct. Herman suggested taking the plans and specs to Burrington Group for review. Davidson said he wants it in the contract that there will be oversight from an engineering firm. It was agreed that no matter which option is selected additional items could be added to the project if agreed to by the District. Additional discussion surrounded discussion of the monies to be approved for the project. There was some conversation regarding how much fundraising monies were eligible for the wall. Herman asked if Leonard and Gifford were comfortable with the $21,000 from Heritage going to the trustees. Leonard said yes. There was discussion to amend the motion on the table. Leonard moved to amend his motion to approve option #1 in an amount not to exceed $55,000 + a 10% overage that will be paid by the District. The funds will come from $34,000 that has already been transferred to the District from the Community Fund and the remaining $21,000 monies held by the Community Fund at the Heritage Bank in Delhi. Engineering and inspection services will be covered by the District. It was also noted that the concrete removal and repair would be a cost to the District. Havertape seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Committee Updates:
Staebell stated he had some dates for a planning session to be scheduled for May or June. Because of conflicts, he will send out a Doddle poll to find a date that will work.
Debris update: Staebell has been in contact with Jeremy Klima . They will be here for a couple more weeks and it was noted that several more items have been located to remove.
Staebell also noted that the filing for trustee elections is required by June 7th at 4:30 p.m.
He also noted that there have been requests for trustee attendance at various annual road association meetings. Those are covered.
Leonard stated Rocky Nook folks reached out to him to make sure they could do the weed control on the side by their docks. They also asked about removal of the canvas on the fence since it is pretty well shredded. The consensus of the Board was to let them remove the canvas. Leonard then addressed the issue of the fireworks. The contract to get the discount is due very soon so if the Board is okay with payment coming from the $21,000 at Heritage Bank. Davidson addressed the concern about the Rocky Nook owners putting a “no trespassing” sign on District owned property near their docks. Leonard said he would speak to them. Leonard also noted that our lobbyists will be coming to the June meeting to give an update. Davidson gave an update on the problems that the operations team is having with the crane at the dam. Options are being discussed.
Public Comment: Schmidt asked a question regarding the budget for Option #1 on the wall. It was noted that there were four specific item that were a part of Option #1.
Reyner noted that the road association meeting for Turtle Creek Cove is Sunday, May 26th at 10:00 if any trustee would like to attend.
Davidson made a motion to adjourn, second by Herman Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.