Loading...
1993-09-20 MNDOT Sewer System Drainage~~tiNES0~4 bO ' ~ Z~ a a ~ ~~ t",LT OF 7P,P~~ September 20, 1993 Ron Geurts Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. 1111 Hwy. 25 North Buffalo, MN 55313 In reply refer to: S.P. 8680-126 (I-94) _ Albertville Special Agreement Dear Mr. Geurts: Minnesota Department ofi Transportation District 3 ta91 Industrial Pk. Rd. Baxter, Minnesota 56401 Quality Service Through Individual Commitment (218) 822-2460 I have reviewed the proposed storm sewer system for the above referenced project. The concept presented seems workable. Additional information is required to make a complete review of the effectiveness of the system. In a recent phone conversation you stated that the ordinary high water in the DNR protected wetland is 948.6. The ordinary high water on the north side of the Interstate should also be determined. The the line should be providing some relief. to this area not experienced by the DNR protected wetland. The boundary of the bounce experienced by a 100-year storm should be deter- mined and buildings in the area surveyed for potential flooding. The ability of the 48-foot storm sewer to accept additional runoff needs to be determined. A flat gate or some other control may need to be considered. If a flap gate is used, flooding occurring until the gate cou]d be opened should be evaluated. In order to compute a drainage cost split, verification of drainage areas is required. A map drawn to scale preferably with contours showing the individual areas identified on Sheet 2 of your 08/30/93 letter will suffice. In addition, actual volumes contributing~to the proposed storm sewer system will need to be computed, i.e. the total volume less the volume handled by the the line. In lieu of providing the information necessary to compute the cost split Mn/DOT would agree to pay the minimum amount specified in the agreement guidelines, which is 25~. Consideration should also be given to lowering the inlet to further relieve the impact of flooding. Control of the elevation of the DNR protected wetland can be achieved through the use of a control structure. __~ M Equal Opportunity Employe Ron Geurts September 20, 1993 Page 2 Enclosed are a sample plan and proposal for your use in plan preparation. Also enclosed is a copy of the revised guidelines for cooperative construction projects. 4lhen the plan for the above referenced project has been completed it can be submitted for preliminary review. A colored layout and typical sections need to accompany this submittal (color key attached). After review, this plan will be returned for any corrections. After corrections have been made a final submittal can be made. The following items need to be included in the final submittal: ° original plan ° four 11x17 sets of plans ° ,two proposals ° colored. layout and typical sections if any changes have been made from the original ° engineer's estimate ° documentation of easements or R/W including a map indicating the parcels obtained ° verification that all documentation and insurance required by the railroad have been obtained will also be required, it would be advisable for the City to present their proposed design to the railroad before proceeding with plan preparation. As I mentioned to you'on the phone, this project did not receive funding for Fiscal Year (FY) '94 (July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994). In the past, special agreement projects have been submitted annually in May with notification of approval in September or October. This project was originally programmed for 1992. In FY '93 and FY '94 it has been submitted as a carry over project. Historically projects not let in the year for which they were programmed have been approved for the following year. However, this year our budget was severely curtailed. Many projects have, of necessity, been deferred, unfortunately yours was among them. With FY '94 we have also adopted a new system of project selection. As a result of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA), Area Transportation Partnerships (ATP's) have been formed to prioritize projects. The ATP's are made up of representatives from Mn/DOT, counties, larger cities and regions. All transportation projects compete equally for funding. Although this project was not prioritized by the ATP for FY '94, the ATP will begin meeting again in October to prioritize projects for FY '95. The project. in Albertville will remain in the program for consideration during this prioritization process. The City will be notified of the results of the prioritization process. As I mentioned on the phone, an option available to the City would be for the City to up front the money for the project with an agreement that Mn/DOT would reimburse the City in the year in which the ATP prioritizes the project. This agreement would have to be fully executed before any construction could begin. _... Ron Geurts September, 20, 1993 Page 3 Another option available to the City would be to do the project on their own and assess all property owners benefitted by the improvement. This would require notification of all property owners affected as well as a public hearing. Mn/DOT would be assessed as any other property owner. Under this scenario we would require documentation of the actual benefit to the trunk highway. The 25~ minimum participation specified in the agreement guidelines would not apply. Please let me know the direction the City decides to take. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me at .(218) 828-2454. Sincerely, ~~ ~- ~~ ~ r Lori Vanderhider District Agreements Engineer Enclosure: Sample Plan Sample Proposal Guidelines Color Key LV: rjn _.~