1994-07-01 Status Report!~`\~ttJESpTq
bO ~O
a Q
FtiT ~ ~ 5~'
OF TP.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 of Transportation
Distract 3
1091 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 compiete 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 file 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 could 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 Employer
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. (hen the plan for the above referenced project has been completed
it can be submitted for preliminary revietiv. 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
made from the original
° engineer's estimate
°
if any changes have been
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,
Lori Vanderhider
District Agreements Engineer
Enclosure:
Sample Plan
Sample Proposal
Guidelines
Color Key
LY:rjn
_.~
MEYFR-ROHLIN, INC.
ENG/NEEAS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612 - 682 -1781
July 1, 1994
City of Albertville
c/o Dale Powers, Administrator
Box 131
Albertville, MN 55301
RE: Frankfort Township and MnDOT Drainage
Albertville, Minnesota
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Per your June 20, 1994,_request, enclosed is a status report for
the above-referenced project.
Our last contact with MnDOT occurred during August and September
of 1993 (letters enclosed). At that time we proposed immediate
construction of the referenced 12" RCP storm outlet to the south
and associated drainage: MnDOT's September 20, 1993 response
required additional research to be completed before any
reimbursable construction could begin.
Simultaneously Frankfort Township, in response to high water
encroaching on the Green Haven Estates, created a surface
drainage ditch to the northeast. This ditch begins at the 18"
clay and 8" HDPE junction and drains to the east along the
existing drainage easement north of Green Haven Estates.
A summary of collected data and elevations as shown on the
enclosed plan. sheets and recent letters is as follows. A list of
available options is.also presented.
- The proposed inlet invert elevation for the 12" RCP is
947.50'. This could be lowered to 944.65' but would require a
larger pipe size.
- The recently constructed ditch to the east is .capable of
handling a 100-year storm event. The ditch has a minimum
drainage elevation of 948.6' (12/93).
- The inlet invert elevation of the 8" HDPE perforated drainage
pipe is 945.75'. This is 1.10' below the existing water level
(946.85; 6/29/94). The 8" HDPE does work and is free-flowing.
_...
Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor
City of Albertville
page 2
OPTION 1
The first option is to install the 12" RCP and drainage ditch to
the south as proposed in our August 30, 1993, letter to MnDOT.
This would require. the completion of the extra Work as
identified in the September 20, 1993 MnDOT response letter or
accept a lesser financial reimbursement, approximately 25% of
the project cost. A larger percent has not yet been guaranteed
by MnDOT. The amount is yet to be determined by MnDOT depending
on available funds and watershed percent contribution. Based on
acreage alone, the percentage is 22%.
The total cost for this option is approximately $40,000.
OPTION 2
The second option is to increase the pipe size and lower the
inlet elevation for option 1.
The issue present with this option concerns the nearby DNR
wetland (415W) as'well as the lowlands along I-94 and. the
northeast quadrant of Barthel Commercial Drive and Burlington
Northern Railroad. Any activity within a wetland requires DNR
notification and permit application. Since the above-mentioned
lowlands would be severely impacted (drained) the DNR may
require wetland mitigation and relocation. The DNR may also take
exception to the additional impact on the wetland on the
northeast side of I-94; an additional 1.10' water elevation
drop. (944.7)
The cost increase for 15" RCP and a deeper ditch would be
$6,500, not accounting for any DNR related fees~or costs and
additional work.
OPTION 3
The third option is to observe the current condition and whether
the Frankfort Township drainage to the northeast will provide
proper relief for both sides of I-94. Investigation of the
drainage pathways and related water elevations indicate option 3
will provide rapid relief during large rainfall events. The
existing 8" HDPE perforated drain pipe to the east has the
capacity to provide additional relief.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
MEYER-ROHLIN, INC.
Ronald Geurts
Engineer
cc: 9001-H