Page 1
Special Jefferson County Commissioner Meeting
April 4, 2016
Meeting called to order at 8:00. Those present are Commissioner Farnsworth, Commissioner Hancock, Chairman Raymond, HR/Emergency Management/Park & Rec. /Commissioner Assistant Rebecca Squires, Public Works Dave Walrath, Attorney Robin Dunn; Audrey Moon is clerk of the board. Pledge of Allegiance offeredby Audrey Moon. Prayer offered by Chairman Raymond. Colleen Poole is excused.
Commissioners
- Executive Session 74-206 (F) – Legal
8:04:16 AMMotion by Commissioner Farnsworth to go into executive session 74-206 (F) – Legal. Second by Commissioner Hancock. Roll call taken. Commissioner Farnsworth – aye, Commissioner Hancock – aye, Chairman Raymond – aye. Motion passed.
Open session at 8:20
8:20:05 AMChairman Raymondsaid they have been discussing potential legal issues with the Great Feeder Canal Bridge.
8:20:28 AMMentioned for the public record that the last executive session from the March 30 meeting was questioned. Maybe some of this should have been in open session. To rectify this they will summarize the issue brought up with the retaining wall. Has always been their opinion that the original design was stamped by an engineer and would have been sufficient. The canal board diverted away from the original design. No decisions were made in that executive session.Did go into open session and decided if they did move toward an alternative design on the retaining wall it would be a good idea for the county to hire an engineer to design and stamp off on the retaining wall.
- Great Feeder Canal
8:22:29 AMBruce Grover, Stan Hawkins and Luke Hicks with the Great Feeder Canal Company are in attendance. Stan mentioned their attorneyCurt Thomsen is unable to be here today.
8:23:20 AMChairman Raymond said this has been a long process. Currently dealing with two issues one relating to theGreat Feeder and the other relating to the County’sinterest in this structure. We are dealing with people they have known all their lives and respect and need to realize they may not agree. Would like to discuss the common ground then go over the revised MOU. Stan said he is unsure they have seen this MOU knows there had been some discussion between the two attorneys. Go over the latest version is from The Great Feeder’s AttorneyCurt Thomsen. Stan asked if he could make a statement to the board. Chairman Raymond said yes but first he would like to go back to the things they can agree on. This board on January 25 put forth a motion on the participationof this project. This had unanimous support from the board. Did present this to the general public and had strong support. Chairman Raymond reads the motion from January 25: “Jefferson County intends to participate in the construction of a bridge at the Great Feeder Headgate, including the bridge deck and support structure. The bridge must have construction plans stamped by an engineer and designed to HS-20 standards. The deck should be 16 feet wide, with 14 feet of drivable space. The County will contribute $162,500 to the project as well as $50,000 of in-kind work that will be determined by the Public Works Administrator, Contractor, and Engineer. In addition, the County will provide signage, barriers, and construct the north and south approaches. The Great Feeder Canal Company will provide a written easement, as well as a lease to the County for the life of the bridge. Each entity will pay its own legal fees, if any. Jefferson County will maintain the bridge portion of the structure and provide liability coverage for the public’s use of the bridge.”
8:27:54 AMChairman Raymond said this was unanimously approved by their board and asks Stan if this was presented to their board. Stan comes forwardhe has a transcript from the recorded meeting on January 25. Feels this is a lot broader then the motion. Stan said no discussion on the detail. Stan reads the transcript he made from the January 25 minutes. Chairman Raymond is not sure he sees any difference.
8:33:34 AMAttorney Robin Dunn said that there is no real difference with the minutes this is in compliance with the motion that was made. Did not say anything about the retaining wall because they thought this was already part of the structure since this was stamped. The minutes are in compliance with the dialogue that did occur. The motion is the final representation of the commissioners’ dialogue.
8:35:03 AMStan said they did not feel the retaining wall should have been included. This was a space holder this was too big for their needs and not the best design. Chairman Raymond said they are not looking at the retaining wall today and is not sure this needs discussed today. Have already confirmed they would participate in the cost share of the retaining wall. Stan said they would also be able to share in this cost as well. Commissioner Hancock said they have an engineer that should have a stamped design on this retaining wall this morning.
8:37:02 AMChairman Raymond said the hope for this special meeting is to have an MOU signed and agreed upon today. Things that need to be done on the project by both sides. Feels they are mostly in agreement at this point. Will go over the sticking points from the commissioners.
8:38:12 AMStan wants an opportunity to make a statement on how this has come together. Understands they are limited and have to obey the open meeting laws. Have tried to oblige this by meeting with one designee which was Commissioner Hancock that has been the representative of the County. Had thought that in meeting with him that if he brought back the information to the board they would be able to get their support. Understand the attorney also has an obligation to the taxpayers from the legal side but this has been very difficult process to work through.Cannot offer a better method since the open meeting law is the law. Stan said on March 17 Commissioner Hancock had given them a document which was MOU revision #5. On March 22 the commissions’ adopted MOUrevision #7 that was totally different. Hefelt this document had left out some critical parts. After this the Great Feeder Board had engaged an attorney had not received anything that remainedintact after negotiating. Seemed the documents would always end up changed. Curt Thomsen had provided guidance and the two attorneys discussed this.The Great Feeder board did sign an agreement on March 24 which encapsulated what they had agreed upon. Had taken out the main argument of the lease. Their attorney does not feel the lease is a sticking point to obtain the ICRMP insurance. On March 29 met again withhimself, Bruce Grover, Attorney Curt Thomsen,Commissioner Hancock, and Attorney Robin Dunn. Thought this was almost the final document with two issues remaining. Had some issues with the in-kind work.Was proposed by Attorney Robin Dunn to pay the Great Feeder $23,000 and be done with the in-kind work. Robin said this was not agreed upon it was just an idea. Stan said there was another option included, since this was not approved did seem to be in agreement on the other option.
8:43:39 AMStan said their attorney had sent an email to Mr. Dunn on March 29 at 5:49 had also sent this to Stan. At 10:07 the next day had received an email from Robin Dunn. Stan reads this email into the record. Later in the morning the attorney forwarded this to Stan. Thought there was agreement after the 29th meeting. Had found there was a late meeting on March 30. Trying to encapsulate the frustration. But the lists of concerns had grown after the March 30 meeting. During this had been discussed they would have to have a lease to cover the bridgewith ICRMP.
8:47:02 AMRobin said he had been in contact with ICRMP to cover the bridge and indemnify the engineer. Stan said this was not stated in the March 29 meeting with their attorney. Robin said this was stated that this was his opinion it would still have to come before the board. Did come up was supposed to have cost sharing on the survey this was taken out. When the document came back this was 100% the County’sresponsibility. Another item had 1,000 yards of crushed gravel added that had never been discussed this was put into the document by the Great Feeder. Third thing is they did not come up with a thirty year with possibility to renew which was Curt’s idea. Robin said this would not be acceptable. There was some discussion about fiftyyears and keeping the rest of the language. They disagree that they don’t already have easements to the structure on both sides. Then a Judge would have to decide on the structure itself.After 100 years of usage there is an easement up to the structure and would have to see what a judge said about the structure. The discussion late Friday was to change thirty years to fifty years still with the option to renew. This was after hours so hedid not make any changes if no one was going to agree.
8:50:26 AMRobin goes over the main points. Would be lease vs.easement.Would not pay for an easement since they feel they already own up to the structure. Want this term to be longer was originally the life of the bridge. Already had this meeting scheduled. Stan said two things did reappear on this. The survey being 50/50. Had a better definition of the in-kind work Stan’s preference was to be paid out the $23,000 instead of in-kind work. Feels there was an agreement to receive gravel. Stan said they did accept the motion of $162,500 and $50,000 in-kind but when they have to pay the County more than they would pay a private sector then they are not saving any money.
8:52:38 AMChairman Raymond backs up on the motion the intent was to be up to $50,000 of in-kind. The intent of the motion was never to pay out cash for the in-kind work.Discuss costs included in the in-kind work.
8:54:23 AMCommissioner Hancock said they had kind of decided on $14 a yard at the site. Stan interrupts that they have to worry about the costs for their board as well.
8:55:24 AMCommissioner Hancock said they had discussed the $14 but feel they are getting hung up over about a $3,000 difference. Goes over the options of furnishing trucks and blades and whatever it coststo remove the coffer dam. Then would be done with the agreement once this coffer dam was removed. Had discussed that they would finish removing the coffer dam.
8:57:01 AMChairman Raymond said in the original motion the in-kind work would be between the public works director, engineer and the Great Feeder. Dave has the numbers on what schedule was given.
8:57:54 AMDave said the fees were established in 2011 by FEMA. Did not go out and get high numbers to make more money these numbers have been with the Road Bridge Department for five years. Stan said they had thought the $50,000 would pay for delivery of crushed gravel, the bentonite, and to remove the coffer dam. Now they have to pay someone to load the coffer dam.
8:59:24 AMBruce Grover said in some documents the county would remove all of the coffer dam. Feels that this was something the county was going to do. Then it came back that they would need to hire someone to load the coffer dam. Now will need a track hoeto do part of this. Bruce does not feel like everything is being includedwith the in-kind work. The 1,000 yards of gravel was to help recoup costs so they are not being short changed.
9:01:01 AMCommissioner Hancock said in theory he is correct but the additional haul to the bank was added after. Also mentioned that Stan was worried about the time it would take the county and the equipment they have to remove the coffer dam.There was a discussion that it would probably be better if they could get someone else to load the trucks feels there was some trade off. Goes over the rationale on the reasoning.
9:02:26 AMLuke Hicks said the original cost sheet did have a track hoe. Have$23,000 of in-kind cost to add a track hoe in to load the material will cost more. Bruce said they can have the coffer dam removed for $15,000. Why would they have to pay for a track hoe and then have the $23,000 evaporate? What is the cost to remove the coffer dam? $23,000 plus equipment with the county or $15,000 for someone else to do this.
9:04:22 AMStan said they thought this was settled without a lease when they had met with the attorneys. Since then it has been brought up they need a lease. Stan authorized Curt to come up with a thirty year renewable lease. Has some pain money included to keep everyone at the table? This will self-renew if there are no issues. Thinks this is a fair compromise since the County’s attorney did not specify they would need a lease. Chairman Raymond goes back to the phone call with ICRMP saying they would need to have a lease when this first had begun. Stan thinks there should be some compromise on the amount of years. Stan’s attorney does not feel a fifty year lease is appropriate. Robin clarifies this is Curt. Offering a thirty year renewable lease as a compromise. Not sure why this is a deal breaker.
9:07:06 AMLuke Hicks asked if they would consider some more pain money to get to the fifty years. Robin said the issue is not the money.The issue in thirty yearsthe public will still rely on this structure. Goes over the people that use this area. Lease is the issue the money is not the issue the time is the issue since they already believe they have an easement. Are not buying an easement they are buying the right to the structure. Stan clarified that it is meant to change this to lease. The easement will get people into the area. Do not know what thirty years will look like.
9:09:58 AMRobin goes over the thoughts on the easements. Would solve the problem with ICRMP on the thirty years. The purpose of the motion was for the design life of the bridge. Most design life would be fifty years. Chairman Raymond said not sure he will allow the pain money or the thirty years. Bruce asked where they see a fifty year lease.Commissioner Farnsworth said they hear of ninety-nine year leases all of the time in government. Commissioner Farnsworthsaid he is still struggling with this since it has been used for over 100 years. Is unsure why they are having this big hard discussion when they have been working with them to keep this access open and create the bridge. Who cares about the small things they are contributing toward the bridge. Bruce said they have both had heartburn on this issue knows they are representing the County but they are here to represent their board. Commissioner Farnsworth said they are here representing the public. Did have a public hearing and only had one individual who was not in favor.
9:13:16 AMStan said who cares everyone who has been paying cares. There has been a lot of money involved in this project. Now with the survey they want them to split the cost. Going over all of the issues everyone that pays will care. Robin goes over this is a debt that is owed. Some will be paying double with the taxes and water. Go over water or non-water uses. Have used this on daily basis for the last 100 years. Robin is an agreement with Commissioner Farnsworth why would they not want the same structure that has been used for the last 100 years. They want more money and understandthey are representing the canal board. These commissioners are representing the public. This structure has always needed a lease has always been that way. Robin goes over what the County wants.
9:17:24 AMStan said they have five votes for the thirty year renewable lease.Think there needs to be considered onloading the coffer dam. Goes over some suggestions for the coffer dam could possibly move this to the next budget year.
9:19:21 AMRobins concern is the thirty years, lease vs.easement, the 1,000 yards that was never discussed and half of the survey. Feels this is so hard to discuss because they already have so much invested. Stan feels they should have an offset feels they are shrinking the value of the in-kind work. Robin mentioned they would do away with the $50,000 of in-kind and finish the task. Stan said if they adopt the numbers for the crushed gravel for $27,000 that leaves them with $23,000 available. Robin mentioned they did away with this and moved to task. Feels they are asking them to erase $23,000 credit and remove this coffer dam for $15,000 and so they are being shorted if they have $23,000 left. Could extend this in addition to the $23,000 being used for the cost also will be paying Rhodehouse to load the coffer dam.