{"id":424,"date":"2013-03-21T15:36:30","date_gmt":"2013-03-21T20:36:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/?p=424"},"modified":"2013-08-14T13:09:26","modified_gmt":"2013-08-14T18:09:26","slug":"minutes-for-trustee-work-session-march-21-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/?p=424","title":{"rendered":"Minutes for Trustee Work Session – March 21, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District<\/h3>\n

Board of Trustees Work Session<\/h3>\n

Thursday, March 21, 2013 \u2013 5:45 p.m.<\/h3>\n

Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

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.<\/h3>\n

Trustees present: Leonard, \u00a0Kramer, Peter, Davidson, Burger, Schneider and Kray via Skype<\/h3>\n

Trustees absent:<\/h3>\n

LDRA present \u2013 Pat Dede, Jim Locke, Bob Galiher, Brooks Ante, Rich Hughes, Dennis Jasper<\/h3>\n

Visitors:\u00a0 Don Dede, Garlen Glanz, Dave Nebel, Connie Nebel, Eve Peter, Jerry Ries, Norm Wellman,\u00a0 Wanda Davidson, Larry Aschenbrenner, Bob Klima, Ed Schmidt, Doug Ricklefs, Margie Schneider,\u00a0 Carla Becker, Anthony Bardgett, Chris Stender, Marcheta Cooey Lux.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Leonard 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. \u00a0Carla Becker, County Auditor, \u00a0gave details of the issues regarding the inability to record the original Quit Claim Deed\/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).\u00a0 One reason was the 38 documents attached to the original Quit Claim Deed were too old and not scannable which is a current requirement.\u00a0 In addition, the same attachment was recordable in 1972 but they did not meet the requirements of being recordable in 2013.\u00a0 The 38 pages were too long to retype in its entirety so the District\u2019s Attorney, Matt Hektoen came to Becker \u00a0for assistance in getting it recorded.\u00a0 Becker spoke with Hektoen and Mitvalksy (who was the preparer of the document) \u00a0as to their intent so she didn\u2019t breach any of the ground rules.\u00a0 Becker then worked on the documents and converted it to a 3 page document that she handed out to the attendees. \u00a0\u00a0Some areas changed from the original document when Interstate Power sold the tracts to Shultz.\u00a0 Included in the 3 page document is tracts 1-93 that is similar to the Quit Claim Deed.\u00a0 It is a blanket quit claim deed which simply states that any interest the seller may have is being deeded to the buyer.\u00a0 In a quit claim deed there is no warrant or abstract.\u00a0 A quit claim deed is what was originally used when Interstate Power originally sold the land to the Schultzs.\u00a0 When a quit claim deed was used when the property was sold to the Cooeys, the deed only stated tracts 1-93. \u00a0Becker believes there is no reason to have attachments as to what 1-93 were in our District\u2019s deed.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Any property lying outside the district was excepted.\u00a0 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.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Becker 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.\u00a0 Becker reitereated that she left in all the exceptions that were in the original Quit Claim Deed.\u00a0 She only corrected the legals for those exceptions.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0In reference to the Turtle Creek area, the original Quit Claim Deed only described the parcels per the lease with Delaware County Conservation.\u00a0 That means the legal only went to the center of the road and bridge.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 That is why she changed the legal, on the advice of the attorneys involved, to include the entire tract of land in this area.\u00a0 Becker was asked for an exact legal description of what was still owned of this tract for use on the right to purchase.\u00a0 While doing research she found an original document between the LDRA and another party that was ambigious.\u00a0 This transaction which occurred early in the 1970s was trying to sell a tract which was frontage and its adjacent \u201cfrontage\u201d but didn\u2019t 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.\u00a0\u00a0 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.\u00a0 However, she does not feel a survey is necessary prior to deeding to the District.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Becker then asked permission from the Chairperson to give the floor to Delaware County Engineer, Anthony Bardgett.\u00a0 Mr. Bardgett offered the services of County Land Surveyor Brad Burger to complete the requested survey in the Turtle Creek area.\u00a0 \u00a0They have already done some initial work on it but need approval from the LDRA and the Trustees to do any further work.\u00a0 Leonard asked if the transfer happens between the LDRA and the District will it\u00a0 have any bearing on the outcome.\u00a0 Becker explained that for the original transfer between the 2 entities it wouldn\u2019t be an issue because we are using a quit claim deed and that is giving the District interest in the land and no more.\u00a0 She explained eventually the County would feel more comfortable knowing where the lines are.\u00a0 Leonard indicated this was a great offer from the county and thanked Mr. Bardgett.\u00a0 Davidson asked if the survey should be done before the transfer and Hektoen \u00a0said if the LDRA is going to quit claim deed the properties there is no reason to delay the transfer.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Jerry Ries said he would like to see the land surveyed before it was turned over to anybody.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The land would need to be surveyed before deeded to county, but it doesn\u2019t need the survey prior to the transfer between the LDRA and the District.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Becker feels there are only two (2) parcels which she feels the LDRA should except from the transfer; Parcel AA and Parcel JJ.\u00a0 Parcel AA is the retention area and has a first right of refusal attached to it.\u00a0 Parcel JJ is located at North Beach is the LDRA has been negotiating with Strauser to exchange the Parcel for access.\u00a0 Because there are incumberances to these parcels, she would ike them to remain excepted from the transfer.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Hatala said there has been an underlying \u00a0concern by the LDRA \u00a0if the district can own property outside of its boundary and Hatala said doesn\u2019t think it is an issue.\u00a0 The 357E statute says the District can own property to carry out its mission.\u00a0 Leonard asked if \u00a0it was Becker\u2019s opinion that it makes sense to send as much as possible to the District.\u00a0 Becker suggests to only have one entity to negotiate with property owners.\u00a0 Hatala said if the District is held to the same standards as counties and cities and he doesn\u2019t 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.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Rich Hughes asked about the current MOA and to make sure he understands the issues.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Becker said she is not an attorney, but in her opinion the \u00a0least amount of exceptions in a document the easier it becomes and it would give the district more flexibility.\u00a0 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.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Leonard asked Hektoen in his opinion what was the simplest way to move forward.\u00a0 Hektoen believes that the LDRA should convey as much real esate as possible at one time. \u00a0Mitvalsky says the LDRA feels the same way but they have had reservations but Becker has made good points in her discussion.\u00a0 Burger asked what the LDRA concerns are and asked if \u00a0we take Turtle Creek and have it surveyed before giving to county, does that take care of it.\u00a0 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. \u00a0Burger asked if we put in the MOA tha the District can\u2019t 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.\u00a0 Locke said lets go through all the properties;\u00a0 Turtle Creek \u2013\u00a0 wouldn\u2019t hold up the transfer;\u00a0 Parcel JJ which is access to north beach and if it is only frontage, it isn\u2019t a problem but if not should we wait until the problems are resolved;\u00a0 Parcel EE \u2013 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\u2019t believe Parcel JJ could be sold as \u201cfrontage.\u201d\u00a0 As long as frontage could be described as frontage that parcel would not require a survey.\u00a0 Locke said could do a quit claim deed and he doesn\u2019t have same the same concern w other properties.\u00a0 The issues with the Harbach property would be easier if only one party negotiated.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Burger asked if we could move property into the District boundaries like was done with the Hughes property.\u00a0 Becker said yes, but to remember once it goes in, it cannot come out of the boundaries then.\u00a0 Rich Hughes said the issue also is what can happen 10 years from now.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Hatala 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.\u00a0 Mitvalsky said he believes he understands but does it allow for an election.\u00a0 Burger said he would lean towards having more details so a future board wouldn\u2019t sell it.\u00a0 Mitvlasky said members would convey their wishes with an election approval for sale.\u00a0 Burger said the LDRA knew the frontage sales would not be done by the time the dam transfer took place so he doesn\u2019t think the intent was to tie the trustees\u00a0 hands so they could never sell frontage to adjacent property owners.\u00a0 Burger said he also wouldn\u2019t want to see Lost Beach or North Beach sold either.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Locke said Turtle Creek could be an issue but the District would convey it to the County.\u00a0 Leonard said he would echo what Burger said and that we change the MOA with that understanding.\u00a0 There will be situations where we may need to work through and need the ability to transfer properties.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Davidson asked if the LDRA has an objection to that.\u00a0 Mitvalsky said there is a laundry list of properties and containment site may be another one to hold out.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Mitvalsky continued that the 357E Iowa codes is a very unique chapter of code and said it hasn\u2019t been used much.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Dede asked how FEMA plays into this.\u00a0 Leonard said it was made pretty clear in the monitoring report that the dredge site should be owned by the district.\u00a0 He understands that can\u2019t be done right away but everything else can be.\u00a0 Mitvalsky asked if the dredge containment site is within the geographic boundaries of the district.\u00a0 Becker said the property was split into 2 parcels because one is within the district and the 2nd<\/sup> is not within the boundary.\u00a0 Dave Fry said Iowa Homeland Security has been very clear that the district should own the containment site.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Hatala 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.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Burger left at 6:57 pm.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Becker said she will be there to help\u00a0 get the document the way both parties want it and help to get it recorded.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Rich Hughes said he would like to move forward and whichever makes it quicker.\u00a0 Brooks Ante and Dennis Jasper said agree that we want to transfer the properties.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 It is intended to be all encompassing and cover any remaining interest in the property the LDRA originally received.<\/h3>\n

Davidson asked who would draft the MOA and Hektoen indicated he would do it.<\/h3>\n

\u00a0Leonard asked if further comments from the Trustees and there were none.\u00a0 Leonard thanked all who participated.\u00a0 Peter made motion to adjourn, Schneider second.\u00a0 All ayes, motion passed and meeting adjouned at 7:08 pm.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water Quality District Board of Trustees Work Session Thursday, March 21, 2013 \u2013 5:45 p.m. Maquoketa Valley Middle School Conference Room The work session of the Combined Lake Delhi Recreational Facility and Water … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=424"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":535,"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424\/revisions\/535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lakedelhi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}