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:
-
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
-
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.