Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Dam Agreement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Chickasaw County supervisors decline 60‑day withdrawal from 1988 dam agreement after ownership questions

Chickasaw County Board of Supervisors · August 19, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supervisors debated an intergovernmental agreement from March 7, 1988, tied to a dam and lake; the board voted against sending a 60‑day notice of withdrawal after members disagreed about title, responsibility and pending repairs.

The Chickasaw County Board of Supervisors debated whether to send a 60‑day notice to withdraw from a 1988 intergovernmental agreement that ties the county, the county conservation board and the City of Nashua to the operation of a local dam.

The discussion centered on who holds legal title to the dam and whether the county should remain party to an agreement that has had little active governance for decades. Several supervisors and members of the public urged a title search, a survey and a formal title opinion before the county takes further action. Board members also discussed a recent push by the City and by MidAmerican Energy to clarify deed language with their attorneys.

Speakers noted conflicting records: a parcel description shown to the board reflected acreage that did not include the dam, and one participant said MidAmerican Energy had been paying property taxes on the structure, suggesting the dam may not have transferred to the city. A resident cited press reports that put repair costs as high as $2.5 million and described a proposed $50,000 allocation from ARPA funds to aid engineering work.

After discussion, a motion to send a 60‑day notice to withdraw from the March 7, 1988 agreement was moved and put to a roll‑call vote. Supervisors Matt and Steve recorded aye votes; Travis, Jake and another member recorded no votes. The motion failed, leaving the agreement in place and prompting staff to recommend clarifying ownership through surveys, deeds and a formal title opinion before the county pursues additional action.

The board did not adopt a formal new agreement at the meeting and directed follow‑up work: staff were asked to contact the City of Nashua and to coordinate with the conservation board, and several supervisors said they want the underlying title and legal description cleaned up before any future commitments. The board did not specify a deadline for the follow up.