The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Work Session

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room

Delhi, IA

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 6:33 PM at the Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.

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

Trustees absent: 

Visitors: Larry Peter, Eve Peter, Jim Willey, Diane Bauers, Larry Aschenbrenner, Marcheta Cooey

 Leonard asked for approval to open the session and a motion was received by Kramer and seconded by Davidson.  All ayes, motion passed.

 Leonard said wanted the work session to work on the following 3 items:

• Review the 28 E agreement with the Delaware County Supervisors and garner any additional input

• Explain the discussions regarding the Turtle Creek project, the estimated cost and firm up Trustee thoughts on a cost share agreement between us and the county

• Review the property lines of the Turtle Creek property and be ready to act on transfer of the property to the county at our next meeting

Leonard introduced the 28E agreement and he explained that the Supervisors and the District had a public work session on October 30, 2013 to work through issues on the document.  On page 1 in the last Whereas section, the Supervisors clarified that instead of ‘dam and spillway’ they want the language to only read ‘spillway’ and they ask that wherever that reference is in the document to change that wording as well.   Burger asked what is the cost of the spillway and Leonard said he is working with Bill Holman to get the final numbers.  Kray asked that the numbers be detailed so we can make a comparison from our previous document from Stanley Consultants. The actual definition of the project in Section 3 is important.

 Kray said in Section 4, the duration of the project needed to be defined as well.

 Leonard then reviewed Section 5.2 and said the District felt the 30 days may be too short of a time frame.  It was discussed and agreed that since the District would be paying the invoices in full first and then asking for reimbursement from the County, that the language should be changed to “within 45 days of the District’s payment of such invoice”.

 Jim Willey apologized for interrupting but he needed to leave and wanted the District to comment on the news article regarding Lake Delhi in the Telegraph Herald.  Leonard indicated that the District is working in cooperation with the Supervisors.  As we have worked through some of the issues, there seems to be a difference of opinion among the Supervisors.  Shirley Helmrich has  put an item on their agenda for Monday that will define the specific amount the board will bond for Lake Delhi.  We are optimistic the amount will be for the full $2,999,999.00.

 Leonard then continued with the 28E agreement review.  The District has issues with this section as it refers to funding from FEMA.  We have disengaged from FEMA on the 2010 event but still have ongoing dialogue with FEMA regarding the 2008 flooding event.  The Supervisors will confirm with their bond counsel that since we have disengaged from FEMA for the 2010 event, we can eliminate this section.  In Section 5.4, the District asked for flexibility because drawings may change and the County agreed.

 Section 6 covers the conditions for the funds to be granted and specifically deals with public access.  In Section 6.2 it addresses property that would be transferred.  Leonard said the area had been surveyed by the County and he is talking to our counsel regarding the frontage.  The county would like to see a warranty deed for the property if transferred.  Section 6.4.2 asks that the District have financing for the project and we the District asked what it needs for proof.  The Supervisors indicated they would check with their bond counsel.

 Section 9 discusses insurance and asks that the project be insured during and following completion.  The District has issues with ‘following’ as the cost could be prohibitive.  Larry Murphy attended the joint work session and made the point that most cities and counties don’t insure structures such as these.  The Supervisors will go back to their bond counsel for clarification and a rewrite.

 Section 10 regards Indemnifications and based on other changes in the document, the Supervisor’s bond counsel will review the current verbiage.

 Section 11.1 will have the term U.S. Mail changed to certified mail.

 Section 12.1.2 addresses failure of timely progress and the Supervisors indicated they would get clarification.  Section 12.2.2 addresses transfer of property and the District wants to clarify that we would be allowed to transfer the property to a public entity.  The last item addressed was the signage page and the County Board President should be changed to Board Chairman.  The Delaware County Bond Counsel is addressing the above issues and a final draft will be given to us and we can then give our feedback.

 Gifford asked if Section 6 indicates specifics of where the public access is located and Leonard advised no, it is just the area that has been under discussion.  Burger made request that in Section 14, mediation be added as an option for dispute resolution.  Leonard indicated he would relay that requested change to the Supervisors.  Leonard said if any other changes, please notify him by Friday.  Gifford then asked why the Supervisors only want to pay for the spillway and Leonard explained that his understanding was the Supervisors wanted to financially support the spillway which is the part of the project that mitigates flooding.

The costs of the public access project were detailed as follows:

Boat Ramp – $26,125

Parking – $16,500

Restrooms (2 & must be ADA compliant) – $36,000

Beach – $6,000

Fish Access – $8,500

Silt Catch Basin – $36,000

Courtesy Dock – $8,000

Total of Amentities – $137,125

Bridge and Road – $506,878.00 (Bridge only is about $200,000)

Total Estimated Project Cost of Amenities, Road, Bridge  $644,000

There is a possibility that there would be available grant money from the State Marine Tax Fund to cover approximately $68,000 of the amenities.  These grant monies require a local match of 25%.

 Leonard shared what he understood from each County Supervisor opinion as it relates to the percentage of the total project that the County would financially support:  Jeff Madlom has mentioned 50% County/ 50% Lake District.  Shirley Helmrichs has mentioned two different figures. 50%/50% and 25% County/75% Lake District.  Jerry Reis has stated he believes the Lake District should pay 100%.

 Davidson and Gifford asked why the bridge is being replaced.  There was much discussion around the costs and what portion the Trustees felt should be paid by the District.

 Kray made motion to adjourn the work session, Kramer second.  All ayes, motion passed.  Work session adjourned at 8:11 p.m.