Land Conservation Committee
Date: January 8, 2004
Place: White Mound County Park, Hillpoint
Present: Bernien, Cassity, Craker, Lehman, Wiese, and Zowin from the Land Conservation Committee; Hartje, Meister, Schmitz, Sprecher, and Stevens from the Transportation and Parks Committee; Carignan and Muchow-Highway Department; Koenig and Stieve-Parks Department; Van Berkel, Vosberg, and Pohle-LCD; Kerr-DNR; Wayne Bindl, Edward Prem, William Bergman, and Robert Yanke.
Call to Order and Certify Compliance with Open Meeting Law:
Joint meeting of the Land Conservation Committee and Transportation and Parks Committee was called to order by Land Conservation Committee Chairman Wiese at 9:05 a.m. It was certified that the requirements of the open meeting law have been met.
Adopt Agenda:
Motion by Bernien/Cassity to adopt the agenda.
Motion carried, all in favor.
Delegation of Authority to Staff for Needed Project Change Orders:
Van Berkel asked for clarification on who has authority to approve change orders on the White Mound dredging project. It is not practical to require joint committees' approval of all change orders because some may require immediate attention. Staff do not anticipate many change orders other than a possible change in disposal location for the west bay sediment. However, there could be unanticipated problems or concerns that need to be dealt with quickly. These change orders could involve either an increase or decrease in contract costs or no monetary change. If there were major changes, committees suggested they be dealt with either prior to County Board meetings or at the regular monthly meeting. Van Berkel agreed but recommended setting some reasonable amount that could be approved by the project engineer, John Vosberg. Committee preferred to assign the authority to department heads. Motion by Hartje/Zowin to provide Joe Van Berkel and Steve Koenig the authority to approve change orders up to a $5,000 contract limit.
Motion carried, all in favor.
Van Berkel informed the committees that the bid from Phenco to take the west bay spoil to the north bay is an additional $3/cubic yard. The park road is 20-feet wide and their trucks are 12-feet wide, so they cannot pass along the road which requires considerable extra travel time. The net difference in cost after allowance for the easement payment and improvements would amount to about $70,000 more to get to the north bay site versus the west bay site or about $2.21 per yard. Muchow estimated it would cost highway approximately $5/yard more for the additional handling required at the proposed west bay disposal site. The committees felt both these options made the cost of recovery uneconomical and recommended the material go to the west bay disposal site and possibly just be left there. Committees took no formal action because they had previously assigned authority at the last meeting to Van Berkel and Koenig to make this decision and sign the needed change order based upon their evaluation of all the information and their selection of the most advantageous option for the county.
Vosberg updated the committees on project progress. Indications are Phenco will be about half done by the end of week. They are ahead of schedule due to their immediate start and good conditions. Matt Stieve has been doing the daily project management. Almost 5,000 yards are removed per day. Phenco's goal for project completion is February 22, which is a week prior to the contract deadline. The roads have held up well. Dozers are being used in the lake bed to push everything to a central location. The spoil can be piled on average about 6-feet high. This allows for the option of placing the west bay spoil at the north disposal site.
Consider Entering into Cooperative Habitat Project Agreement with DNR on Nachreiner Parcel:
Van Berkel explained that at the time the agenda was being prepared we were planning to bring this agreement forward to committee. However, due to unresolved details he is recommending no action at this time. As background, he explained that prior to the county purchasing the property, DNR had made an offer to Nachreiner for an easement along the stream. The purpose of the easement would be to provide public access and allow for DNR work to improve stream habitat. The stream has good potential for improvement and is already classified as a trout stream. When the county took ownership, DNR indicated they would be willing to look at other options including the purchase of the entire 23 acres. The Highway Department and Parks Department however had indicated their interest in the use of the shop for storage. DNR agreed to rent it back to them for storage if they would own the property. The DNR Fishery Manager wants to make improvements on the stream this spring (ie. fish habitat structures, rip-rap etc.) This may be before any final purchase and/or easement is completed and therefore was the impetus for the Cooperative Habitat Project Agreement. Robert Yanke stated he is also interested in purchasing the entire property as is, but does not know what county, state or federal mandates would have to be met. Unless he has this information in writing, he did not feel comfortable discussing the purchase with an attorney. Van Berkel clarified that any money received from the sale would be apportioned to all the agencies cost sharing on the project. The county could receive between 17.5 percent - 35 percent of the actual payment. Roger Kerr from the DNR reported that he had started discussing an easement with the Land Conservation Department last summer. Kerr has also been working with Yanke on the potential trade of some of the property for an easement on Yanke's land. DNR would pay property taxes on the land. There was discussion regarding the bridge and it possibly becoming a liability to the purchaser if it requires replacement. Wiese stated that there is quite a bit of resentment in the area because the county moved a viable business out of the building and now the county wants to continue to use it. The DNR offer for the land is for $44,200 but Kerr does not know what the value would be with the buildings. If the county decides to sell the property, they could also allow DNR to purchase the easement prior to selling to a private individual to allow for public access. The Town of Franklin's land use plan identifies the protection of Honey Creek as a priority for the town and states that they will partner with other agencies to accomplish that goal. This could be an opportunity to do that. It was agreed that we try to work more with the Town of Franklin and find out their goals and recommendations for the parcel before making any decision.
Motion to adjourn by Bernien/Sprecher at 10:25 a.m.
Motion carried, all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted: Kathy Zowin, LCC Secretary