The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Meeting

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room

Delhi, IA

The meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 6:30 PM at the Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room.

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

Absent: None

Visitors: Larry &  Eve Peter, Ed Schmidt, Dan Zumbach, Chris Stender, Doug Herman, Dave Larson, Bob & Lola Galiher and Sara Millhouse from the Dyersville Commercial.

The agenda was reviewed by Leonard.  A motion was made by Burger, second by Schneider to approve agenda.  Motion carried.

Leonard presented the Trustees with a letter of resignation from Dave Fry who has been serving as the FEMA CFO Authorized Representative for the district.  Motion by Schneider, second by Kramer to accept Dave Fry’s resignation.  Motion carried.   Leonard commented on the amount of time Dave put in as our FEMA representative and offered thanks from the District for all his work and efforts.  Leonard also commented that Dave shared he would be willing to continue working in the background with the new authorized reps along with any contracted work that may be approved by the District.

Leonard introduced Doug Herman who is currently the city administrator for the City of Monticello. Doug has had FEMA experience, served on the Governor’s Task Force, and has property on the lake.  Doug has indicated he is willing to volunteer his time as it relates to our current status with FEMA. Doug commented that he has work with FEMA since 2008.  He has met with Dave Fry and reviewed the District’s history with FEMA and the 2010 reports.  When Doug moved to Monticello he worked as an attorney and then went into city management.

Leonard clarified that his understanding with communications from Homeland Security is that Dave Fry and Pat Colgan were specifically authorized reps for 2010 event but not 2008.  Since we are removed from the 2010 event we need to officially approve a new Authorized Representative and Chief Financial Officer for the 2008 event.  A motion was made by Burger, second by Davidson to approve Pat Colgan as our Authorized Representative and Doug Herman as our FEMA Chief Financial Officer.  Pat said his main focus is on dam construction but he is willing to help for the time being depending on the amount of time it will take. Davidson said he was concerned about the amount of time this position will take Pat.  He asked Pat to keep the Trustees posted on how things go.  Motion carried.

Leonard briefly reviewed the possible public access options that were presented at the last meeting.  As was discussed at the last meeting, the Turtle Creek area seems to be the best option.

To start the process of transferring the Turtle Creek property to the County there will need to be an abstract for that parcel.  Both Carla Becker, County Auditor and Anthony Bardgett commented that the abstract was necessary to be sure the property is free of any liens.  Leonard explained that it would take two to six weeks for the abstract to be reviewed.  The cost estimate is between $400 and $800.  A motion was made by Schneider, second by Burger to request an abstract of the property and payment for that abstract.  Davidson asked if this will hinder our timeline for the transfer.  Leonard said there will be a push to get the abstract done as soon as possible, hopefully, by the end of December.  He also stated that all other agreements with the county should not be delayed with the abstract if we get the abstract started immediately.  Motion carried

Leonard reviewed a template of a property transfer agreement for Turtle Creek to be submitted to the County Supervisors and asked for a motion to approve the template so the Trustees could discuss.  He also indicated that he and several Trustees will be meeting tomorrow, Thursday, December 5, with the County Supervisors to review the proposal and we need to be able to provide a template for those discussions.  Burger made a motion approve the template, Kramer seconded the motion.  There was the following discussion.  Burger said that past discussions have centered around a 50/50 split with the County on the cost of the project.  He said that since we need an access plan, this would seem reasonable.  The cost estimate is approximately $644,000 and Burger suggested the District pay 50% of the cost up to $350,000 in case of cost overruns.  Burger also recommended the county draw up 28E agreement.  Motion by Burger, second by Schneider to approve the proposed template.    Kramer asked about the lake bed maintenance as referenced in Item 4 and Item 7 of the proposed template.  Per the proposal, Leonard said the County would be dredging inside the Turtle Creek cove as part of the process surrounding the building of the bridge.  Schneider indicated that the County mentioned having catch basins.  The District’s maintenance would involve the area outside the Turtle Creek Cove. 

Davidson mentioned there seems to be three different opinions by the Supervisors on the percentage the County should pay for the project.  He also questioned who will be in charge of the construction of the project.  Leonard indicated that Delaware County will do all the construction of the project and we will reimburse.  Burger said this would be an advantage to the District since the County has the engineering resources as it relates to building bridges.   With regard to the amenities such as bathrooms, boat ramps, etc., Garlyn Glanz, from the County Conservation Board,  has done the research on the related costs.   Leonard said he understands the bridge and amenities will be bid out as one complete project.  Kray brought up differing opinions with the Supervisors.  She expressed concern that the Supervisors were concerned about the maintenance costs.  Leonard said he liked the 50/50 split.  He reminded the Board that this is not just a financial obligation.  We represent approximately 10% of the county so that takes us to approximately a 60% contribution.  Our land value is greater than $1.00. so that takes the percentage to an even higher amount.    Burger made mention that in transferring the property, if it doesn’t work out, the property will come back to the District. That language has to stay in the agreement.  Leonard said he is hoping for a full agreement regarding the transfer and the public access agreement.  Tomorrow’s meeting with the Supervisors is only a work session.  Gifford commented that based on all of our experiences interacting with government entities, a 50/50 split makes complete sense.  Davidson agreed, but said that wasn’t where Supervisors’ heads were after the last meeting.    Gifford believes we need to market the intangible values the District brings to the table.  Leonard agreed with those comments.    Leonard asked for a roll call vote.  All ayes.

A motion was made by Burger, second by Kramer to pay the interest only on LDRA dredge debt that was due December 1, 2013 in amount of $36,625.00.  Motion carried.

Public comment:

Larry Peter – Commented that he understood from visits with the County that the Turtle Creek project would be handled by the County.

Bob Galiher – Bob ask what the District goals are going to be with regard to FEMA and the 2008 event.  Leonard said goals are simple.  There are a lot of questions on how things were done in the past.  Sole source contracts, how payments were made, etc.  We have to justify every item on the monitoring report.  Some items are close to being signed off on and some still need work.  FEMA is pushing Homeland Security to get this done.  We may look at hiring a contractor to help the process.  We hope this will take a short amount of time, possibly 6-9 months.  Our goal as a District is to reduce what we may have to pay back and to make sure the District gets what is due.  Colgan explained that the monitoring report after the 2010 event brought these issues to light. It could be simple or could be drawn out.  Hopefully get done as quickly as possible.

Bob Galiher  – Regarding Turtle Creek.    Does this area totally satisfy the State.  Leonard explained there needed to be a wastewater plan and public access plan for the District to get RIIF monies.  The wastewater plan has been accepted.  Items such as a added boat ramps, beaches, areas for fishing and additional parking were spelled out to state.  The State has given us much latitude.  They understand our budget and cost issues and they have been very cooperative and know that we are committed to this.  Dan Zumbach, our state senator made the comment that we need to look at the DNR as a partner, not an enemy.  The DNR Director has had a positive attitude.  The DNR are supportive and pleased with Turtle Creek plan. 

Lola Galiher  – Is county assuming part of their cost for public access will come from the $3M? Leonard said no.  That is in addition to the $2,999,999.  Schneider said the County amount is earmarked for spillway.

Bob Galiher – If the County gets grant money will that be split with the District.  Leonard said yes that is the way the proposal is designed.  He explained that there is approximately $68,000 in costs that are grant eligible.  The grant comes from Marine tax and would pay 75% of eligible costs.

Lola Galiher – How are the Trustees feeling as far as cooperation with the Supervisors? Davidson said the relationship has been good.  There’s been respect and there have been differences of opinion but we are working well together.  Leonard commented that the County also has limited funds as does the District but the good news is that even though we both have budget constraints.  This is a positive investment for both parties.

Doug Herman – Is the county engineer’s cost being shared.  Leonard replied that our understanding is that it’s at no cost.

There being no other public comment, a motion was made by Burger, second by Davidson to go into closed session.   Leonard asked for a roll call vote.   All ayes. 

After the closed session was adjourned, a motion was made by Schneider, second by Kramer to adjourn meeting.  Motion carried.

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Meeting

Thursday, November 21, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room

Delhi, IA

The meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 6:32 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, Ed Schmidt, Don Dede, Pat Dede, John Carbaugh, Pauletta Carbaugh, Keith Schulte, Jim Locke, Dan Reyner, Dave Larson, Pat Colgan, Larry Aschenbrenner, Diane Bauers, Chip Hughes, Tom Cook, Marilyn Cook, Randy Rattenborg, Maggie Burger by phone, Sara Millhouse from the Dyersville Commercial.

Agenda reviewed by Leonard. Motion made by Davidson to approve agenda, Kramer second, all ayes, motion passed.

Kray requested approval of minutes for the 10/17/13, 10/30/13 work session and 10/30/13 special meeting and 11/13/13 meetings.   Kramer made motion to approve, Schneider second. All ayes, motion passed.

Kramer requested approval of payments as follows for the general fund: Alliant Energy – $21.24; L&L Consulting – $2,000.00; Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergmann – $216.00.  She also asked for approval of payments for the bond fund: Delaware County Abstract – $695.00; Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergmann – $3,248.50; Stanley Consultants for Engineering – $7,701.00; Stanley Consultants for FEMA – $1,869. Motion to approve all payments as presented by Davidson, second by Schneider.  Schneider asked if there was any way to reduce the cost for L&L Consulting and not pay monthly if we are not using them. Leonard said they are working on a property tax issue and drafting language for a revised bill so they are engaged.  Kramer advised the board that a request for bond payment has been sent to Delaware County for $125,306.25 as the board already approved the county to make the automatic payments for us.  All ayes, motion passed. 

Kramer reviewed budget reports as of 10/31/2013.  The General Fund had a starting balance of $133,532.45 and after receipts and expenses has a balance of $140,086.28.  The Debt Service Fund had a beginning balance of $227,704.82 and after receipts has an ending balance of $266,296.61.  The Dam/Spillway Fund has a beginning balance of $5,723,979.64 and after an interest payment and expenses ends with a balance of $5,619,642.86.  Motion to file financial reports as presented by Burger, Schneider second.  All ayes, motion passed.

Kramer introduced the request for payment to the LDRA.  The details of the payment are as follows: the land transfer required a payment of a $1, the board also agreed to make a payment of $2500 after the transfer was completed and less half the closing costs as the LDRA agreed (total closing costs were $1,917.00 per Hektoen).  Motion to approve payment to LDRA for $1,542.50 made by Kray, second by Gifford.  All ayes, motion passed.

Maggie Burger of Speer Financial Inc. explained she earlier sent the Trustees the compliance procedures for tax exempt bonds.  About 18 mos ago, the IRS posted regulations for compliance of tax exempt bonds.  Because the District is able to issue tax exempt bonds we must have compliance procedures in place.  This relates to bonds the District has already issued and also any future bonds we may issue. Dorsey and Whitney (our bond attorneys) prepared the resolution adopting tax compliance procedures and this needs to be done by December 31, 2013.  Maggie Burger reviewed all rules that must be followed with the Trustees.  Leonard then read Resolution 11.21.13. Motion made by Schneider to approve, second by Davidson.  Leonard asked Maggie Burger who files this document and M. Burger advised Dorsey and Whitney will file the original with the IRS, the District should keep a copy and give a copy to the Delaware County Auditor. Individual roll call requested, all ayes, motion passed.  Maggie Burger left the meeting.

Pat Colgan discussed the Engineering Services during construction provided by Stanley Engineering.  Colgan explained the Contractor is responsible for details and specs of the construction.  The Field Engineer will review submittals for payment, make sure the work is compliant with the specifications and quality of work and will approve items for payment.   This Engineer will review change conditions and will provide clarification to try to resolve issues and the agreement also provides for an engineer to be here full time during construction.  The Dam Construction committee will play a role but not in a contractural matter – they cannot direct the work. Bill Holman is the Project Manager and he will come out to the site once a month for a management/review meeting.  Colgan sees the Field Engineer as a very critical position as they will do the day to day log keeping.  If there are ever any issues, these are the records we would go back to for verification.  The Field Engineer will mark up drawings as to what was actually built.  The estimate for this work over the whole project is $250,000 to $300,000 and is about 2-3% of overall cost of the project (normally it is 6-8% of the project cost).  If approved a supplemental agreement would be written between Stanley Engineering and the Trustees.   Colgan recommends putting the supplemental agreement in place.  He also advised the cost for this position has been included in the project scope projections.  Kramer made motion to ask for supplemental agreement, Davidson second. Burger asked Colgan when this person would begin and Colgan advised the Field Engineer will start as soon as we begin construction and be here every day during construction.  All ayes, motion passed.

Leonard asked Burger to discuss recording secretary position and Burger indicated he wants to make a motion to refer the job description of this position to the Budget/Finance committee.  Kray said there was a job description presented at the last meeting and why wouldn’t we move forward with that.  Burger advised there were members of the board that have issue with this position so he would like to forward it to the committee and have additional eyes look at the description. Burger made motion to refer this to the Budget/Finance committee and bring this back to the December meeting, Schneider second.  All ayes, motion passed.

Leonard presented the findings by the committee that reviewed alternate public access options and locations.  In our discussions with the Delaware County Supervisors, the focus has been on the Turtle Creek area but the committee wanted to see if there were any other viable alternatives before finalizing an agreement with the County.  The criteria used was that access to the public area could not be via a private drive.  The committee came up with a list of 8 possible options and looked at the financial estimates and the pros and cons of each option.  The options are 1 – previous Peck property, 2 – SW of Hartwick Bridge, 3 – Turtle Creek property with no bridge, 4 – Lost Beach area, 5 – Baileys Ford area, 6 – Turtle Creek plan currently under discussion with the County, 7 – Turtle Creek property with no new bridge but ramp in the cove, 8 – NE of Hartwick Bridge.  Gifford asked if there was a second choice from the Option 6 and Kray feels isn’t really a better option than 6 and Kramer and Leonard believe Option 7 would be an alternative.  Gifford asked what was the biggest drawback to the area down by the dam that the District currently owns.  Leonard feels that utilizing that area for public access would limit our flexibility for work around the dam, it may cause some construction constrictions and also could be an issue with safety since it is right next to the spillway.  There is also a need for a Portage area around the dam in the 28E agreement and that area would most likely be used for that purpose. Davidson said Option 6 is a big benefit with easily accessible restroom facilities for all parties on the lake and it only makes sense to create the public access at that location.  Schneider said the County has already put in a lot of money for study and engineering work and he believes Option 6 is the right choice.  Leonard said if we move forward with Option 6 will need to determine costs and how to move forward with the County.  He also noted the County agrees the work would be done by completion of the dam and spillway because it will cost $200,000 more if the water is back before completion of the bridge.  Kray advised the County has asked that 4 items be completed by 1/17/14 so a marine tax grant can be requested by 1/31/14 for the construction of some of the items of the public access.  The 4 items are property transfer to the County, 28E agreement is complete between the District and the County, a budget for the project be in place and a design be agreed to by both parties.   Leonard asked for a motion to approve option 6 as the best selection for public access to move forward with in partnership with the County assuming an agreeable cost share agreement with the District and County.  Motion was made by Davidson, Schneider second. All ayes, motion passed.  Leonard advised this discussion took care of both Item 10 and 11 on the agenda.

Committee Updates

Finance –  committee hasn’t met for awhile.  The District has received $473 from ICAP  as an anniversary contribution.  Burger said ICAP distributes the payments annually and it is based on the whole pool of customers.

FEMA – Leonard said our FEMA Chief Financial Officer, Dave Fry has notified him that his professional schedule is very busy and he won’t be able to complete the close out of the monitoring report.  Fry has advised Leonard that the time and investment will be significant for this project.  The District did go out for an RFP approximately a year ago that requested professional help with FEMA responses. Leonard advised he had a discussion recently with the parties that were recommended for hire from the RFP.  Leonard wanted to thank Fry for what he has done so far.  Leonard said there is someone else on the lake that may volunteer for this work but wants to meet with Fry first to understand what is required before he moves forward.  There are approximately 27 notebooks full of information on the 2008 flood event and it will take countless hours to work through the process. 

Dam Construction/Timeline –  Leonard advised the government shutdown had a significant impact on timing for the federal permit.  The Corp of Engineers is currently waiting for one more party which is the advisory board to give comment.  The Army Corp of Engineers is the final decision making authority regarding the permit. Colgan said we need the federal permit to begin Phase I and   Phase II design is done and has been distributed to the DNR.   Burger asked when are they going to hear from the federal advisory board.  Leonard said no one can make them respond but he is anticipating a response any day now.

State – County Legislative – Leonard said the lobbyists are engaged in FEMA details and are working with Homeland Security.  They are also preparing a bill change to clarify the tax laws as it pertains to our district. 

Property Management – Gifford advised a lot of work has been done on tree/weed mitigation just north of the bridge down to the dam.  He is still tracking some spots of debris and will continue to work those locations. 

Davidson advised demolition of the Peck property and Rocky Nook properties that we now own is scheduled to be done by the end of the year.

Burger asked if it was time for the board to go back to the administrative FEMA RFP and hire a company to assist so we don’t burn out another volunteer.  He also asked if in Leonard’s discussion, did he ask if the companies would  still hold to their quote.  Leonard said their quote referred to the 2010 FEMA request so he does need to verify that the quote would remain the same for assistance with the 2008 event report.  Schneider said he spoke with Fry and he indicated that we need an expert and not a volunteer.  Burger suggested we put this item on the next agenda.  Burger asked that the responses should be scanned and sent to all Trustees.

Public comment – Larry Peter asked about monitoring report and if the items on that report have to be satisfied before we can receive state monies and move ahead with construction.  Leonard said the State money is not contingent on the monitoring report and should not impact permits for construction.  Colgan said these are totally separate things and there is no connection between the 2 items. 

Ed Schmidt said when the County Engineer first drew the plan, the new road went through the cove and is that still the case.  Leonard said yes that is still the plan but the road is just moved back a little bit.

Jim Locke asked if the County looked at the base of the cove and are they sure they can put the bridge in.  Leonard said borings are planned for that area but they haven’t been done yet.  John Carbaugh asked how they will get rid of the extra dirt and Colgan advised they will use it in the  dike construction.

Pauletta Carbaugh said the board discussed items of values of $300,000 and more tonight but why is it taking debate for so long on hiring a recording secretary for about only 10 hours per month.  Leonard said the roles and responsibilities are going to be looked at by the Committee.  Carbaugh said the board always discusses and approves large portions of money so this shouldn’t need so much discussion. Kramer said we need to define the role and what is ideal and most cost effective. 

Dave Larson said he wanted to confirm construction won’t start until January and when would we see a coffer dam.  Colgan said it probably would be more like May or June of 2014 when the coffer dam will be ready.

Chip Hughes was surprised that Lost Beach was considered as an option for local access.  He wanted the public to know that he was not contacted and that the members of the committee had never been on the property as far as he knew so he did not feel the research would have been accurate.  Hughes hopes the numbers used on the other options had more research done to justify them.  Leonard advised that the real estate listing was used and the other estimates of all other public amenities were used identically in each option and this was just a best guess at this time to allow the district trustees an opportunity to determine which public access option they want to focus on for public access for now and in the future .  Hughes said we probably passed on a chance for a public contribution because you never asked.

Larry Aschbrenner asked if the state will be satisfied with one additional public access site as he didn’t want to see additional set backs. Leonard said the state requirement was to submit a public access plan and they didn’t have specifications for us.  Aschbrenner asked if we have considered asking the Supervisors to draw a letter to see if the permit can be expedited as he feels it is to the benefit of the County to get this area back to benefit the County economy.  Leonard said each stake holder of this project have their own processes they have to work through.  Leonard applauded the Supervisors as they approved the bond for the spillway at $2,999,999.00 at their meeting on Monday. 

Leonard spoke again to Hughes about the public access options and said we had to put the options together in a short period of time but tried to get as close to estimates as possible.  Public information is what was used for the estimates of the property evaluations.  Hughes said a 30 minute phone call would have produced more accurate information.

Keith Schulte said he thought we were ready to go out for bids in October and is the delay caused because we don’t have the federal permit.  He asked if the District has a high degree of confidence that the bids for construction will come in at the estimates we have.  Colgan said Stanley Engineering works with contractors in the midwest and their estimation is based on experience.   Schulte then asked if the financing is roughly in place or is there a gap that we will need to fill.  Leonard said we anticipate a very tight budget and we believe we have most of what we need based on the funds that are currently pledged and that we already have in place.

Eve Peter asked if the property negotiations are done and is that acquisition contingent on the federal permit.  Also, is the board going to spend money before we acquire that property.  Leonard said we would most likely move forward once we get the federal permit.  

Motion to adjourn by Schneider, second by Kramer, all ayes, motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm.

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 meeting of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by President Steve Leonard at 8:13 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, Diane Bauers

The agenda was reviewed by Leonard. Motion made by Davidson to approve agenda, Gifford second, all ayes, motion passed.

Public comment – Larry Peter indicated he thought he heard that $200,000 or more was available to the County for the state marine tax grant. Kray said the $200,000 was the total amount in the fund but there will be other cities and counties requesting from that fund as well.

Diane Bauer said the bridge has been in the County 5 year plan for a long time and feels that it is the County’s responsibility to fund that. Davidson added that he has been happy with reaction of all the Supervisors and the DNR personnel during our meetings regarding public access.

Motion to go into closed session for the purpose of discussion regarding terms for acquisition of property and property rights for purposes of restoring the land and Dam per Iowa Code Section 21.5 (1) (j) by Gifford, Kramer second.  Individual roll call requested, all ayes, motion passed.

After closed session, motion to adjourn by Gifford, Kramer second.  All ayes, motion passed.  Meeting adjourned at 8:54 pm.

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.

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District

Board of Trustees Meeting

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 – 10:00 a.m.

Delaware County Supervisor’s Office

Manchester, IA

The meeting of the joint work session with the Delaware County Supervisors and the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees was called to order by Supervisor Madlom at 10:00 AM at the Delaware County Supervisor’s Office in Manchester, IA.

Trustees present: Leonard,  Kramer, Davidson and Kray

Trustees absent:  Schneider, Burger, Gifford

Supervisors present: Madlom, Helmrichs, Ries

Visitors: Eve Peter, Larry Peter, Bill Lux, Larry Murphy, Anthony Bardgett, Carla Becker, Garlin Glantz, John Bernau and 1 member of the press

Meeting was opened by Chairperson Madlom. Steve Leonard, President of the Lake Delhi Combined Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees, began the discussion by thanking the Board for scheduling this meeting.  He assumed that the common goal between the two (2) entities was to negotiate the terms and conditions to be outlined in the draft 28E Agreement.  With that said, the group began to work through the draft 28E Agreement page by page. 

 Page 1

The Board of Supervisors has issues with the verbiage in the sixth (6^th) paragraph which references the restoration and improvement of the dam and spillway.  Supervisor Helmrichs spoke on behalf of the Board when she stated that they feel strongly that the county’s participation in the project should be limited to the expenses associated with the spillway.  That portion of the project is what will protect the residents and property owners from future flooding.  The County Auditor will identify all areas throughout the agreement which reference dam and spillway and change them to be spillway related only.

Page 2

Mr. Leonard asked for clarification as to what the Board considered to be the project.  Section 3 defines the project and sets an expected total cost.  He feels that perhaps they should work through the rest of the agreement and allow the project scope to develop during the process.

Section 4 deals with the duration of the project.  Supervisor Ries stated that he was the one who wanted an end date to the agreement.  However, he feels the agreement could be renewed.

Section 5 addresses the financing of the project.  In Section 5.2, the District is asked to submit to the County invoices within one month of the District’s receipt of such invoice.  Mr. Leonard feels that this may be too short of a timeframe for the District.  It was discussed that since the County will be reimbursing the District for claims that the District has already paid, perhaps this should be changed to say “within 45 days of the District’s payment of such invoice.” 

This section also states that the County will only reimburse 50% of each invoice approved within 30 days of receipt of such invoice.  Since the scope of the spillway phase of the project is estimated to be over $7 million, the 50% cost share should not be a problem.

 The District expressed concerns with having Section 5.3 in the document.  Said section limits the County’s obligation if any federal funds are received by the District before, during or after construction which could be used for dam and spillway restoration or construction.  Mr. Leonard summarized the District’s history with FEMA on the 2010 project which ended with the District withdrawing its application for FEMA assistance for the 2010 flood event.  However, there is still ongoing dialogue with FEMA regarding the 2008 flood event which could result in potential funding on 2008 losses.  The County Auditor will check with the county’s bonding attorney as to the need for this section now that the District has disengaged from FEMA for the 2010 flood event.

 Page 3

Section 6 on page three (3) talks about the District’s obligations as a pre-requisite to receiving county funding for the project.  Section 6.1 addresses the types of public access which the District would be required to construct as follows:

6.1.1 One or more boat ramps

6.1.2 Portage trail around dam and spillway

6.1.3 One or more beaches with parking and restrooms

6.1.4 Fees associated with public amenities

Mr. Leonard stated that the District is focusing mostly on the Turtle Creek cove area for the most immediate increase in public access. They have also looked at other areas but see anything else as more “in the future” as additional funding becomes available.  It is the intention of the District to transfer the parcel at Turtle Creek cove to the County. 

 At this point, County Engineer Anthony Bardgett and Supervisor Ries presented a map depicting a potential strategy for increasing public access in the Turtle Creek cove area which was created by Craig Davis, Assistant to the Engineer.  The plan would be to replace the current bridge structure and raise it slightly to allow more boats to pass under (additional two (2) feet of clearance).  All road banks would be stabilized and a boat ramp established on the southeast side of the cove.  Ample parking for truck and trailer would be created in the area along with ADA compliant restroom facilities.  The cost of replacing the bridge, stabilizing the roadway and creating the boat ramp is estimated at just under $600,000.  A public beach area could also be established along the west side of the cove adjacent to Turtle Creek Park. 

 Any improvements to this area should be completed prior to the water coming back.  This could save up to $200,000 of additional costs for the project.  There is a marine fuel tax grant which could help pay for the boat ramp, parking and bathroom facilities.  The grant application would be filed by the property owner with a 25% local match.  The application would also need to be accompanied by engineered plans outlining the project.

Conservation Director Garlyn Glanz stated that if the county were to take ownership of the Turtle Creek cove property, he would need prior approval from the Conservation Board before moving forward with the grant application.  In addition to the bridge replacement and roadway stabilization, the project would also require excavation to a depth of five (5) feet for boat ramp and docks, timber harvest, excavation and regrading of land on east side of cove for parking spaces.  If a beach were to be placed on the west side of the cove, excavation and regarding would also be required. 

Mr. Bardgett added that if water is expected back in the fall of 2014, then bid lettings should be held yet this winter for the access project.  He feels if bids were taken this winter, they should be able to complete construction before the water is back next fall. 

 Supervisor Helmrichs stated that she feels that the cost of the public access needs to be shared between the two (2) entities.  However, she also feels the bridge and roadway improvements should be done at the expense of the county.  Supervisor Madlom stated he was thinking more in line with a 50/50 cost sharing. 

Supervisor Ries did not completely agree with either of the other two (2) board members.  It is his feeling that the District needs to increase public access or they should lose the county’s funding (up to $2,999,999).  In the 600 page report filed by the District’s engineers, there is $600,000 set aside for public access.

Supervisor Helmrichs added that the project needs to continue to move forward in a positive manner and that all possibilities need to be looked at.

Steve Leonard recommended that the public access conversion continue with an additional work session in the near future.  The District would form a sub-committee to attend these sessions.  Also in attendance should be the three (3) Board members, Mike Stike (DNR), Dan Kirby (DNR), Anthony Bardgett, Garlyn Glanz and Gary Grant (District lobbyist).

 In Section 6.1.4 the agreement discusses the fees charged for use of the new public access.  The County Auditor will have Mark Cory review the verbiage in this section to see if still relevant since the property will be owned by the County.  Also, if marine fuel tax grant monies are utilized, they would be prohibited from ever charging for the use of property.  She will also have Mr. Cory review Section 6.2 to see if the language can be simplified due to the unique nature of lake frontage property.

 Supervisor Helmrichs also asked to have added as a condition that all state, federal and local laws and ordinances be met and permits in place. This stipulation was outlined in the July 3^rd meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

 Page 4

The District asked for clarification of Section 6.4.2. It was thought that the section was in the agreement to make certain that the district had sufficient funding to complete the entire project from start to finish.  However, the county will clarify this with Mr. Cory.

Section 8 addresses the ongoing maintenance of the project and public amenities.  Since the county will most likely have ownership of the Turtle Creek cove area, it was thought this section should be rewritten to address this.  If county owned, any ongoing maintenance of public amenities at the Turtle Creek cove would be the County’s responsibility.

Section 9 addressed insurance coverage for the project.  The verbiage actually states during and following construction.  Mr. Leonard stated that they will have the construction phases fully insured. However, to fully insure the dam and spillway after construction would be cost prohibitive.  This would be no different than the County being required to fully insure all roads and bridges within the county.

The Board will have Mr. Cory review and rewrite for clarification.

Page 5

Section 10 addresses indemnifications.  The group would like Mark Cory to review the wording due to other changes in the document.

Page 6

Section 11.1 – The District would like the reference to US Mail in line two (2) on page 6 to be changed to certified mail.

 Section 12.1.2 – The District is wondering why this section is included; are there any underlying issues?  It was stated that the county feels the section was included to make certain that the District does not drag their feet in completing the project once county dollars are included.  However, they will check with Mark Cory for clarification.

Section 12.2.2 – They would like this section changed to reference the transfer of the District’s interest in the project or public amenities to someone other than another public entity.  The District intends to transfer ownership of the Turtle Creek cove area over to the county and does not want that transfer to default the agreement.

Page 9

Name of District needs to be changed to Lake Delhi Combined Recreational Facility and Water Quality District.  Also, the titles at the bottom of the page should read Board Chairperson and County Auditor.

Page 10

The titles in the acknowledgment should be changed to Board Chairperson and County Auditor.

 As a final note, the District Trustees updated the Board on the lake bed cleanup efforts.  Last weekend they cleaned up the bed between the Hartwick Lake Club and the dam.  Main effort was to remove the trees which had grown up in the lake bed.  ATI Global, a business located in Delhi, donated brush equipment at no charge.  They also took the time to educate volunteers on the usage of the equipment. 

Conservation Director Garlyn Glanz stated that any transfer of property to the county should be transferred in the name of Delaware County with the Delaware County Conservation Board in charge of ongoing maintenance. He also stated that a date should be set soon to continue the discussion on the proposed public access.

 County Attorney John Bernau stated that the County would not take title to any property which had encumbrances attached.  It was felt by the District that only the dam parcel was subject to liens or other filings.

 There being no further business before the Board, the work session was closed at 11:23 a.m.