Tuesday's meeting of the Joint Parks Committee got off to a rocky start, but continued discussion did find some room for negotiation. Whether a compromise can be found on what to do with the McDowell Recreation Area is yet to be seen.

It was the third such meeting of this committee with moderator-facilitator Errol Behm providing a name and a vision statement for the group representing the interests of the Bismarck Park District, Burleigh County Commission and Burleigh County Water Resource Board. The discussion focused on the future of the McDowell property.

All of the parties agreed that the Bismarck Park District is the most suitable entity to own and manage McDowell, but a near impasse presented itself on funding.

Formerly, county Commissioner Marlon Haakenson had proposed that .69 of a mill that is levied by the water board, and used for operation of McDowell, accompany the transfer of the water district's property to the Bismarck park district. But at Monday's county commission meeting, Haakenson couldn't muster consensus for the plan among the other commissioners.

"This all started out with the Burleigh County Commission and water resource board talking back and forth about relinquishing the deed for McDowell to the Bismarck Park District with some funding," Haakenson said at the previous meeting. "Subsequent to that, the park district came back with a comprehensive plan to take over all the county parks, boat ramps, etc."

But at Monday's meeting, following county commission discussion, Haakenson told Joint Parks Committee members that he felt the county no longer wanted to provide funding at all.

"As far as the funding percentage of the water district budget dedicated to McDowell, it's quite large, about 20 percent or pretty close to that," Haakenson said.

Haakenson further said that the Bismarck Park District should be able to find money to operate McDowell in its $15.1 million budget.

"With that in mind, the park district should determine if it's interested in it or not. If not, this commissioner will take it in a different direction. I'll look at privatizing and selling it,"Haakenson said. "I've talked to the state's attorney and, at first blush, it seems possible."

Bismarck Park Board member John Sagsveen, speaking for himself, said that if that was the county's stand on funding for McDowell, he would recommend to the park board to drop the matter.

"If we can't get funding for McDowell from the county, I'd say just forget it," Sagsveen said.

Park board President Mark Zimmerman, arriving late for the meeting, concurred with Sagsveen after being brought up to speed. Zimmerman said that Haakenson's original proposal is "not correct funding" for McDowell, noting it is split up four different ways, with 17.5 percent going to riverfront maintenance and a similar percent to the Bismarck's city parks; 35 percent goes to Sibley park; 15 percent to law enforcement; and 15 percent to park maintenance.

Sagsveen also said that of the park district's budget, about $5 million comes from property taxes, the rest from user fees and other contracts. Currently, the park district does operate McDowell through an agreement with the water district.

In the agenda item related to McDowell ownership, it was the general consensus that the Bismarck park district should get the property.

"It seems ownership is not the problem, but funding is a big problem," Behm said. "All three parties should come up with a dollar figure for that valuable resource. It would be a shame if we just let it go. If we can come together as the vision statement says, we should be able to come up with the resources and dedication of funds to make it happen."

The group did agree that it needed solid proposals for funding before it attempted to solicit public input.

Rynee Kellar, the water district's newest board member, questioned an additional water source for McDowell. He said that the lake created by the dam is low and has been for quite a while.

The water board's Gailen Narum said that evaporation and an inadequate watershed were to blame for the falling lake level.

He said the water board had looked at a diversion using Apple Creek water to fill the reservoir in the spring, but the cost two years ago was $320,000, and likely 25 percent higher now. The water board's Buck Narum said that the dam leaks, but Narum said that the leakage is likely a natural situation they would have to live with.

Behm set the next meeting for noon Jan. 10, though Haakenson said he would not be able to attend.

"At the next meeting I hope we can come up with some resources from all three entities to make this work," Behm said. "We need to know how much it will cost to operate each year and who is going to do it."

(Reach reporter Gordon Weixel at 250-8255 or gordon.weixel@;bismarcktribune.com.)