2006-04-17 2006 County Ditch No 9 Flood Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2006
COUNTY DITCH NO.9
FLOOD STUDY
City of
Albertville, MN
BMI PROJECT NO. T15.21766
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CERTIFICATION SHEET
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
/~~ty
Date: 1"/7~{J(P
Lic. No. 20846
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. .............................. 4
2. BACKGROUND... ....... ............................................ ................... .................................... 4
3 . METHODOLOGY. ...... .............. ................................................. ..................................... 5
4. FIND WGS .............................. ..... .................................................................................... 6
5. EXISTING UTILITIES.. ....... ............. ............................................................ ................... 8
6. POLICY ISSUES............................................................... .............................................. 9
7. OPTIONS........ ............................................................................................................... 10
8. RECOMMENDATION .................................................................. ............. .................. 11
9. ESTIMATED COSTS ..... ............. ...................................... ............................. .............. 12
APPENDIX A - 2005 Rainfall Data
APPENDIX B - Option Figures 1-4
APPENDIX C - Cost Estimate Tables
APPENDIX D - County Ditch No.9 Agreement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2006
COUNTY DITCH #9
FLOOD STUDY
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
BMI PROJECT NO. T15.21766
1. INTRODUCTION
In the past several years there have been flooding issues in Albertville, particularly in the Albert
Villas development, and properties along County Ditch No.9. The City of Albertville desires to
look at opportunities to improve this situation to prevent future occurrences of similar
magnitudes from causing similar damage. This study, entitled ''2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood
Study" is intended to find viable solutions to existing flooding problems in the study area.
Opportunities to mitigate or reduce the flooding problems are evaluated and discussed. This
report should not be construed as an obligation on the part of the City of Albertville to undertake
any of the alternatives discussed.
2. BACKGROUND
In June of 2003 there was an 8.5" rainfall event that caused flooding in Albertville. After this
storm, the City of Albertville ordered a flood study to look into general drainage solutions,
particularly what effects a diversion channel along the western City limits would have if flooding
events in excess of a 1 OO-year rainfall were to occur in the future. This study found that flooding
caused by extreme storm events would be reduced in the Albert Villas development by
constructing an upstream diversion, but that the bypassed flow could potentially cause
downstream flooding problems in St. Michael.
In the summer of 2005 there were several storm events, in the 2"-5" rainfall range that caused
storm water ponds to overflow their banks. Rainfall data from April I to October 31, 2005 is
shown in Appendix A. On a few of these occasions the City installed sand bags and brought out
pumps to lower the water levels of a few key ponds to protect adjacent homes. These storms
were in the depth range typical of events in the 5-year to 50-year, 24-hour event range. In the fall
of2005 the City ordered this study to look at various options for reducing the flooding associated
with County Ditch No.9.
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.2l766
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. METHODOLOGY
Data collection was initiated to determine what information existed pertaining to County Ditch
No.9. In the fall of2005 a field reconnaissance was conducted to determine the condition of the
drainage infrastructure and channel banks along County Ditch No.9. This report builds upon
past engineering efforts analyzing the drainage problems associated with County Ditch No.9.
The following procedure was followed in developing the study:
1) Interview City staff to obtain history and background of past flooding events.
2) Review storm sewer system maps and as-built construction plans currently in the
City's possession.
3) Collect survey data to establish critical features of the watershed.
4) Review topography maps and storm sewer maps to establish sub-basin areas and
overland flow routes.
5) Create a hydrologic/hydraulic model of the study area.
6) Review the original Albert Villas drainage calculations.
7) Review the previous flood study of 2003.
8) Develop alternatives for detention and diversion to reduce the water surface elevation
flooding at significant locations.
9) Prepare cost estimates for each option.
The study area consists of all land that contributes runoff to the culvert where County Ditch No.
9 crosses County Road (CR) 119. The drainage area above this culvert includes property in both
Albertville and St. Michael (see Exhibit I). Wright County two- foot topographic maps, United
States Geological Survey Quadrangle maps and construction as-built plans were used to
determine the watershed and subwatersheds for the study area. The contributing drainage area
was determined by inspecting the various topographic maps and verified by subsequent site visits
during both dry and wet conditions.
Using SCS methods and HydroCAD, a computer modeling program by HydroCAD Software
Solutions LLC, various storms were modeled and calibrated to match the pond elevations and
overtopping conditions observed during known rainfall events. In particular, the 8.5-inch, 4-hour
storm event was used to calibrate the model. An SCS runoff curve number of 80 was used for
the agricultural land to the west of Albertville. This corresponds to an agricultural land use with
straight row, small grain with crop residue and sandy clay soils (SCS type C soils). The
calibrated model produced flood levels north ofCSAH 18 consistent with what was experienced
by homeowners during the 2003 flood event.
The 100-year, 24-hour storm event was then modeled to determine the resulting high water
elevations for ponding locations and flow rates at critical locations. The 100-year, 24-hour storm
event is typically used for insurance protection purposes. Typically, houses determined to be
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.2l766
Page 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@8olton & Menk, Inc. 2006, All Rights Reserved
100 0 100
1""'10..o-_- ,
SCALE FEET
"'BOLTON & MENK. INC.
Consulting Engineers &: Surveyors
MANKATO, MN FAlRMONT, MN SLEEPY EYE, MN WILLMAR, MN
BURNSVlLLE, MN CHASKA, MN RAMSEY. MN AMES. IA
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
STUDY AREA
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
MARCH, 2006 EXHIBIT NO. 1
H:\ALBT\T1521766\8oundory Exhibit.dwg 04 14 2006 10:56 om
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
subject to flooding for the 100-year event will need flood insurance as part of a home loan.
Consequently, the 1 OO-year event has become the standard for evaluating flood prone conditions.
Common subdivision design includes handling the 100-year event with emergency overflows
built into the system to handle more extreme events. The intent ofthe extreme flood criteria is to
prevent flood damage from larger, less frequent storm events.
The 100-year event is defined at that event likely to occur on the average once every 100-years.
This is not to say that a 100-year rainfall cannot occur in consecutive years or even twice in the
same year. In reality, the 100-year storm has a 1 % chance of occurring in any given year. The
following table shows the chance occurrence for 1, 2, 10 and 100-year, 24-hour storm events
with the expected rainfall amount.
r -. . . - -
IL STORM FREQUENCY --.JL CHANCE IN ANY YEAR ~L~4-HO~~INFALL TOTALS I
L_____.M~ Y ear___....______._J L lout 0(1 ..J L.._____.___~_~in~!!~~________._.J
I 2- Y ear _--.J L. lout of 2 II 2.7 inches I
I lO-Year ~L loutoflO II 4.1 inches I
,L______.__ 1 O<2::y~~___._.____.__.._J L________L~ut of !Q~_______J L_.____~~_!l!~~es_____.__J
Source: United States Weather Bureau Technical Paper 40
Most of the storm sewers outlets that enter into County Ditch No. 9 are not much higher in
elevation than the bottom ditch elevation. As such, these outlets along County Ditch No. 9
cannot fully convey stormwater flows without backing up for all but the lower frequency storms.
This backwater affect at the storm sewer outlet, which often reduces the flow capacity of storm
sewers, is one of the restrictions that can contribute to local flooding.
4. FINDINGS
Flooding along County Ditch No. 9 is caused by many factors including building elevations,
storage capacity of ponds/wetlands and ditch backwater. The stormwater infrastructure and
development in the study area were reviewed to understand the changes that have occurred in the
recent past.
The upstream watershed area west of Albertville, located in St. Michael, has remained virtually
unchanged and is in agricultural land use. Since the year 2000, extensive development has
occurred adjacent to County Ditch No.9 in Albertville. The growth has occurred mainly through
the development of the Cedar Creek First through Seventh Additions and Albert Villas First
through Sixth Additions.
The two major changes to infrastructure in County Ditch No.9 occurred in 2001 and 2005. In
2001 the existing 10- ft by 8- ft box culvert was replaced with a 12- ft by 8- ft box culvert at County
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.2l766
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Road 18. In 2005 the existing 54-inch diameter culvert was replaced with a 5-ft by 8-ft box
culvert at County Road 119.
The stormwater model shows that flooding of homes would occur in the Albert Villas
development from a l00-year, 24-hour storm event. A review of the original drainage
calculations for the Albert Villas development revealed several problems that would contribute
to flooding in the study area. They include:
1) Upstream watershed area;
A watershed describes an area of land that drains down slope to the lowest point. The
watershed for the study area was identified as all of the land that contributes drainage to the
CSAH 119 culvert on County Ditch No.9. The watershed area used in the original drainage
calculations for Albert Villas assumed that the upstream watershed stopped at Jamison
Avenue on the west and paralleled 53rd Street on the north side, which amounted to 102
acres ofland (see Exhibit 2). The actual watershed extends west of Jamison Avenue and
north ofSt. Michael's 65th Street NE, which includes a total of637 acres. This difference
between the two drainage areas is over 500 acres ofland in the watershed that was omitted
from the original drainage calculations for Albert Villas.
2) Storage volume available within the large Albert Villas wetland;
There was a large storage volume difference for the large wetland in the Albert Villas
development between the original drainage calculations and what the 2006 study determined.
The original calculations determined stage-storage data from the culvert outlet ofthe wetland
to a 950.0 contour. Using the latest County 2-foot topography the storage volume was
determined to be 13.5 acre-feet, or over three (3) times less than used in the original
stormwater drainage calculations. It should be noted that the most accurate method to
determine the actual storage in this basin would be by a topographic survey.
Original Albert Villas
Draina e Calculations
2006 Flood Study
Albert Villas Wetland Storage
Volume in Acre-Feet
*Storage from culvert outlet to 950.0 elevation.
42.6*
13.5*
The main noticeable difference between our 2006 stormwater model and the model in the
2004 study is the amount of available flood storage volume in the large wetland surrounded
by the Albert Villas development. The following table shows the storage volume for each
model between the culvert outlet of the wetland and the 951.7 elevation, which is the low
opening elevation designed for structures around the large wetland.
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.2l766
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It\BOL TON & MENK. INC. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COMPARISON OF UPSTREAM WATERSHED
MANKATO, MN FAlRMONT, MN SLEEPY EYE, MN WILLMAR, MN AREAS DRAINING TO ALBERT VILLAS
BURNSVlLLE, MN CHASKA, MN AMES, IA
MARCH, 2006 EXHIBIT NO. 2
H:\ALBT\T1521766\Boundory_Comporision.dwg 03-25-2006 12:41 pm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2004 Flood Study
2006 Flood Study
Albert Villas Wetland Storage
Volume in Acre-Feet
*Storage from culvert outlet to 951.7 elevation.
110.1 *
45.8*
3) Free discharge of water from the ponds/wetlands into County Ditch No.9, assuming no
tailwater effects;
The original drainage calculations for Albert Villas assumed free discharge of water from the
culverts outletting into the drainage system. Tailwater effects were not taken into account.
That is, the Albert Villas model assumed that the outlet pipes would not be submerged by
water within County Ditch No.9. As mentioned earlier, having a submerged outlet can have
a significant impact on the pipe flow rate. The fact that the water elevation in County Ditch
No.9 covers the outlet pipe from any upstream pond would cause the 100-year high water
levels in the adjacent ponds/wetlands to be higher than the original calculations show.
Submerged outlet conditions should be figured into the design of culverts that outlet into
County Ditch No.9.
Increasing the size of storm sewer pipes to pass more stormwater through the Albert Villas
development does little to improve the drainage problem. Because of the small difference
between the existing low floors in Albert Villas and the elevation of County Ditch No.9, very
little change in water elevation is possible in the large wetland. This limits the amount of storage
allowed in the ponds and large wetland. Increased pipe design through the system would pass
the stormwater through the system at a higher rate. Although this may meet the needs of the City
of Albertville, it would only pass the problem downstream to the City ofSt. Michael with higher
ditch flowrates. Also, this option is not feasible from a hydraulic and construction perspective.
Thi.s study concludes that the two main factors contributing to the level of flooding experienced
are:
1) The large upstream drainage area that was not considered during the design ofthe
Albert Villas development;
2) The unavailable storage volume that was assumed to be present in the large wetland in
the Albert Villas development;
3) And, the tailwater effects in County Ditch No.9.
5. EXISTING UTILITIES
There is an existing overhead high power electric line along the western City limits that travels in
a north-south direction. A drainage and utility easement is over this area, which may allow
expansion of the existing ponds within the 240- foot easement with no land costs associated with
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.21766
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
this work. Due to the constraints ofthe overhead utility, the extent ofthe improvements within
this easement, are yet to be determined. Further coordination with the utility company is needed.
There is an 8-inch petroleum pipeline covered by a 50-foot wide utility easement that runs in a
northwesterly, southeasterly direction. This pipeline was installed in the late 1940' s. It may be
necessary to relocate or lower this pipeline depending on the layout and configuration of
potential ponding and diversion channel layouts.
6. POLICY ISSUES
In September of2002 the Cities of Albertville and St. Michael entered into an agreement entitled
"County Ditch 9 Agreement". The agreement transferred the ditch authority from Wright County
to Albertville and St. Michael. The length of County Ditch No.9 covered in the agreement starts
its upstream beginning in Albertville to its outlet into County Ditch No. 21 in St. Michael.
Some of the recommended alternatives in this study will require some decisions concerning
policy, so that they can clearly and fairly be applied during its implementation. The issues that
have been identified include:
. Land acquisition
. Ditch and culvert maintenance
. Infill development/expansion to existing homes
. Ditch high water elevation establishment for adjacent development
. Hydraulic analysis of future development runoff impacts within the watershed study
area with relationship to flowrates at the County Ditch No.9 culvert at CR 119.
Securing land options upstream of Albert Villas is essential in providing an area where future
flood storage volume can be established prior to this area becoming developed. If development
occurs first, there will be little opportunity left to provide a feasible solution to this problem.
Providing stormwater ponding areas within the storm drainage system reduces the required
capacity ofthe downstream conveyance system. The decrease in discharge rate results in smaller
pipes, reduced overland flow and a more cost effective drainage system.
Though not all of these policy issues will need decisions before the recommendations of this
study can be implemented, land will need to be acquired in order to construct and implement the
recommended improvement. Any changes to the current policy regarding maintenance of the
ditch can be made whether the study is implemented or not. Regulations regarding infill and
existing home expansion is also independent of implementation of the study recommendations.
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.21766
Page 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. OPTIONS
Identifying a solution to the flooding associated with County Ditch No.9 was met with several
constraints. Since most of the watershed study area within the City of Albertville is developed,
there is little opportunity to provide sufficient ponding within the City limits. Other constraints
are the existing elevations ofthe homes adjacent to County Ditch No.9, Albert Villas wetland
and ponds. Various options were looked at along with their associated costs. Each option
evaluated deals with providing upstream flood storage. There are many variations to the
locations of where the storage could be located, but the most adventitious spot to locate storage is
in St. Michael, west of the Albert Villas development.
The study considered several options to improve the drainage within the study area. The
appendix contains figures of the studied options to improve the drainage conditions.
All options considered involve expanding the existing ponds adjacent to the western border of
Albertville, beneath the overhead power lines. This would maximize the available land in
Albertville that could be used for ponding that is currently in easement and in an optimal
location. Unfortunately, the available storage from expanding these existing ponds is not
sufficient to provide storage for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Supplementary ponding is
needed in addition to volume the easement area can provide.
All options also allow the low flows to continue flowing through the Albert Villas wetland.
Otherwise, the wetland would probably be lost and need to be mitigated at a 2 to 1 ratio.
An emergency overflow ditch is recommended with each option. This would allow extreme
rainfall events greater than the 100-year, 24-hour storm to bypass Albert Villas. The following
options take into account expansion of these ponds with discussion centering around the layout
and location of where the additional ponding would occur.
Option #1
This option places the additional storage volume on the 80-acre and 40-acre parcels in St.
Michael, on what is currently agricultural land (see Figure 1). This option expands the existing
pond in Albertville toward the west. The high water level of this pond is limited by the
existing elevation of the homes on the east side of the pond.
Option #2
This option is similar in layout to Option # 1, except that a dike would separate the large pond
in St. Michael from the expanded pond in Albertville (see Figure 2). The dike would allow the
water level in the westerly pond to rise to a higher elevation, without the existing homes being
the limiting factor for how high the water could rise. This option results in less excavation
than Option #1 in order to meet the required storage volume.
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.2l766
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Option #3
With this option additional storage would occur to the west in the 40-acre parcel that has a
wetland located in the middle of it (see Figure 3). A berm would be built around the
downstream perimeter of the parcel to provide storage and limit the flow rate from this area to
acceptable levels able to meet the 100-year, 24-hour event for downstream development. The
advantage to this option is that it would use a portion of the land that is unbuildable from a
land us perspective. The disadvantage is that wetland impacts would occur that would have to
be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio.
Option #4
This option coordinates the additional ponding with the proposed school site on the 40-acre
parcel in St. Michael (see Figure 4). The ponds would be configured to accommodate the
schools proposed building and roadway network. A berm would be constructed around the
wetland located on the parcel to the west ofthe school property. The berm would allow flood
storage to occur in the wetland and would be designed such that no major impacts would result
per the Wetland Conservation Act rules.
The quality and size of potential wetlands to be impacted by each option are unknown at this
time. If an option is explored in further detail, the wetland parameters will need to be established
in order to determine the full potential of the improvement and its associated cost.
8. RECOMMENDATION
To reduce the flooding problems experienced in the study area, there are two general approaches
that can be applied:
1) Increasing conveyance capacity (enlarging storm sewer pipes); and
2) Storage of excess stormwater (detention storage).
Increasing existing pipe capacities upstream of the CSAH 119 culvert in County Ditch No.9 and
through the Albert Villas development would have an adverse effect on the property in St.
Michael below this culvert by increasing the peak flows downstream. Due to the elevation of the
existing homes and the limited storage capacity of the wetland, enlarging culverts through the
development merely passes the flows through the system quickly into County Ditch No.9. The
ditch was not sized to handle flows of this magnitude, which would cause flooding along the
ditch corridor and downstream flows would be increased. Given this situation, this option is not
considered feasible and was not further evaluated.
An ultimate solution requires adding storage volume upstream ofthe Albert Villas development,
in St. Michael. Additional ponding and storage upstream of Albert Villas appears to be the most
feasible solution, as it would improve the flooding conditions throughout the study area. Ideally
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.21766
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the City of Albertville should seek opportunities as they arise in St. Michael to provide the
storage necessary to solve the flooding conditions.
The City is strongly encouraged to continue a routine maintenance program of storm sewer and
catch basin/inlet cleaning of their drainage infrastructure. Also, the responsibilities in the
existing County Ditch No.9 Agreement should be followed. The Agreement calls for an annual
report to be made by the City Engineers that includes an annual inspection ofthe ditch condition
and a report of all development activities, which have occurred in the County Ditch No. 9
drainage basin. Routine maintenance, including ditch and culvert cleaning is essential if the
existing system and any proposed systems are to perform as designed.
It should be recognized that proposed improvements to the storm sewer pipe system typically are
designed for a 10- year storm event and that any rainfall exceeding this frequency will result in
the inability of the storm sewer to convey the entire flow. Retention ponds are typically located
to store excess runoff from events greater than the 10-year event but not greater than the 100-yer
event. New developments should be designed such that events larger than a 1 O-year pipe system
flow and a 100-year detention basin storage will have overflow routes established and
maintained to protect the property without damage to land or structures.
The Public Works Department and Engineering Department should update and continue the
procedure whereby flooding complaints are accurately logged, indicating property address and
owner information, date and time of flooding, and extent of flooding. This information will be
used for performance monitoring to indicate if newly constructed storm water improvements
have been successful. This documentation will also highlight problem areas for additional
improvements. The City may want to develop a rapid-response program to flooding in order to
minimize damage to property.
9. ESTIMATED COSTS
Proposed construction costs for each option are itemized in the tables located in Appendix B and
are summarized below. These cost estimates are based upon public construction cost
information. Since the consultant has no control over the cost oflabor, materials, competitive
bidding process, weather conditions and other factors affecting the cost of construction, all cost
estimates are opinions for general information of the client and no warranty or guarantee as to the
accuracy of construction cost estimates is made. Land and potential utility relocation costs are
not included in the total project cost for each option. Estimated construction costs presented in
the following table include a 25 percent contingency factor. Overhead costs, estimated at 25
percent, include legal, engineering and administrative costs. Costs are for comparative purposes
only. It is recommended that costs for project financing should be based upon actual,
competitive bid prices with reasonable contingencies.
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. Tl5.21766
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Option 1
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Engineering and Administration (25%)
Total Project Costs
Option 2
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Engineering and Administration (25%)
Total Project Costs (1)
Option 3
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Engineering and Administration (25%)
Total Project Costs (1)
$1,596,260.00
$399,065.00
$399,065.00
$2,394,390.00
$ 1,153,335.00
$ 288,334.00
$ 288,334.00
$ 1,730,003.00
$1,784,400.00
$446,096.00
$446,096.00
$2,676,577.00
Option 4
Subtotal $1,675,460.00
Contingencies (25%) $418,865.00
Engineering and Administration (25%) $418,865.00
Total Project Costs (1) $2,513,190.00
Total costs do not include land acquisition, easements or utility relocation.
2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study
BMI Project No. T15.2l766
Page 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
2005 RAINFALL DATA
I
I 2005 WRIGHT COUNTY RAINFALL DATA
Target Location: Township 120, Range 24, section 1
I monthly
mon dy, year precip. station NO. preci p dist
(inches) (inches)
I Apr 1. 2005 0 212500 1.44 o mi.
Apr 6, 2005 .08
Apr 11, 2005 .41
Apr 12, 2005 .37
I Apr 18, 2005 .45
Apr 26, 2005 .10
Apr 27, 2005 .03
May 1. 2005 0 212500 3.93 o mi.
I May 2, 2005 .04
May 9, 2005 .28
May 10, 2005 .28
May 13, 2005 .50
I May 16, 2005 .25
May 18, 2005 1.05
May 19, 2005 .55
May 20, 2005 .01
I May 23, 2005 .08
May 25, 2005 .02
May 26, 2005 .67
May 31, 2005 .20
I Jun 1. 2005 0 212500 6.92 o mi.
Jun 6, 2005 1. 57
Jun 8, 2005 1.10
Jun 10, 2005 .91
I J un 13, 2005 .45
Jun 15, 2005 .21
Jun 21, 2005 1.61
Jun 27, 2005 .15
Jun 28, 2005 .72
I Jun 30, 2005 .20
Jul 1. 2005 0 212500 1. 71 o mi.
Jul 20, 2005 .29
Jul 23, 2005 .98
I Jul 26, 2005 .44
Aug 1. 2005 0 212500 4.11 o mi.
Aug 4, 2005 .17
Aug 10, 2005 .07
I Aug 17, 2005 1.23
Aug 22, 2005 .07
Aug 26, 2005 1.90
Aug 29, 2005 .67
I Seo 1. 2005 0 212500 13.40 o mi.
sep 6, 2005 3.17
sep 8, 2005 .39
sep 13, 2005 4.92
I sep 19, 2005 1. 55
sep 22, 2005 2.45
Sep 26, 2005 .69
sep 28, 2005 .23
I Oct 1. 2005 m 212500 m o mi.
Oct 3, 2005 .15
Oct 4, 2005 .08
Oct 5, 2005 4.00
I Oct 6, 2005 .20
Oct 13, 2005 .28
Oct 17, 2005 .09
Oct 24, 2005 .12
oct 31, 2005 .23
I APPENDIX A
I
0
z
W
0:::
>- ::>
'-'
0 l.J....
:::)
I-
if)
0
a
w..-a
--.J :::J:t::: ~
--.J
-2m
~2I
O:::o...u
wal-
CD 0
--.J
<( ~
2
:::) (0
0
a 0
u N
>='
0:::
<(
::>
0:::
m
w
l.J....
.
o
z
z
~
~
<C
~
...J
...J
~<C
-
..
~~
o
Z~
W~
~~
zl/)
~~
.<C
W
~z
>-~
a... _
W<C
w~
...Jl/)
U) l/) <C
L. n
Ai_~ ~z
~ t-=~
0) z
c: 0 u.i
Zw ~...J
0:::::1
->
O~ ~~
~~ ~lD
J8 ~
o ~
m
~
0
0 I-
(0 W
W
l.J....
\J
OJ E
> "
'-
OJ ...
en 0
OJ OJ
0 0::
0 en to
0
J"I') -+-' 0
.l: '"
.~ I
0:: 0
'"
I
'"
0
'"
it
'<
0 z
0 0
>=
..s Cl.
0
~ ,/
0
c <(
c..>
OJ ,/
~ to
to
~ "
'"
II)
c >=
0
-+-' ,:::-
0 lD
m -'
@ :>
:i:.
-------------------
N
~
o
(f)
W
Z
Z
~
o
z
W
0:::
r=>
O~
::)
I-
(f)
o
o
WNO
-.J~~
-.J
-Z(J)
~2:c
~o...o
WOI-
m 0
-.J
<(
~
Z
::)(0
08
ON
~
a::
<(
=>
0:::
m
w
l.J....
.
o
z
z
~
rY
<
~
...J
...J
~::!
-
..
~~
o
z~
w~
~~
zll)
~~
.<
w
~z
>-~
0... .
~~
...JlI)
fI) lI) <
L [5
..x_~ ~Z
~ t-='~
m z
C Ow
ZI.&J ~...J
o:::::::!
->
O~ ~~
r-~ ~ID
JUCO 0
~
o ~
m
~-:
0
0 I-
(0 W E
W a.
l.J.... '"
"0 N
Q)
>
L <0
Q) 0
(J) 0
Q) N
0 0:: I
U')
0 en N
I"") ..... I
..r::. '"
Ol 0
0:: en
;:
<( "0
W -0
Q)
--l <D III
<( '0
0 a::
U 0 I
0 (f) N
z
J 0
>=
C G-
o
~ ./
0
C <(
()
Q) ./
~ <0
<0
~ f'o.
N
U')
C ;:::
0
== ~
0 In
CD --'
@ :?:
I
-------------------
-----
- - --
- -
- -
------
I"')
~
o
(f)
W
Z
Z
~
o
z
W
0::
)-::)
o~
:::::>
I-
(J)
o
o
wnO
---1 :::tt::: ~
---1
-2m
~2:r:
0:::0...0
WOI-
rn 0
---1
<(
LL
o
~
2
:::::>(()
08
ON
~
o
~
0::
<(
::)
0::
CD
W
lL.
.
o
z
Z
:::!:
~
<(
:::!:
...J
...J
~<(
-
II
\/ f
.1. 0 Z lI)
:::!:~
Z ~ w<(
W~ ~~
,,~ ~~
~ ...JlI)
rn lI) <(
L. B
r(j.~ ~~
lJ) Z
t: 0 W
Zw ~;!
->
O~ ~~
r-~ :::!:lD
J8 ~
o ~
m
~
0
0 I-
(() W
W
lL.
"0
Q) E
> 0
L-
Q) t')
(fJ N
Q) <ij
0 a:::
0 (fJ '"
I"') ..... 0
~ 0
N
.~ I
a::: 0
N
I
N
0
0>
"
-0
.q:
0 z
U 0
;:::
C ll.
0
~- /'
0
C <(
U
Q) /'
~ '"
'"
~ r--
N
It)
c ;::
a
~ /'
I-
a lD
lD -'
<(
@ -:.
:1:.
---------
- -
--------
v
0
z
W
0:::
>- ::>
0 0
:::> LL
I-
(f)
0
0
W..;:tO
--.J :::tt:: ~
--.J
-2m
~2J:
0::::0....0
WOI-
m 0
--.J
<( ~
2
:::>
0 co
0 0
0
N
:c
0
0:::
<(
~
.
o
z
Z
:::!!
a::
<(
:::!!
...J
...J
~~
-
.
J::f
o
z~
W~
~Jd
zV)
:::!!~
.<(
W
(;:jz
>-:::!!
a.. .
W<(
W~
...JV)
fI) V) <(
L.. B
~.~ ~~
0) z
COw
zw ~~
0) ~;;;
O~ z~
r-~ :::!!lD
J8 g
o ~
m
~-~
0
0 I-
co W
W
LL
"0 E
Q) a.
>
L- a>
Q) t')
(J) N
Q)
0 a::
0 (J) <D
I") -+-' 0
0
.!: N
.~ I
0::: If)
N
I
<( t')
w 0
--l cD '"
<( 0 "
0 0 -0
en N ui
0 z
U 0
;:::
c Cl.
0
- ./
~ 0
C <I:
U
Q) ./
:2' <D
<D
~ ....
N
If)
c 2
0
==
0 III
(D ..J
<I:
@ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBERTVILLE FLOOD STUDY OPTIONS
COST ESTIMATE
OPTION #1
EXPAND EXISTING PONDS WITH ADDITIONAL PONDING
TO THE WEST IN THE 40 & 80 ACRE PARCELS
ESTIMATED
BID UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY - UNIT PRICE TOTAL
MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
POND EXCAVATION 393100 CY $3.50 $1,375,850.00
27" RCP DES 3006 CL III 195 LF $38.00 $7,410.00
30" RCP DES 3006 CL III 930 LF $50.00 $46,500.00
27" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,100.00 $6,600.00
30" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00
RANDOM RIPRAP FIELD STONE 60 CY $70.00 $4,200.00
SEED MIX #250GR, FERTILIZER & MULCH 29 ACRE $500.00 $14,500.00
SOD 4000 SY $2.25 $9,000.00
EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
OVERFLOW DITCH 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
WETLAND MITIGATION 1 ACRE $50,000.00 $50,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,596,260.00
ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATION 25% $399,065.00
CONTINGENCIES 25% $399,065.00
TOTAL* $2,394,390.00
*Costs do not include land purchase or easements.
APPENDIX C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATE TABLES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBERTVILLE FLOOD STUDY
COST ESTIMATE
OPTION #2
EXPAND EXISTING PONDS WITH ADDITIONAL PONDING
TO THE WEST IN THE 40 & 80 ACRE PARCELS WITH
A BERM BETWEEN THE NEW AND EXISTING PONDS.
ESTIMATED
BID UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
POND EXCAVATION 266550 CY $3.50 $932,925.00
27" RCP DES 3006 CL III 195 LF $38.00 $7,410.00
30" RCP DES 3006 CL III 930 LF $50.00 $46,500.00
27" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,100.00 $6,600.00
30" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00
RANDOM RIPRAP FIELD STONE 60 CY $70.00 $4,200.00
SEED MIX #250GR, FERTILIZER & MULCH 29 ACRE $500.00 $14,500.00
SOD 4000 SY $2.25 $9,000.00
EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
OVERFLOW DITCH 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
WETLAND MITIGATION 1 ACRE $50,000.00 $50,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,153,335.00
ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATION 25% $288,333.75
CONTINGENCIES 25% $288,333.75
TOTAL* $1,730,002.50
*Costs do not include land purchase or easements.
APPENDIX C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBERTVILLE FLOOD STUDY OPTIONS
COST ESTIMATE
OPTION #3
EXPAND EXISTING PONDS WITH ADDITIONAL PONDING
TO THE WEST IN THE WETLAND AREA BY EXCAVATING
ESTIMATED
BID UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
CLEAR & GRUB 20 ACRE $5,000.00 $100,000.00
COMMON EXCAVATION 230150 CY $3.50 $805,525.00
27" RCP DES 3006 CL III 195 LF $38.00 $7,410.00
30" RCP DES 2006 CL III 930 LF $50.00 $46,500.00
27" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,100.00 $6,600.00
30" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00
RANDOM RIPRAP FIELD STONE 45 CY $70.00 $3,150.00
SEED MIX #250GR, FERTILIZER & MULCH 38 ACRE $500.00 $19,000.00
SOD 4000 SY $2.25 $9,000.00
EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
OVERFLOW DITCH 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
WETLAND MITIGATION 14 ACRE $50,000.00 $700,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,784,385.00
ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATION 25% $446,096.25
CONTINGENCIES 25% $446,096.25
TOTAL * $2,676,577 .50
*Costs do not include land purchase or easements.
APPENDIX C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBERTVILLE FLOOD STUDY OPTIONS
COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL OPTION
OPTION #4
EXPAND EXISTING PONDS WITH ADDITIONAL PONDING
TO THE WEST IN THE 40 ACRE PARCEL WITH PONDING
IN THE WETLAND AREA BY BERMING
ESTIMATED
BID UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
POND EXCA VA TION 401300 CY $3.50 $1,404,550.00
27" RCP DES 3006 CL III 195 LF $38.00 $7,410.00
30" RCP DES 2006 CL III 930 LF $50.00 $46,500.00
27" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,100.00 $6,600.00
30" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00
RANDOM RIPRAP FIELD STONE 60 CY $70.00 $4,200.00
SEED MIX #250GR, FERTILIZER & MULCH 20 ACRE $500.00 $10,000.00
SOD 4000 SY $2.25 $9,000.00
EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
OVERFLOW DITCH 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
WETLAND MITIGATION 2 ACRE $50,000.00 $100,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,675,460.00
ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATION 25% $418,865.00
CONTINGENCIES 25% $418,865.00
TOTAL* $2,513,190.00
*Costs do not include land purchase or easements.
APPENDIX C
FAX NO.
Oct. 12 2005 10:21AM P2
T.g~3 P.OI/OS F.r!6
I FROM :. CITY OF ALBERTV r LLE
CCT-12-05 J8:55AW FRCM-CITY OF ST ~IKE
I
I
I
I
I
I '
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7634973210
+7634HU06
COUNTY DITCH 9 A.GREE~l!Nt
nns AGREEMENT ii entered into this ~ day of ,2002, by
and between the City of St. Michael, hereinaflerreferrcd to IS tis . Michael" and the City of
AlbenviUe, hereinafter refet'fed to as "AlbertvUle."
wlffiREAS: County Ditc'h 9, hereinaftertcferred to as Ditcb 9~ flows througn and serves as
a surface water dtainaie basin for St. Michael; aud
WHEREAS: Ditch 9 also flows througb and series as a surface water drainage basin fOT
Albenvillc;and
WHEREAS: Discharges from a tributary area in St. Michae! flow into a segment of Ditch
9 located in AlbertVine; and
WHeREAS: Dischatges from Ditch 9 in Albertvt11e flow into Ditch 9 in St. Michael; and
WHEREAS: It is in the interest of both parties to regulate, maintain. and repair Oitch 9,
NOW, THEREFORE? the pames hereto agree as follows:
1.
F>>Iv0'Ae and Plan. The purpose of this Agreeme1\t is to develop eo cooperative
procedure for St. Michael and Albe!tVille to prepare and implement a plan for the
regulation, maintenance, and tepait of Ditcl\ 9 from its upstream begit'..uingin Section
2, R24Wt T120N in AlbertVille to its outlet to CountY Ditch 'So. 21 in Sectie>n 10,
R24W, T1.20N in St. Michael.
2.
flin PTeoarati.on~ Within ninety (90) days following the effective date of this
A.greement, the Pitch 9 Authority~ hereinafter ref'erred to as "Au.thority" as described
in Section ~, sba11 ptepaTe a comprehensive Ian hcreinaftet' referred to as "Ditch 9
Plan." for theN lano mamtcnanQO and iToft eOlltir en 0 e
Ditch 9 Plan shall include the following~
2.1
Establishn\ent of surface water drainage design panmeterS for all developl'ncnt
aud redevelopment projects, public improvements, and rural ia.nd uSe$located
in the Dit~h 9 drainage basin.
A review of the 'hydrology of the watershed to detennine the floW capaoi'tY lOT
tbe Ditch 9 Cl'oss-sections and profile. The Tmew will include an analysis of
the capacity of existing StrUctUres on Ditch 9. Each City shan be responsible
for reviewing its portion of'the waterShed.
2.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
COUNTY DITCH No.9 AGREEMENT
~ROM 0:: CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
CCT-1Z-05 ~a:56A~ FR~U-CITY OF Sf ~IKE
FAX NO.
7634973210
+7614i75306
Oct. 12 2005 10:21AM P3
1-84, P ~2/05 F-rbij
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(fj)
A description of lr.c existin condition of Oitch 9 and an itemi2'.atiol'\. of any
current uuuntenanee or . s. Tbe City Engineers w\l1 proVl the
surveys a!\ mspecrlons in lheirrespecrive cities witbconcurrence by the other
City. E~isting stnlctures will be reviewed for hydraulic and stnlctu11l1
integrity.
2.4
A description of th.e applicable ditch. regulaticm.s of the appropriate permitting
agenQ.ics, including the oNR, B'WSR., COE, and WCSWCD. The Cit.y
Engineers will mcot with representativ~s ftom these agencies.
2.5
Cost estimateS for current maintenan.ce and fCpait needs. The cost estimate
shall include aU conswetiOl'l costs plus all overhead eosts such 85 legal,
engiDeerin~. cd admitlimation cos~.
2.6
Easertl.ent needs shall be determined for the ditch and. desired bu.ffer :l.ones.
3.
Phln hdot)tion aM Amendment. The Ditch 9 Plan shall be prepared cooperatively by
me City E11.gineers. The CitY Engineers must jointly agree on the Ditch 9 Plan before
submitting it. to the Authority fot review and approval. The Authority $hall~e
composed of twO Council rsons and oue Plannin ConunisSl0ner trom each
.ommunity. e city Englnecl'$ shl pxo\1lcle the teChnical...!;t...ce nee e by the
Authority. The Di~h 9 Plan shan be ado'Pted by a majority vote of the members of
the Authority and may be atnend.ed annually by a majority vote of the members of the
.>\.uthority .
4.
plan Implementation. Following Ditch 9 Plan review and adoption by the AU.thority,
each City shall mange for and administer the implementation of Ditch 9 'Plan. Each
CitY win perf'onn aU wotk necessary 011 the segments of the ditch located in their
respec1ive jllriscllclioo. All conttaets for the perfannancc of maitttenance and/or
repair projects shall be noticed and awa-rded in accOrdance with app1i~ble Sta.tutory
rcqu.iremeDts. Work incll1ded in the Ditch 9 Plan mAY be performed privately by
owners of lands tributary to Ditch 9 and such wor~ may be chgibl!! for partial
reimbursement when in aocoraauu with the Ditch 9 plan. All permits neeessfll'Y for
maintenance and/or repair projects on Ditch. 9, will be secured by the Authority.
s.
IF'pection !I1'dRevieW. AnymemDerofthe Al1tborit}'mAYteVlew andinspeet any and
a.ll work, services, and aeti'vities undertakon putS".lant to the Ditch 9 I'lan, and may
inspect and audit book. and records relaling to plsn implementation. If any
discrep31lcies or inefficienc;ies ate noted, the Authority shan work out their
differences.
2
IIFROM ,: CITY OFALBERT~ILLE.
CCT-12-0S 08:57AM FRCM-CITY OF ST ~IKE
FAX NO.
76349732113
+mdQ~5306
Oct. 12 213135 113:22AM P4
j.a4= P,G3/0~ ,-156
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.
~"AI1""'pOll. The eosts for preparing and illlJllenlentin; tbe Dilch 9 Plan sball be
Allocated to and paid by t}te respective City on the bads of the following:
6.\ The p.yment fOt IlIe eo!llS or propWg and ot\urinillOring tlle Dilch 9 PI an
sball b. allocated to .aell city based on thoir proportlOll3te ar.. of the Dilen
9 drainage basi1\.
6.2
The payrt1ent for the costs of a maintenance or. repair project on any segment
of Oitch 9 will be allocated to cs.ch City based on their proportionate area of
that part of the Ditch 9 drama;' basin lying upstreatn of the tower most point
of tho segment. On combined ptojects, each segment will be calculated
separately.
6.3
Neither City shall undorW<.e :a maint6naIlce or tePaiI project on any segment
of Ditch 9 that will require TCi.mbUtseJl'1CDt from the other City without the
prior approval oftbe other City.
7.
cgo< .Reiml>"~t. Witbln sixty (60) days following the completion ofa Ditch 9
ma.mtenS1lce and/or xepair pt'Oject done in aCcordance with the Ditch 9 Plan, the
Authority shall transmit a statement to each City detailing the cOStS ~!hich have been
incurred. in doing the project. The appropriate City will reimburse its portion of the
costs to the City with the project within thirty (30) days following the receipt of the
statement. ')
(,':..~.I"
AJunlOlllenort. J\;D. onnual inspcclion of the -mtion of Ditch 9 and i~\k facilities
will be tnJ!.de by the CitY Engineers. The City E1\ginem shall inspect those segments
of Ditch 910cated in their tcspective City and then submit a. sununa.ry report to the
Au.thority. The reportS will also include all development activities which have
oceuued in tbJ: Ditch 9 draina.ge basin. The annual inspectiQn and development report
sblllllle submitted to the Authority twO ",cob i"ad"anoc oftlle annual "",.Ii"g of
the Aumonn'.
&.
9.
hnnua1 'Meeti'()$. The first annual meeting. ofme A.uthority shall be at S;OO p.m. on
the last Wednesday in October in 2002 at the St. Michael City Hall. Sub$~q\'\ent
annu&l n\eetiJ1g times and lites ahe,l1 be set by the AuthoritY.
D"l"'orltlll'Y. The Alltb<>rity snail e&lablish an ace""'" i11 · .rale or naUo11Ol 'oan!<
authOrize<! to m:e1ve dcpoSill of monies and to o<:t as a deposilOt)' for funds bedgeted
fOT me adtninistration of the Ditch 9 'Plan. The Authority may act to disburse monies
10.
3
.FROM : CITY
It-' OF ALBERTVILL~
CCT-12-0~ Ja~5eAM FR~M-CITY OF ~T MIKi
FAX NO.
7634973210
+7m&15S06
Oct. 12 2005 10:23AM
H4, p,O.v05 F-'U P5
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
from m;, acCOunt on the authorization and signature of OlIO CC)U1Icilpets01l metl'lber
from eaC'h CitY.
11.
Iii"''''''ce. The A1Ithority may pufChase P""P""l' and lIabilitY ins1ltBIlCO for lbo
purpose ofprote<:tini: the itttereSts of ,be Cit\ea ill implOll1Cl1tins the Dltol> 9 Plan. ",.
costS of such insurance shan be fu1\.ded in accordance with Section 6. 1.
12.
OJ'''. GranG.. ~ 1 ........ 'llte AuthoritY may wlthi.ll the scope nf m;, Agreement,
accept gins. apply for and uae sr8ltIS or 1_. or other propertY from 1he United
States, the State of Mi111\esota, Of its departments Of agencies, Wright County I or any
pelOon or entity for the pmposes desCribed hen>ln. 'llte AuthoritY may ontCr iDto any
_SOJ>Bb1.o agtOetIlenuBq1Iired in eonnection therewith. The AulbOrilY shan comply
with a111aws and reiUlations applicable thereto. and ma:y hold, use and dispose of
$uch m.on~Y ot propOttY iD accordance with the ten1lS or the giat grant, loan. or
agreement relating thereto.
13.
~ounti14. On or before December \, of each year, the Authority shall lubrnit an
accounting of the monies expended foradnUnistration afthe Pitch 9 Plan to each City
for review. This repOrt shall include the fonow1ng:
13.a The financial activities of the Authority c:Ner the previous yeu;
13,b The sta.lUS of aU 'Projects and work pursuant to the Pitch 9 Plan~
13.c Any other matters which affeet the intereSts of the City irt the Ditch 9 Plan.
14.
p!'<1l. Spa'" MW1""""'" Progmn. The Atttbarity bmby a~. \0 \lSO their best
efforts to secure Wright County's participation in the Stream Maintenance Ptogram
of the Joyfinncsota Depa.rtm.enl ofNatUI81 Resoutees established pursuant to Minnesota
Stat\Lte& 1030.701. .4.nymoney secured from thisprogramsball be used toteduce the
eosts of the membet'a for performing the Ditch 9 Plan.
15.
Di'll'U"". In the event of any dispute, claim, question or disBll"'ement arising ll:om
or relating to thiS .A.grecmcnt, the parties h.et'eto shalllJ,se their best efforts to settle the
displUe. cloittt, question or dlsag<eemClll. To thiS eftect, mey ah01lJd <:Qnsttlt or
ncgotiato wllh the other party in ll"od fai1h BJUi a_I to reach a just and equitable
solution satisfaetotY to bolh Cities. lfmey dO nOt reach SllCh solution wirbin a period
of sixty daYs, then the engineer fot each City shall jointly select a third engineet to
review and Act as arbitrator with regard to such clispute, claim, question or
4
~OM ~ CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
, J<.'-I'-U:l' JD:~Oj~ rK"'....CIIY UI- ~I VII"!:
FAX NO. 7634973210
..",.,.,....,
Oct. 12 2005 10:23AM P6
I
I
di..greemenl. The decision of lhe axbitrfltor !IO ..lcClCd shall be troal ar.d binding
lJpon each City,
16. bmendmel'\t.s. Antendments to this Agreement may be 1lUlde only by written
instnltne'nt e>eecun:d by the parti.~ hereto.
17. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be in fOfce and effect after all of the following
events bave o~curred:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16.1\ passage bytne City Councils of bath member Cities;
16.0 Execution of this Agreement by tuthorized reprcientllnVcs of both of the
membets hereto.
16.c Passage of a tesolution of conveyance by the Wright Count Board of
Commissioners conveying to the member Cities that portion of County Ditch
No.9 described in paragraph one of thit AFern.ent.
18. Convevance Pursua'ftt to ~~ecial LeJi!ll~tion~ It is the iiltcntion of the parties hereto
to take conveyance from the Wright County Board of Coxnmissioners of that portior.
of County Ditch NQ. 9 described in paragraph one of this A.greement pUrSuant to
Chapter 432 of the Minnesota 2000 Session La.ws. According1y) the pnrties~ via this
}lgreernent,aatte: '
18.a To accept the conveya't'lce of the Cities of those portions of County Oitch No.
9 descri~d in p8t>aph one of this Agreement.
18.b. To assume, as of me effective date of this AgTcem.et\t, an of the rights. title and
. interests ofWtight COU1lty in that portion of County Ditch No. 9 described in
paragraph one of this Aatcem.etnl with each City accepting and assumi'ng such
rights. title attd intCTests to that portion of the conveYeQ County Ditch No.9
lying within the respective Citis jurisdiction.
18.c. To assume responsibility, under each CitY'srespectivemunicipal authority, for
management of the surface water within each City's respective jurisdiction
witl'-in the a-rea served by that portion of Coun.ty Ditch No.9 described in
paragraph one of this Agreement.
5
I FR. OM.; CITY OF ALBERTV I LLE
.lJl.t-""Ull ~G.~'AIII rlll,;rrl.111 vr ,)1 MII\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FAX NO.
763497321121
IIWVat.I\lWW.
~;~. ~~.~~05,1~;24AM P7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. tbe undersigned governmental \.~n.itst by action of their governing
bodiest have caused this Agreement to be executed.
Approved by the City Council
~.:; .,...." I' '" #' .~
\ (_/, ~ .~, v.""'';..-.
5
~=~:~I
City of St. Michael
. 2002
By: ~9j;::;9?'.. ~ --' ./,
By: ,~~ -r:. ~_ rJl1'''('' A-JJI.itl.M1l?J!(Tl:;1?.
. 2002
By:
ay:
6