Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Golf Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wahpeton council moves forward on $1.3 million golf-course irrigation project
Summary
The Wahpeton City Council voted to proceed with drafting a development agreement and advance planning for a roughly $1.3 million irrigation replacement at the municipal golf course, agreeing to a proposed $300,000 cash contribution while staff will pursue a $1 million financing package and a JPA partner contribution.
A majority of the Wahpeton City Council voted to proceed with plans to replace the city's aging golf-course irrigation system, directing staff to draft a development agreement and preliminarily allocate $300,000 from the sales-tax flood-mitigation fund toward an estimated $1.3 million project.
Council members heard a staff presentation that summarized a contractor quote from Dunnick for $1,250,000 plus a $50,000 contingency. The presenter (Director) said, “We're still looking at $1,300,000 project,” and described a financing model that would borrow $1,000,000 while expecting the Richland-Wilkin joint powers authority to contribute up to $45,000 per year.
The nut of the plan is a public–private approach: staff recommended a development agreement modeled on a recent partnership used elsewhere that would allow a nonprofit golf-club entity to own and operate the work and thereby avoid a full public-bid process required for contracts over $250,000. The presenter said the city’s modeled cash outlay would be roughly $643,000 (about 39% of the total) and identified an annual payment structure with payments on Nov. 1 and a 15-year amortization at a working assumption of 4.5% private-placement bond rates.
Council members and project representatives debated whether to complete both sides of the course in a single season or split the work over multiple years. Contractor representatives cautioned that splitting the project would increase total cost—one presenter said splitting phases could add roughly $100,000 and that doing the full scope now would save on mobilization and materials.
A golf-club representative pressed for flexibility if the project exceeds $1,000,000 and described plans to raise operating contributions and charitable-gaming revenue; the representative said the club could increase annual payments and asked the council to consider a loan for any excess. The presenter cautioned that certain subcontractor assumptions (notably costs tied to a subcontractor identified as Scott’s) still needed clearer, itemized estimates.
After discussion, a motion to proceed—directing the city attorney to draft the development agreement, to pursue the financing approach described, and to preliminarily allocate $300,000 from the sales-tax flood-mitigation fund—was made, seconded and passed by voice vote. The motion passed without a recorded roll-call tally; the council directed staff to return with the drafted agreement and supporting documentation.
What happens next: city staff will draft the development agreement and seek more detailed, itemized bids and subcontractor estimates before returning to council for final approval of contracts and any loan documents.
