The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District
Board of Trustees Work Session
Thursday, March 21, 2013 – 5:45 p.m.
Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room
The work session of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 5:45 PM at Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.
Trustees present: Leonard, Kramer, Peter, Davidson, Burger, Schneider and Kray via Skype
Trustees absent:
LDRA present – Pat Dede, Jim Locke, Bob Galiher, Brooks Ante, Rich Hughes, Dennis Jasper
Visitors: Don Dede, Garlen Glanz, Dave Nebel, Connie Nebel, Eve Peter, Jerry Ries, Norm Wellman, Wanda Davidson, Larry Aschenbrenner, Bob Klima, Ed Schmidt, Doug Ricklefs, Margie Schneider, Carla Becker, Anthony Bardgett, Chris Stender, Marcheta Cooey Lux.
Leonard opened the work session advising the intent of the work session with LDRA is to come to resolution of the transfer of the dam with the help of the County Auditor and both attorneys from the respective organizations. Carla Becker, County Auditor, gave details of the issues regarding the inability to record the original Quit Claim Deed/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). One reason was the 38 documents attached to the original Quit Claim Deed were too old and not scannable which is a current requirement. In addition, the same attachment was recordable in 1972 but they did not meet the requirements of being recordable in 2013. The 38 pages were too long to retype in its entirety so the District’s Attorney, Matt Hektoen came to Becker for assistance in getting it recorded. Becker spoke with Hektoen and Mitvalksy (who was the preparer of the document) as to their intent so she didn’t breach any of the ground rules. Becker then worked on the documents and converted it to a 3 page document that she handed out to the attendees. Some areas changed from the original document when Interstate Power sold the tracts to Shultz. Included in the 3 page document is tracts 1-93 that is similar to the Quit Claim Deed. It is a blanket quit claim deed which simply states that any interest the seller may have is being deeded to the buyer. In a quit claim deed there is no warrant or abstract. A quit claim deed is what was originally used when Interstate Power originally sold the land to the Schultzs. When a quit claim deed was used when the property was sold to the Cooeys, the deed only stated tracts 1-93. Becker believes there is no reason to have attachments as to what 1-93 were in our District’s deed. Also there are some reservations in the original document that Becker added back in because there was no clarification that the original easements or reservations had been taken away. The mechanic liens were left in as well as the requirement of the election to only sell the properties to a public entity. The original document from Interstate Power include property that was is not included in the district. Becker modified the legal descriptions to correct the legal description and to follow the intent of Mr. Mitvalski and the LDRA. Any property lying outside the district was excepted. She also amended the legal description for the Turtle Creek area to incorporate the entire track rather than the portion that was being leased to Delaware County Conservation.
Becker stated that the Quit Claim Deed currently excepts out all land lying outside the district, Parcel EE and its frontage, Parcel AA being the retention area, Parcel JJ (North Beach), lake frontage to Lots 1 & 2 in the Cedars and the Turtle Creek area. Becker reitereated that she left in all the exceptions that were in the original Quit Claim Deed. She only corrected the legals for those exceptions.
In reference to the Turtle Creek area, the original Quit Claim Deed only described the parcels per the lease with Delaware County Conservation. That means the legal only went to the center of the road and bridge. Becker indicated that if there is going to be public access in that area, it would be easier if only 2 entities were involved instead of 3. That is why she changed the legal, on the advice of the attorneys involved, to include the entire tract of land in this area. Becker was asked for an exact legal description of what was still owned of this tract for use on the right to purchase. While doing research she found an original document between the LDRA and another party that was ambigious. This transaction which occurred early in the 1970s was trying to sell a tract which was frontage and its adjacent “frontage” but didn’t quite get the task accomplished. Becker referred to the irregular piece of property on her aerial view and indicated this was the tract she is speaking of. This transaction was done via a quit claim deed and it did not require an abstract. Her suggestion for the Turtle Creek area is to have it surveyed since it is being looked at for public access and will eventually be deeded to the county. However, she does not feel a survey is necessary prior to deeding to the District.
Becker then asked permission from the Chairperson to give the floor to Delaware County Engineer, Anthony Bardgett. Mr. Bardgett offered the services of County Land Surveyor Brad Burger to complete the requested survey in the Turtle Creek area. They have already done some initial work on it but need approval from the LDRA and the Trustees to do any further work. Leonard asked if the transfer happens between the LDRA and the District will it have any bearing on the outcome. Becker explained that for the original transfer between the 2 entities it wouldn’t be an issue because we are using a quit claim deed and that is giving the District interest in the land and no more. She explained eventually the County would feel more comfortable knowing where the lines are. Leonard indicated this was a great offer from the county and thanked Mr. Bardgett. Davidson asked if the survey should be done before the transfer and Hektoen said if the LDRA is going to quit claim deed the properties there is no reason to delay the transfer. Leonard asked what is the timeline to do survey and Bardgett said the monuments used to do the survey are covered in snow so they have to wait for the snow to melt. Jerry Ries said he would like to see the land surveyed before it was turned over to anybody. Becker said if the LDRA takes the exception out of the Quit Claim Deed then the County would deal with the District on the Turtle Creek land. The land would need to be surveyed before deeded to county, but it doesn’t need the survey prior to the transfer between the LDRA and the District.
Becker feels there are only two (2) parcels which she feels the LDRA should except from the transfer; Parcel AA and Parcel JJ. Parcel AA is the retention area and has a first right of refusal attached to it. Parcel JJ is located at North Beach is the LDRA has been negotiating with Strauser to exchange the Parcel for access. Because there are incumberances to these parcels, she would ike them to remain excepted from the transfer. Becker than said there is only one other issue and that is why the LDRA is retaining property that is not in the district boundary and is that something the LDRA wants to retain as it could be a benefit to the District because of dredging or other items. Hatala said there has been an underlying concern by the LDRA if the district can own property outside of its boundary and Hatala said doesn’t think it is an issue. The 357E statute says the District can own property to carry out its mission. Leonard asked if it was Becker’s opinion that it makes sense to send as much as possible to the District. Becker suggests to only have one entity to negotiate with property owners. Hatala said if the District is held to the same standards as counties and cities and he doesn’t think it makes that big of a differnece because cities vacate alleys and such all the time and is not uncommon that they are usually transferred to an adjacent property owner.
Rich Hughes asked about the current MOA and to make sure he understands the issues. Leonard asked Becker to confirm in her opinion and knowing what she does about the issues, what is the most cost effective and efficient way to get the land transferred. Becker said she is not an attorney, but in her opinion the least amount of exceptions in a document the easier it becomes and it would give the district more flexibility. Parcell EE is the one she keeps coming back to. The way it is currently surveyed is not how the property owners will most likely want it transferred which means if it is excepted from the transfer, then the property owners will need to deral with both the District and the LDRA.
Leonard asked Hektoen in his opinion what was the simplest way to move forward. Hektoen believes that the LDRA should convey as much real esate as possible at one time. Mitvalsky says the LDRA feels the same way but they have had reservations but Becker has made good points in her discussion. Burger asked what the LDRA concerns are and asked if we take Turtle Creek and have it surveyed before giving to county, does that take care of it. Burger understands that the board of the LDRA wrote the wording for the shareholder vote but believes the intent was most people did not want anyone sitting on a board to sell the dam. Burger asked if we put in the MOA tha the District can’t sell dam without a public vote would that work and if the LDRA is concerned about Lost Beach and North Beach, add them as well. Locke said lets go through all the properties; Turtle Creek – wouldn’t hold up the transfer; Parcel JJ which is access to north beach and if it is only frontage, it isn’t a problem but if not should we wait until the problems are resolved; Parcel EE – Locke said he would like to clarify more with Carla and said he thought maybe it is best for the LDRA to retain it and then pass it to the District. Becker indicated she doesn’t believe Parcel JJ could be sold as “frontage.” As long as frontage could be described as frontage that parcel would not require a survey. Locke said could do a quit claim deed and he doesn’t have same the same concern w other properties. The issues with the Harbach property would be easier if only one party negotiated.
Burger asked if we could move property into the District boundaries like was done with the Hughes property. Becker said yes, but to remember once it goes in, it cannot come out of the boundaries then. Rich Hughes said the issue also is what can happen 10 years from now.
Hatala said he believes we can allow the transfer of the propetry with the MOA but amend it to say the dam site would require a sale to a public entity. Mitvalsky said he believes he understands but does it allow for an election. Burger said he would lean towards having more details so a future board wouldn’t sell it. Mitvlasky said members would convey their wishes with an election approval for sale. Burger said the LDRA knew the frontage sales would not be done by the time the dam transfer took place so he doesn’t think the intent was to tie the trustees hands so they could never sell frontage to adjacent property owners. Burger said he also wouldn’t want to see Lost Beach or North Beach sold either. He would not be opposed to adding in the MOA a clause to except out the dam, North and Lost Beach but allow to sell frontage and other areas. Locke said Turtle Creek could be an issue but the District would convey it to the County. Leonard said he would echo what Burger said and that we change the MOA with that understanding. There will be situations where we may need to work through and need the ability to transfer properties.
Davidson asked if the LDRA has an objection to that. Mitvalsky said there is a laundry list of properties and containment site may be another one to hold out. He believes there is an issue wth a transfer outside of the district, and whether or not the district has authority to own outside of its territory. Mitvalsky continued that the 357E Iowa codes is a very unique chapter of code and said it hasn’t been used much.
Dede asked how FEMA plays into this. Leonard said it was made pretty clear in the monitoring report that the dredge site should be owned by the district. He understands that can’t be done right away but everything else can be. Mitvalsky asked if the dredge containment site is within the geographic boundaries of the district. Becker said the property was split into 2 parcels because one is within the district and the 2nd is not within the boundary. Dave Fry said Iowa Homeland Security has been very clear that the district should own the containment site.
Hatala said the next step would be to write an amendment to the MOA that brings in some of these ideas and see if we can get that going and it would be limiting the revision to the dam site and the 2 beaches.
Burger left at 6:57 pm.
Becker said she will be there to help get the document the way both parties want it and help to get it recorded. Locke said it was never the intent to hold back property and the only reason there were exceptions is because of concern from the LDRA lawyer and he hopes the public understands that. Rich Hughes said he would like to move forward and whichever makes it quicker. Brooks Ante and Dennis Jasper said agree that we want to transfer the properties. Becker said the legal description references tracts 1-93 because it was a blanket quit claim deed just like the original transfer from Interstate Power years ago. It is intended to be all encompassing and cover any remaining interest in the property the LDRA originally received.
Davidson asked who would draft the MOA and Hektoen indicated he would do it.
Leonard asked if further comments from the Trustees and there were none. Leonard thanked all who participated. Peter made motion to adjourn, Schneider second. All ayes, motion passed and meeting adjouned at 7:08 pm.
