2007-1-11 Gold Key Development, Inc vs. City of Albertville vs. SEH T/C Homes Inc.; Iverson Reuvers IIVERSON REUVERS JASON J.KUBOUSHEK
� ATTORNEYS AT LAW DiREc'r 952.548.7206
IKUROUSHEK@IVERSONLAW.COM
JON K.IVERSON
PAUL D.REUVERS
JEFF M.ZALASKY
January 1 l, 2007 IASON J.KUBOUSHEK
PAMELA J.F.WHITMORE
JASON M.HIVELEY
Adam Nafstad SUSAN M.TINDAL
JEFFREY A.EGGE
Bolton & Menk, Inc. nh,BEx s.LE�
12224 Nicollet Avenue
Burnsville, MN 55337-1649
RE: Gold Key Development, Inc. vs. City of Albertville vs. SEH
T/C Homes, Inc. vs. City of Albertville, et al vs. SEH
Our File No. 100.526
Dear Mr. Nafstad:
Enclosed please find a copy of the transcript of your deposition taken on January 3,
2007. Please review the transcript and indicate on the enclosed correction sheet any
errors you find. Please note you must indicate the page number and the line number
of any changes you feel necessary.
If you make any corrections that are substantive, as opposed to simple typographical
err�rs, please contact me. The correction sheet is not a tool to change the substance
of your deposition; rather, it should be used to correct minor clerical errors.
Once you have reviewed the transcript and noted any changes,please sign where
indicated and have your signature notarized. Please return the correction sheet to me
within one week. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. You
may keep the copy of your transcript for your own records.
Thank you for your prompt attention and cooperation.
Yours truly,
IVERSON REUVERS
_ {� '��
�.���
Jason J. Kuboushek
JJK:hb
Enclosure
IVERSON REUVERS,LLC I 9321 F?aSIGN AVENUF.$OUTH � BLOOMINGTON,MN 5543R I 952.548,7200 � FAX: 952.548.7210 WWW.IVERSONLAW.COM
134
� 1 ( Upon completion, the Original of this Reading and Signing
Certificate should be forwarded to Attorney Cindi Spence
2 Matt . )
3 ADAM NAFSTAD
4 I , ADAM NAFSTAD, do hereby certify that I have
read the foregoing transcript of my Deposition and believe
5 the same to be true and correct ( or , except as follows ,
noting the page and the line number of the change or
� 6 addition desired and the reason why ) :
7 Page Line Change or Addition Reason
8
9
10
11
12
13
� 14
15
16
17
s�.•'
18 .
19
20
21
22
23 ---------------------- --- --- ------
24 Dated this____ day of_________________, 2007 .
25 (MLE )
� KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES
( 952 ) 922-1955
` A�.3AM NAFSTAD CondcnseIt"�` Depo-Squish
eage i Page3
_ STATE OF MINNESOTA GISTRICT �(:URT I APPEARANCF,S:
�. COUNTY OF WRIGH? TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2
CINDI SPEN('.H Mn11',ESQUIRE,from the Law Pirm of
3 cr,SE Tree: �eclaratocy Judgmer,t/ 3 JOHNSON,LARSON,PGTERSON&MATT,P.A.,908Commercial
� ereach ot conccacc Drive,Buffalo,Minnesota 55313,appearing for and on
� 4 4 behalf of Gold Key Developmen[,[nc.
--------------------—
5 5
;cld Key Development, Inc., a rvtinnesota coiporation, JASONJ.KUBOiJSHEK,ESQUIRE,fromLheLawFirmof�
6 6 R'ERSON REWERS,9321 Ensign Avenue South,Blooming[on,
elaintif f, Miru�esota 55438,appearing for and on behalf of City of
-� vs. Couit File No. 86-CV-06-2998 7 Albertville.
8 Ci.r.y of Alber[ville, $
JOHN A.M.4RKERT,ESQUIRF.,from the Law Firm of
9 �efenaanUl'hird�eac�y plaintitf, 9 COI.EMAN,MJLL&VANVI.fET,Suite2110,8500Normandale
vs. Lake Boulevard,Minneapolis,Minneso[a 55437,appearing
10 10 for and on behalf of Short Elliott Hendrickson,Inc.
Shcrl Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.,
11 11
rhird-Par[y oefendant. STEP}[EN E.YOCH,ESQUIRI:,from the Law Firm of
12 � 12 FF.LHABER,LARSON,FENLON&VOGT,Suite 2100,444 Cedar
------------ -------------`- Street,St.Paul,Minnesota55101-2136,appearingforand
--------
1� 13 on behalf of T/C Homes.[ne.
T/C Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corpocat:on, �
19 ]Q
Plainci f f, ROBER"C W.KF.TTERING,JR.,ESQU[RE,from the Law �
15 v;. courr_ File rrc. 86-06-cv-4ayt 15 FirmofART}ffJR,('HAP:�fAN,KETTER[NG,SMETAK&PD{ALA,PA., ���.
500 Yourg Quinlan Building,81 South Ninth Street,
16 Gold [tey oevelopment, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, 16 Minneapolis,Minneso[a 55402-3214,appearing for and on
behalf ot[Iedlund Fngineering.
17 DefendanUThird-Par[y Plaintiff, 17 '�
vs. i
1 d 18 ALSO PRESENT: �
Hedlund Engineering,
�y 19 Lani Leichtv
1'hird-Party Defendant, �
20 vs. zp
21 City of Albertville, 2�
22 �efenaan[/znira-Parcy Plaincief, 22 *TheOriginalisinthepossessionofAttorney
vs.
� 23 Cindi Spence Matt.t
Short Elliort Hendrickson, Inc.,
z4 24
Third-Party Defendant.
25 25
Page 2 Page 4
1 t INDEX
2 The Deposition of ADAM NAFSTAD,taken 2 PAGE
3 pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition, taken before 3 ADAM NAFSTAD:
4 Marcia L. Evenson, a Notary Public in and for the County 4 Direct Examination by Ms. Matt .................. 5
5 of Wright, Statc of Minnesota, taken on the 3rd day of 5 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kettering .............. 92
6 January, 2007, at the offices of Arthur, Chapman, 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Yoch ................... 104
7 Kettering, Sinetak& Pikala, P.A., 500 Young Quinlan 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Markert ................119
8 Building, 81 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 8 Redirect Examination by Ms. Matt ................ 130
9 coirunencing at approximately 9:00 a.m. 9 Exhibit 1 Marked ................................ 13
10 10 Exhibit 2 Marked ................................ 17
�1 11 Exhibit 3 and 4 Marked .......................... 47
�2 12 Exhibit 5 Marked ................................ 57
�3 �3 E�ibit 6 Marked ................................ 59
14 14 Exhibit 7 Marked ................................ 62
15 15 Exhibit 8 Marked ................................ 63
16 16 Exhibit 9 Marked ................................ 65
17 17 Exhibit 10 Marked ............................... 69
1 g 18 Exhibit 11 Marked ............................... 71
19 19 Exhibit 12 Marked ............................... 73
20 2o Exhibit 13 Marked ............................... 78
21 z1 Exhibit 14 Marked ............................... 86
22 z2
23 23
24 24
25 25
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 1 - Page 4
.
` A3DAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`'�` Depo-Squish
Page 5 Page 7
1 ADAM NAFSTAD 1 Q. And SEH was the city engineer before Bolton and
2 the Witness in the above-entitled 2 Menk?
3 matter after having been first duly 3 A. Correct.
4 sworn deposes and says as follows: 4 Q. Why did Bolton and Menk replace sEx?
5 5 A. Albertville hired Bolton and Menk.
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 Q. Do you know why7
7 sY ivts.tvtATT: 7 A. Other than they sent out a request for proposals
8 Q. Ivlr. Nafstad,we inet earlier. My name is Cindi 8 for engineering services, Bolton and Menk replied�o that
9 Matt, I represent Gold Key Development in this 9 proposal,went through an interview process and was
10 litigation. Have you ever had your deposition taken 10 selected as the enginc�ring firm.
11 before? 11 Q. And that request for proposals would have been
12 A. I have not. 12 soine time before the spring of 2005, did you say?
13 Q. I'm going to go over a few of the ground rules. 13 A. Correct,ycs, I believe it would have been -- it
14 Just one of us should speak at a time becausc the court 14 was before the spring of 2005.
15 reporter is taking down everything that we say. Also, if 15 Q. Just months preceding that? How long dces that
16 you can say °yes" or "no" rather than shaking or nodding 16 process typically take?
17 your head, so the court reporter can create a record, it 17 A. I would estiinate three months.
18 will inake things easier. 18 Q. Are you aware of any dissatisfaction or
19 If I ask a question and you don't hear me or you 19 complaints that the City has had with the work S�x did for
20 don't understand it,please ask me to repeat it or 20 it?
21 rephrase it. If you don't ask me to repeat it or rephrase 21 A. Nothing in particular.
22 it, I'm going to assuine that you understood it and that 22 Q. Are you aware in general of any dissatisfaction
23 you heard it. Agreed? 23 or the complaints that the City has had with the work seH
24 A. Agreed. 24 did for it?
25 Q. Are you on any medications today that affect your 25 ?vtx.tvtaaxERT: i'in going to object to
Page 6 Page 8
1 ability to testify truthfully? 1 the question as vague.
2 A. I am not. 2 sY 1�ts.Nta.TT:
3 Q. Did you do anything to prepare for this 3 Q. You can go ahead and answer.
4 deposition today? 4 A. Can you restate the question?
5 A. Yes, last week, I inet with Jason. 5 Q. Sure. I asked you if you were aware of any
6 Q. Jason Kuboushek? 6 dissatisfaction or complaints with the work that SEx had
7 A. Correct. 7 done for the City. And you said not in particular you
8 Q. Is he your attorney in this matter? 8 were. And now Pm asking if in general you're aware of
9 A. Correct. 9 any dissatisfaction or complaints that the work sex did
10 Q. And did you review any documents to prepare for 10 for it?
11 your deposition today? 11 A. I believe there was a transition that occurred.
12 A. I reviewed a default letter and I reviewed the 12 I think there was a transition of engineers that occurred
13 city code. 13 over a period of tiine that Pin not aware of that was of
14 Q. And the default letter, is that the December 1, 14 concern of the City.
15 2006 letter from the City to Gold Key? 15 Q. The transition of engincers at SFx?
16 A. I believe so. 16 A. Yes, representing the City of Albertville.
17 Q. And were there any particular provisions of the 17 Q. When you say °transition of engineers," you mean,
18 city code that you reviewed? 18 particular engineers that were working Cor sEt�?
19 A. Very few outside of those stated in that default 19 A. Yes.
20 letter. 20 Q. Are you aware of any other general complaints or
21 Q. And you are an engineer for Bolton and Menk? 21 dissatisfactions that the City has had with SEH other than
22 A. That's correct. 22 the one you just mentioned with the transition of
23 Q. And when did Bolton and Menk become the engineer 23 engineers?
24 for the City of Albertville? 24 A. City being council and staff?
25 A. Spring of 2005. 25 Q. Yes.
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 5 - Page 8
` AflAM NAFSTAD CondenseItT'" Depo-Squish
Page 9 Page 11
1 A. No,nothing I can really define. 1 project?
2 Q. Can you tell ine the names of the people from 2 A. Ciry engineer in general.
3 Bolton and Menk that worked for the City on the County 3 Q. And then,how soon after Bolton and Menk became
4 Ditch 9 flood study? 4 the city engineer was --were you asked to review the
5 A. Yes, William Douglas, Mark Kasma, Lani Leichty, 5 county --excuse me,the SFx report?
6 myself,and various surveyors. 6 A [ believe it was late fall of 2005,early to late
7 Q. Anyone else? 7 fall.
8 A. None that I can think of,no. 8 Q. And who asked you to do that? '
9 Q. And with each of those people, can you tell me 9 A. City council.
10 their title and their involvement in the study, starting 10 Q. Why did they ask you to review the sEH flood
I 1 with Mr. Douglas? 11 study?
12 A. Bill Douglas is the head of Bolton and Menk's 12 A. Recent rain events at that time had caused issues
13 water resources group. Bill oversees hydrology projects, 13 that concerned the City, issues regarding flooding.
14 water resource type of projects. Bill reviewed the ditch 14 Q. At the time that they asked you to review the
IS himself, he walked the ditch himself. He reviewed the-- 15 flood study?
16 reviewed all aspecCs of the flood study,assisted in 16 A. Rain events prior to the City requesting Bolton
17 delineating the watershed boundary and assisted in the 17 and Menk to review the flood study.
18 report preparation. 18 Q. You believe that's what prompted them to ask you
19 Q. Mark Kasma? 19 to revicw it?
20 A. Mark Kasma primarily had project management 20 A. I do.
21 responsibilities. Mark also reviewed and walked the 21 Q. Just so we're on the saine page, when I'm
22 ditch. 22 referring to the sEx flood study, I'm referriug to the one
23 Q. Yourself'? 23 that was completed in June of 2004. Is that also what
24 A. Myself, also project management responsibilities, 24 you're referring to?
25 coordination responsibilities,reviewed the ditch, 25 A. That is correct, yes.
Page 10 Page 12
1 assisted with report preparation, scheduling of staff. 1 Q. So, the City asked you to review that sEx flood
2 Q. And then,mister-- how do you pronounce his last 2 study in early or late fall, 2005,because of rain events
3 naine? 3 that had happened just prior to that tnne?
4 A. Lani L.eichty. 4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Mr. Leichty? 5 Q. And then, who from Bolton and Menk actually
6 A. Lani led the team with defining,delineating the 6 reviewed the study, the s�x flood study?
7 watershed boundary,modeling the watershed,the ditch, led 7 A. Lani Leichty and Bill Douglas.
8 the teain with preparation of report, assisted with 8 Q. Have you ever reviewed it?
9 presentations. 9 A. Yes, I've read it.
10 Q. And then, the surveyors, I assume,just-- 10 Q. Why was the sEx flood study done?
11 A. Collected field data. ll A. I don't know.
12 Q. Of those individuals that you listed,is there 12 Q. Do you recall what the sEx flood study concluded?
13 any one or two of them that you would identify as the main 13 A. The sEti ilood study concluded that the pad
14 people on this project? 14 elevations of homes within the Albert Villas subdivisions
15 A. Lani Leichty and Bill Douglas. 15 were at an elevation that was protected against flooding
16 Q. So, in 2005,you were hired to do a flood study 16 and recoinmended an overf7ow--emergency overflow bypass
17 of the County Ditch 9 watersheci, Bolton and Menk was? 17 channel be constructed, which would not be legal.
18 A. We were hired to review a report previously 18 Q. It would not be legal to construct an emergency
19 prepared. 19 bypass channel?
20 Q. And is that the SEx report? 20 A. Correct,due to flooding that could be pushed
21 A. Correct. 21 downstreain.
22 Q. Let me back up a minute and ask you about when 22 Q. Downstream from the Albert Villas development?
23 you were--when Bolton and Menk was hired by the City in 23 A. Downstream into the southerly city, St. Michael,
24 the spring of 2005,was it to be the city engineer on all 24 the city bordering Albertville to the south.
25 projects or was it just for this County Ditch 9 watershed 25 Q. Did the Sex study inake any conclusions as to the
KIRBY A. KEIVIVEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 9 - Page 12
� �
ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`�` llepo-Squish
Page 13 Page 15
I pad elevations of homes in the Prairie Run development? l A. No, il's not.
2 A. I do not believe so. 2 Q. On that same page above the conclusions section,
3 Q. And when you say that the SEf3 study concluded 3 it says, "An additional option for lessening potential
4 that pad elevations of hoines in the Albert Villas 4 flooding problems in the Albert Villas area, would be to
5 subdivision was at an elevation that was protected from 5 require new developments north and west of this area that
6 flooding,are you talking about a particular flood event 6 contribute runoff to County Ditch 9, to pond and store
7 or any flood event? 7 more runoff water than is typically required." Do you se�;
8 A. The 100-year design event. 8 that?
9 Q. Do you reeall if the sEx flood study made any 9 A. I do.
10 conclusions as to whether flooding would occur during the 10 Q Is Prairie Run north of the Alberi Villas area?
11 extreine storm events, like the 2003 stonn? 11 A. Yes.
12 A. I do not believe so. 12 Q. And Prairie Run contributes runoff to County
13 Q. Did you find the SEx study to be accurate? 13 Ditch 9?
14 A. It has been said to me that it's not accurate. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Who has said that to you? 15 Q. Do you know if Prairie Run was rcquired to pond
16 A. Hydrologists from Bolton and Menk. 16 and store more runoff water than is typically required?
17 Q. Mr. Leichty? 17 A. Can you define typically required? Would that be
18 A. Correct,and Mr. Douglas. ]8 by city code?
19 Q. So, if I have particular questions about why it's 19 Q. I assume that's what it means, yes, typically
20 not accurate, I should ask Mr. Leichty or Mr. Douglas? 20 required by ciry code,right.
21 A. Correct. 21 A Pm not fainiliar with the code that was in place
22 (At this time Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 22 at the tune of this study. And I question whether or not
23 Number 1 was inarked for 23 ainendments were made to the code because of the outcomes
24 identification by the Court Reporter.) 24 of this study. Currently Albertville dces have a
25 [3Y N1s.tvtATT: 25 requireinent that is— that dces require for additional
Page 14 Page 16
1 Q Mr. Nafstad, handing you a copy of what's been 1 ponding for developinents west of County Road 19.
2 marked as Deposition Exhibit l. Do you recognize that 2 Q. And do you,know when that code requiring the
3 document? 3 additional ponding for developments west of County Road 19
4 A. I recognize the title sheet. 4 was put in place?
5 Q. If you want to take a minute to flip through? 5 A. I do not.
6 A. (Witness complies.) 6 Q. Do you know if it's been put in place just since
7 (At this time there was a brief pause.) 7 the time that Bolton and Menk has become city engineer?
8 A. Yes, I recognize the document. 8 A It was in place prior to Bolton and Menk's
9 BY MS.MATT: 9 hiring.
10 Q. What document is that? 10 Q. After Bolton and Menk reviewed the SEft flood
1� A. This is the flood study report dated June 24 -- 1 l study,did you report --did Bolton and Menk report their
12 or titled "June 24th to June 25th, 2003 Flood Event," 12 findings of the review to the city council?
13 prepared by SEH. 13 A. The report that Bolton and Menk prepared for the
14 Q. And this Exhibit 1, this document is the SEH 14 Albertville council somewhat evolved. I do not recall if
15 flood study that you and I were just talking about? 15 we reported or informed them of our-- informed
16 A. Yes. 16 Albertville of our review after we received the 2004 SEx
17 Q. Can you turn to the page that at the bottom is 17 docuinent and reviewed it or if upon review,we went
18 marked B&M0102? 18 directly into preparing a report of our own for the city
19 A. Okay. 19 council.
20 Q. Do you see that handwriting on the left-hand 20 Q. Do you recall if Bolton and Menk was asked
21 side? 21 specifically to prepare a flood study for County Ditch 9
� 22 A. I do. 22 by the city councii?
� 23 Q. Do you recognize that handwriting? 23 A. A flood study in particular, I don't recall. We
24 A. I do not. 24 were asked to review the SEx study.
25 Q. It's not your writing? 25 Q. And then, at soine point,you, being Bolton and
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922.-1955 Page ]3 - Page 16
� ATi�AM NAFSTAD CondenseItT"` Depo-Squish
Page 17 Page 19
1 Menk, issued a report of your own? 1 A. The City bclieved�hey had protection for the
2 A. Bolton and Menk issued a proposal that identified 2 100-year design rainfall becausc;of thc (lood study repori
3 a scope of services that we would perform, including 3 prepared by sEx.
4 review of thc flooci study. I don't recall if that scope 4 Q. And so, because those smaller, less rain events ��
5 included a flood study report or not. 5 oc;curred and flooding happened, Bolton and Menk prepared a �I
6 Q. Is there a particular document that would tell me 6 new flood study? ,
7 whether the City actually asked Bolton and Menk to prepare 7 A. Correct.
8 a flooci study for County Ditch 9? 8 Q. Was there a time frame for completing the -- Pm ,
9 A. Council ineeting minutes. 9 going to refer to it as the 2006 Bolton and Menk flood
]0 (At this time Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 10 study. Was there a time fra�ne that Bolton and Menk was
11 Number 2 was marked for 11 required to complete it by?
12 identification by the Court Reporter.) ]2 A I do not recall.
13 sY MS.IvtATT: 13 Q. Do you recall Mayor Peterson wanting a tlood
14 Q. Mr. Nafstad,handing you what's been marked as 14 study done so that things could be implemented by the
15 Deposition Exhibit Number 2. Do you recognize that 15 spring of 2006 so more tlooding wouldn't occur?
16 docwnent? 16 A. Yes, I do.
17 A. I do. 17 Q. So,was Bolton and Menk to try to complete the
]8 Q. And what is it? 18 flood study prior to the spring of 2006?
19 A. This is the original version of the 2006 County 19 A. Yes.
20 Ditch 9 flood study prepared by Bolton and Menk prepared 20 Q. Do you know why flooding was occurring in the
21 for tbe City of Albertville. 21 area that was encompasse;d in the 2006 Bolton and Menk
22 Q Is this the document that evolved from Bolton and 22 flood study?
23 Menk reviewing the sEH flood study? 23 A. I believe I do.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. Can you tell me why?
25 Q. And are you familiar with this document, 25 A. There's a -- a large portion of the watershed
Page 18 Page 20
1 Number 2, Exhibit Number 2? 1 that contributes to Ditch 9 is located to the west of the
2 A. Yes. 2 Albert Villas subdivision. It's my understanding that
3 Q. And is this the document that you helped create? 3 this watershed was not-- that portions of this watershed
4 A. Yes. 4 were not accounted for with the original design of the
5 Q. And why was this County Ditch 9 flood study done 5 development.
6 in 2006? 6 Q. Of the Albert Villas development?
7 A. Due to rain fall events that caused flooding. 7 A. Correct.
8 Q. In Albertville? 8 Q. Do you know if those portions of the watershed
- 9 A. In Albertville, correct. 9 that you just referred to were considered with regard to
10 Q. And are those the events that we already talked 10 the Prairie Run developinent?
11 about preceding the fall of 2005? 11 A. I do not know.
12 A. Yes, those are the events that-- yes. 12 Q. And this watershed that you're talking about that
13 Q. And why did it need to be done if there was 13 was encoinpassed in the 2006 Bolton and Menk Ilood study,
14 already a flood study done by sEx? 14 that exceeded 2,300 acres?
15 A. Flooding occurred in rain events that were 15 A. Can I look at the report?
16 believed to be less than the designed standard, the l6 Q. Sure.
17 100-year event. 17 A. Yes, the Ditch 9 watershed north of the --of
18 Q. Believed to be less than the design standard 18 Csax i 19 exceeds 2,300 acres.
19 created by the sEx flood study? 19 Q. And on Exhibit 2, B&M0007, it says, "2,321 acres
20 A. The rain events that occurred were believed to be 20 watershed boundary"?
21 sinaller events, less water, less rainfall than that of a 21 A. Yes, correct.
22 100-year design event that the City believed they had 22 Q. So, the watershed would be according to that,
23 protection for. 23 2,321 acres?
24 Q. And why did the City believe they had protection 24 A. That would be the watershed that contributes to
25 for-- from those rain events? 25 the Ditch 9 -- to Ditch 9 north of CSAH t iy,correct.
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952} 922-1955 Page 1� - Page 20
� A�AM NAFSTAD CondenseIt'�` Depo-Squish
Page 21 Page 23
I Q. And lhe Prairic Run development is approximately 1 A. Corrcct.
2 35 acres? 2 Q. The second nuinber there says, "The unavailable
3 A. I believe so. 3 storage voluine that was assuined to be present in the large
4 Q. And earlier I asked you why you believed that 4 wetland in the Albert Villas development"?
5 flooding was occurring in this area that's encompassed by 5 A. Correct.
6 the 2006 Bolton and Menk flood study. And you talked 6 Q. Can you explain that to me?
7 about a large portion of the watershed to the west of 7 A. Within the Albert Villas development, there's a
8 Albert Villas not having b�n included in the original SEx 8 large wetland basin that appears that with the original
9 flood study? 9 design calculations a storage volume more than -- let me
10 A. No,that is not correct. 10 rephrase that.
11 Q. Can you tell me again -- ll The storage voluine asswned in this wetland by the
12 A. That boundary-- the watershed boundary that was 12 developers,engineers for the Albert Villas development, '
13 detennined with the 2006 flood study, the alvtt study, is 13 we believe to be inore than what is actually there. II
14 very similar to the watershed boundary that is shown in 14 Q. And Nuinber 3 there on Exhibit 2, Page B&M0011, '
15 the 2004 flood study report prepared by sEx. 15 says, "And, thc tailwater effects in Counry Ditch 9." Can I
16 Q. Maybe I �nisunderstood you. Can you tell me again 16 you explain how that contributes to flooding in the area?
17 why you believe that flooding occurred in the area that's 17 A. It's Bolton and Menk's belief that tailwater �'
18 encompassed within the Bolton and Menk study? 18 effects experienced by culverts placed at an elevation
19 A. I do not believe that the original design of the 19 below watcr levels or below the surface of a water body
20 Albert Villas development accounted for this watershed, 20 were not accounted for. I
21 for all of this watershed. 21 Q. Were not accounted for by who?
22 Q. Is there a docuinent that leads you to believe 22 A. By the engineers of the Albert Villas
23 thaY? 23 developmenl, the developer's engineers.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. Who's reviewing the work of these Albert Villas
25 Q. What document is that? 25 development engineers? Is that so�nething lhe City
Page 22 Page 24
1 A. I believe it's a drainage map prepared by the 1 reviews?
2 developer,the developing engineers for the Albert Villas 2 A. Yes.
3 development. 3 Q. And the City would have had to approve that as
4 Q. Do you know who they are, the developing 4 part of the platting process for Albcrt Villas?
5 engineers for Albert Villas? 5 A Can you be specific on approve?
6 A. The engincer, surveyor are Rudd and Plough. I 6 Q. Sure. The three items that we're talking about,
7 don't know who's the engineer,who's the surveyor. The 7 to ine, in kind of tayinan's tenns, sounds like the
8 enginecrs and surveyors are Rudd and Plough. 8 developer, the engineer for Albert Villas screwed up in
9 Q. Are thc documents on file somewhere with the 9 these separate areas. And Pin wondering who was reviewing
10 City? Where would i find those documents? 10 the work of the Albert Villas developers?
11 A. Bolton and Menk has a copy of those drainage 11 A I do not know. I do not know it�the City
12 maps. 12 reviewed it or not.
13 Q. Is there any other reason that you feel flooding 13 Q. Typically would the City review the work of the
14 occurred in that area,other than the original design 14 developer's engineers as part of the platting process?
15 developer,Albert Villas,not accounting for the entire 15 A. Yes.
16 watershed? 16 Q. But that would have been done -- strike that.
17 A. According ta our report--according to the 2006 17 Did the development that was happening along County
18 report prepared by Bolton and Menk, in Exhibit 2 on 18 Ditch 9 make the flooding worse?
19 Page B&M0011 and just before Paragraph 5, there are 19 A. Developinent in general or a specific
20 three numbered --three items numbered one through three 20 subdivision?
21 that identify the main factors that contributed to the 21 Q. Let's start with in general.
22 level of flooding experienced. 22 A. Developments in general should be designed not to
23 Q. So,where it talks about Number 1 there, large 23 inake flooding worse.
24 upstream drainage area that was not considered during the 24 Q. Designed by who?
25 design of the Albert Villas development? 25 A. Designed by developinent engineers, developer's
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 21 - Page 24
� A�AM NAFSTAD CondenseIt'�"` Depo-Squish
Page 25 Page 27
1 engineers. 1 Q. And why is that?
2 Q. And reviewed by the City,typically? 2 A. With devclopinent,paved roads, hoines, landscaped
3 A. Typically. 3 yards, your perc;c;nt of impervious surface is increased.
4 Q. And so, in general,was the development that was 4 Meaning, morc water is not going into the ground, more
5 occurring along County Ditch 9, did that contribute to any 5 water is runniug off al a fastc;r rate.
6 flooding that oecurred? 6 Q. And isn't there codes that account for this?
7 A. Can you repeat the question? 7 Didn't we talk about one code earlier that requires �
8 Q. Sure. Pm wondering if�the development that was 8 certain things?
9 happening along County Ditch 9, if that had any effect, if 9 A. Yes, ponding requirements should account for '
10 it contributed to the flooding that occurred along the 10 this. '
11 County Ditch 9 area? ll Q. And they didn't in this case?
12 A. It's my belief that the Albert Villas development 12 A. The design of the ponds in the Prairie Run
13 did concribute to flooding of Ditch 9. 13 addition are not sizc;d or designed to hold n.tnoff from a
14 Q. And what do you base your belicf on? 14 100-year stonn event.
15 A. The findings that were discovered during 1he2006 IS Q. How come?
16 County Ditch 9 flood study proc;c;ss. 16 A. They are too low.
17 Q. Those three items that we talked about on Page 11 17 Q. Well, how did they get that way?
18 of Exhibit 2? 18 tvt[t.Kuso[1sxEx: I�m going to object to
19 A. Yes. 19 the fonn of the question, it calls for speculation.
20 Q. And do you have a--did any other developinent 20 Answer, if you can.
21 contribute to the flooding in County Ditch 9,other than 21 sY tvts.tv1ATr:
22 you testified about the Albert Villas development? 22 Q. Go ahead.
23 A. Prairie Run contributes to flooding in Ditch 9. 23 A. It's my belief that the --they were designed too
24 Q. What's the basis for your belief that Prairie Run 24 low and then constructed too low.
25 contributes to the flooding in County Ditch 9? 25 Q. By who were they designed too low?
Page 26 Page 28
1 A. Adequate rate control was not provided. 1 A. By the developing engineer.
2 Q. Any other reason that you believe Prairie Run 2 Q. And who constructed them too low?
3 contributes to the flooding in County Ditch 9? 3 A. The developer.
4 A. No. 4 Q. And isn't someone supposed to be reviewing the
5 Q. Are there any other developments that you believe 5 design plans for these ponds that you believe were
6 contribute to the flooding in County Ditch 9,other than 6 designed and constructed too low?
7 the Albert Villas development and the Prairie Run 7 A. I believe somebody is supposed to be reviewing
8 development? 8 these plans, correct.
9 A. I'm not aware of inadequacies in any other 9 Q. Who would that person be,person or persons or
10 developinents. 10 governmental body?
11 Q. The Cedar Creek development is fine? 11 A. It should be an engineer appointed by the City.
12 A. I'm unfamiliar with the Cedar Creek development. 12 Q. Was it supposed to be Bolton and Menk?
13 Q. Can you explain to ine what you mean when you say 13 A. No.
14 adequate rate control is not provided in the Prairie Run 14 Q. SEx?
15 development? 15 A. SE[[was the engineer at that tiine. I don't know
16 A. Runoff rates --postdevelopment runoff rates 16 if the City asked SEx to perfonn these services or not.
17 exceed that of the predevelopinent runoff rates. 17 Q. So, typically, the City would ask an engineer to
18 Q. Can you tell me in layman's tenns what that 18 review design plans submitted by a developer's engineer
19 means'? 19 and developer?
20 A. Water gets to the ditch faster. 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Postdevelopment? 21 Q. And then,when design plans are submitted to
22 A. Postdevelopment. 22 whcever that engineer is,what is that engineer looking
23 Q. And when you say water gets to the ditch faster, 23 for typically?
24 are you referring to County Ditch 9? 24 A. A development plan in general,just a plan--
25 A. Correct. 25 Q. I'm just trying to figure out what the process is
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 25 - Page 28
� AbAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt''� Depo-Squish
Page 29 Pagc 31
1 when a developer wants to construct a new development. 1 thal engineers follow or what standard for enginc�rs is
2 And you said that typically a city would appoint-- ask an 2 adhered to in reviewing those documents?
3 enginecr to review the design plans that are submitted. 3 A. You're asking arc there technical manuals the
4 And I'm wondering what the developer would look 4 enginecr can use outside of the city code? City code
5 at and that type of thing. Excuse me, what the engineer 5 would be one guide that the ciry engineer can use to
6 that the City appoints would typically look at? 6 review applications.
7 A. The engineer appointed would review the documents 7 Q. Okay. What else?
8 to ensure they met the requireinents set by the city code, 8 A. There are documents that the city code refers to
9 review the documents to make sure they met the typical 9 that also include design guidelines and standards of
10 city standards,review the design of the documents and 10 practice.
11 review the design of the developments in general. 11 Q. So,whatever documents the city code refers to
12 Q. So,the engineer reviewing the documents for the 12 about these design guidelines, that reviewing engineer
13 City would nee;d to be familiar with the city code? 13 should take a look at those documents, too,and make sure
14 A. Yes. 14 plans that are submitted comply?
15 Q. And with the city standards? 15 A. Correct.
16 A. Yes. 16 Q. Other than the city code and then documents
17 Q. And then, it actually looks at-- let me back up 17 referred to within the city code, are there any other
18 a minute. You said they would review the documents. What 18 standards or --that a reviewing engin�r nceds to be �,
19 documents are typically submitted to the engineer for the 19 following?
20 City to review prior to approving a plat? 20 A. There are design manuals and technical guides
21 A. It would start off with a sketch plan, then it 21 that are coirunon ainoug engineers that assist one with
22 would go to a preliminary plat documents and then final 22 reviewing these plat applications.
23 plat documents. 23 Q. Do you know the particular names of those manuals
24 Q. And those documents today include grading and 24 or technical guides?
25 drainage plans? 25 A. Pin speaking of manuals in general. I think all
Page 30 Page 32
1 A. The preliminary plat docuinents do. 1 engincers have their favorites.
2 Q. And those grading and drainage plans are 2 Q. If an engineer has photographs of previous rain
3 documents typically prepared by a developer's engineer? 3 events in the area available, should he be considering
4 A. Correct. 4 those as well?
5 Q. And so,an engineer for the City would be looking 5 A. Yes.
6 at those documents subinitted by the developer's engineer 6 Q. And if an engineer has previous flood studies
7 and seeing if they coinply with city code, city standards? 7 done of the area, should he be considering those in
8 A. I'm sorry, did you say the city engineer? 8 reviewing whether to approve a particular preliminary
9 Q. Right. 9 plat?
10 A. Yes, the city engincer would review those 10 A. If he or she has knowledge of that area,
11 documents upon submission or direction from the City. 11 docuinents reporting incidents occurred in that area,yes,
12 Q. And then,when the city engineer is reviewing 12 those should be considered.
13 them, dces he either say yes or no? What happens when 13 Q. If there are, like, letters or incidences of
14 he's reviewing thein? 14 documented complaints of residents in the area regarding
15 A. If the review engineer has a concern with the 15 standing watc;r, for exainple, should those be considered by
16 documents or the design,he or she would make 16 the reviewing engincer in whether lo approve a preliminary
17 recorrunendations to the council,to the City, that 17 plat?
18 modifications be made. 18 A. Did you say reviewing engineer?
19 Q. And then, the City says--either accepts that 19 Q Yes.
20 recommendation or dcesn't? 20 A. Yes, those should be taken into consideration.
21 A. Yes. 21 Q. And so,when a reviewing engineer looks at all of
22 Q. And is there--are there any particular 22 this stuff that we just talked about,all of these
23 standards that a reviewing engineer has to follow when 23 documents, and considered it, that reviewing engineer
24 reviewing grading and drainage plans in documents 24 typically would go to the city council and make a
25 submitted for plat approval? Is there a professional code 25 recommendation on accept the plan or make these certain
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 29 - Page 32
' AllAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt''�' Depo-Squish
Page 33 Page 35
1 modifications to the plan, have the developer make these 1 A. Correct.
2 modifications? Is that typically what happens? 2 Q. And typically would there be a document that
3 A. If the engineer, the consultant, is commissioned 3 would say we reviewed the grading plans --grading and
4 to do these tasks, yes. 4 drainage plans and signed off ou them'?
5 Q. And then, if changes are made to the particular 5 A. Or a review inemo or something, yes.
6 plans,would the reviewing engineer then typically again 6 Q. And you don't believe such a document exists?
7 review them to make sure things look okay now? 7 A. I a�n unaware of that document.
8 A. Yes. S (�. Would that be unusual for a plat to be approved
9 Q. Should SEtt have reviewed and considered the 2004 9 without the grading and drainage plans being reviewed by
10 SeH flood study that it did when determining whether to 10 an engineer appointed by the City?
I 1 approve the grading plans submitted by Gold Key for 11 A. Yes.
12 Prairie Run? 12 Q. Have you ever seen a case where the grading and
13 A. If they were asked to review these documents by 13 drainage plans subinitted for plat approval are not--have
14 the City, they should have taken --you asked if they 14 not been reviewed by an engineer appointed by the City'?
15 should have compared this to the flood study report? 15 A. I'm not fainiliar with any such instai�ces.
16 Q. Yes, correct. 16 Q. If an engineer was -- strike that Would not
17 A If they were asked to review the Prairie Run 17 reviewing grading and drainage plans deviate from the
18 developinent applications,they should have taken into 18 standard of care that a reviewing engincer should follow
19 account the ilood study report. 19 in deciding whether to approve a plat?
20 Q. So, whichever engineer the City asked to review 20 A. As a consultant, the standard of care is dictated
21 the documents submitted by Gold Key for the Prairie Run 21 hy the client, the City.
22 development, whichever engineer that was, should have 22 Q. So, would the City have been the one who would
23 reviewed and considered the 2004 SEx flood study if they 23 have to say review the grading plan or don't review the
24 were aware of it? 24 grading plan?
25 A. Yes. 25 A. The City would have to soinehow ask their engineer
Page 34 Page 36
1 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether SEx deviated 1 to review a plan. And that can be as siinple as forwarding
2 froin the applicable standard of care in reviewing the 2 that plan on to that engineer.
3 grading and drainage plans submitted by Gold Key in 3 Q. Are you aware of anything in the city of
4 seeking preliminary and final plat approval? 4 Albertville's ordinances that require a developer to
5 Mx.�tAxxEx7': ['m going to object on 5 detennine the 100-year flood elevations?
6 grounds of foundation. 6 A. Yes, I am.
7 A. Can I still answer? 7 Q. What are you aware of?
8 sY n�s.MA'tZ': 8 A Code provisions in the subdivision ordinances, '
9 Q. Yes, you can still answer. 9 •rAning ordinances.
10 A. Can you repeat the question? 10 Q. Do you know specifically which ones you're
11 Q. Sure. Pm wondering if you have an opinion as to 11 referring to?
12 whether SEx deviaced from the applicable standard of care 12 A. In the subdivision ordinances, I believe these '
13 in reviewing the grading and drainage plans submitted by 13 codes fall under design standards and construction
14 Gold Key in seeking a preliminary and final plat approval? 14 standards. The wning ordinance, I believe this falls
I S A. I am of the opinion that the grading and drainage 15 under general building lot performance requireinents.
16 plans were not reviewed. 16 Q. And those subdivision ordinances and zoning
17 Q. And the grading and drainage plans submitted by 17 ordinances specifically say a developer is responsible for
18 Gold Key? 18 determining the 100-year flood elevation?
19 A. Correct. 19 A. Not in those words, but yes,they say that -- I'm
20 Q. Were not reviewed? 20 sorry,they do not say who is responsible for it, I don't
21 A. Correct. 21 believe. Do you have a code I could review? I don't know
22 Q. By SEx or by any engineer? 22 if they say developer or who has to determine it,but they ��
23 A. I do not have any docwnents that show they were 23 do say the elevation has to be detennined.
24 reviewed. 24 Q. Do you recall telling Randy Hedlund this past
25 Q. Prior to plat approval? 25 summer you hadn't seen anything in the city ordinanu;
KIRBY A_ KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 33 - Page 36
� A1�AM NAFS7'All CondenseIt1T'1 Depo-Squish
Page 37 Page 39
1 requiring the developer to determine the 100-year 1 on behalf of the City is aware thal a 11ood study exists
2 elevation? 2 that sets the number higher, should that reviewing
3 A. I do not recall that. 3 engineer tell the developer, "Hey, your nuinbers are wrong,
4 Q. Do you deny that you told Randy Hedlund that? 4 redo them"?
5 A. I do not. 5 �vtx.Kuaousxt.x: Object to the form of
6 Q. You don't deny telling him that? 6 the question,calls for speculation.
7 A 1 don't deny that. 7 BY MS.MATT:
8 Q. Do you recall telling Randy Hedlund lhat to the 8 Q. Go ahead and answer.
9 best of your knowledge,there's nothing requiring a 9 A. The reviewing authority— the revicwing enginec;r
10 developer to detennine a 100-year level? 10 should make a recormnendation to the City that that nuinber
11 A. Can you repeat that? 11 be properly adjusted.
12 Q. I'in wondering if you recall telling Ranciy Hedlund 12 Q. And then it's up to the Cily to decide, hey,
13 that to the bcst of your knowledge,there's nothing 13 we're�oing to let this development go through with the
14 requiring a developer to deternune the 100-year 14 wrong numbers or hey, yeah, we'rc going to tell the
15 elevations? 15 developer to correct the numbers; is that right? It's not
16 A. I do not recall saying that to Randy Hedlund. 16 up to the reviewing engineer`?
17 Q. Do you deny saying that to him? 17 A. The reviewing engincer answers to the City. The
18 A. It depends on the context in which that was used, 18 City,city council has the final say.
19 if we're referring to ponds, if we're referring to the 19 Q. And tells the developer, fix your plan or don't
20 ditch. 20 fix your plan?
21 Q. So,you may have said soinething like that? 21 A. Typically makes the recormnendation on condition
22 A. I may have said something along those lines,but 22 of approval.
23 there was definitely something before and after that. 23 Q. Mr. Nafstad,could you turn to F,xhibit 2,the
24 Q. So, as we sit here today,you couldn't point to 24 page marked B8iM0015`?
25 one particular subdivision ordinance or zoning ordinance 25 A. Yes.
Page 38 Page 40
1 that says it is the responsibility of a developer or the 1 Q. The second full paragraph there, the last
2 developer's engineer to determine the 100-year elevation; 2 sentence says, "New developinents should be designed such
3 is that correcY? 3 that events larger than a 10-year pipe systc;m flow and a
4 A. It's required that it be on the documents that be 4 100-year detention basin storage will have overflow routes
5 subinitted for application. Who puts that infonnation on 5 established and inaintained to protect the property without
6 the docuinents, I don't recall if the code says developer, 6 damage to land or structures." Do you see,where I'm
7 developer's engineer. I would assume the developer is 7 reading from?
8 responsible for having that information on the documents 8 A. I do not. Oh, yes.
9 submitted for application. 9 Q. And that is one of the recoinmendations that came
10 Q. And so, if the 100-year flood elevation for a 10 out of the 2006 B and M flood study?
I 1 particular development isn't known,the developer should 11 A. Yes.
12 do a flood study, is that what you're saying? 12 Q. And why do you make that recoinmendation as to new
13 A. Can you repeat that? 13 developments? Why not existing dcvelopments'?
14 Q. I'm wondering if the 100-year elevation for a 14 A. Existing developinents, the infrastructure is in
I S particular development isn't known,is that developer then 15 place,the roads and the hoines are in place and things are
16 supposed to go out and do the 100-year flood study for the 16 established. It's difficult and expensive to implement
17 entire watershed in order to come up with that nwnber? 17 emergency overflow systems such as this at this time.
18 A If an ordinary high level of a water body that a 18 Q. In that final paragraph of the recominendation
19 development abuts is not known, yes, a developer should 19 section, it talks about, "Public Warks Departinent and
20 coinpute the 100-year high water level. 20 Engineering Department should update and continue the
21 Q. And if it's known because a study has already 21 procedure whereby flooding complaints are accwately
22 been done,then -- strike that. 22 logged."
23 If a developer submits grading and drainage plans 23 Are you aware of wbether the City of Albertville
24 for preliminary or final plat approval that says one 24 has soine type of system or procedure where flooding
25 nuinber on it for the elevations and a reviewing engineer 25 complaints are logged'?
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 37 - Pagc 40
' A�AM NAFSTAD Condenselt"�` Depo-Squish
Page 41 Page 43
1 A. The City is in the process of trying to unplement 1 (At this time there was a brief pau�.)
2 such a system. 2 A. I have not seen the Ditch 9 Plan.
3 Q. But it's not up and running yet? 3 aY MS.MATT:
� 4 A. The City has -- the system to log all the 4 C�. Have you asked anyonc to s�thc Dilch 9 Plan?
5 occurrences is not up and running. Currently, the City 5 A. I do not recall if I have asked to �;e the
6 dces have records of where instances have occurred. And 6 Ditch 9 Plan.
7 ae this time, they have not all been compiled. 7 Q. Do you know if lhere's a Ditch 9 Authority'? I'in
8 Q. Do you know how far back they have records of 8 reading from Yaragraph 2 of that same County Ditch 9
9 where flooding occurrences have occurred'? 9 Agreement. And it says, "90 days following the effective
10 A. I believe the 2003 flood event triggered taking 10 date of this Agreeinent, the Ditch 9 Authority shall
11 such notes or memos to document the events. 11 prepare." So, I'in wondering if you know if�here's a
12 Q. Mr. Nafstad,on Exhibit 2, Appendix D, there's 12 Ditch 9 Authority'?
l3 something called the County Ditch 9 Agreement, it's 13 A. Pm not, other than the City of Albertville and
14 Page 30 of Exhibit 2. 14 the City of St. Michael, Pin not aware of an individual or
15 A. Okay. 15 individuals who make up that Ditch 9 Authority.
16 Q. Are you fainiliar with that doeuinent? 16 Q. And you don't know if a Ditch 9 Plau exists?
17 A. I have read this document in the past. 17 A. I do not know if a Ditch 9 P1an exists.
18 Q. And can you tell me what that document is or what 18 Q. In Subparagraph 22, it looks like the Ditch 9
19 it dces? 19 Plan was supposed to inelude a review of the hydrology of
20 A. This document was --wlien Ditcti 9 -- County 20 the watershed to detennine the flow capacity for the
21 Ditch 9 was turned back to the cities, if you will, such 21 Ditch 9 cross-sections and profile?
22 that the cities had jurisdiction over this ditch, the 22 A. Yes.
23 cities being Albertville and St. Michael, this document 23 Q. Do you know if that review oC that hydrology
24 was an agreeinent put together to help the cities inutually 24 that's referred to there was ever coinpletc;d?
25 agree on how the ditch should be maintained and 25 A. That review was coinpleted to some degree, for
Page 42 Page 44
1 development adjacent to the ditch, contributing to the 1 sure, with the 2004 flood study report.
2 ditch, should be implemented. 2 Q. Othcr than the 2004 sEx flood study repori, have
3 Q. And it's necessary because County Ditch 9 flows 3 you ever seen any documents that reflect a review of the
4 through both Albertville and St Michael? 4 hydrology of the watershed to detennine the flow capacity
5 A. That is correct. 5 for Ditch 9 cross-sections and profile?
6 Q. So, at one time prior to this document, Wright 6 A. None that I can think of.
7 County would have been in charge of County Ditch 9? 7 Q. On October 17, 2005, at a city council meeting,
8 A. I don't know how -- when the turn back of the 8 you advised the council that there was apparently an
9 ditch occurred. 9 agreeinent between Albertville and St. Michael regarding
10 Q. So, someone else other than Albertville and 10 County Ditch 9. Do you recall doing that'?
11 St. Michael, Pm saying, were in charge of-- but it's 1 I A. Yes.
12 probably not technically correct, but someone other than 12 Q. And do you recall what the council's reaction was
13 St. Michael and Albertville were in charge of County 13 when you brought up that County Ditch 9 Agreement?
14 Ditch 9 priar to this document? 14 A. Can I ask why I brought that up or why I infonned
15 A. Yes, prior to this document. Again, the length 15 the councii?
16 or period that took place between the turn back of the 16 t�. Sure. I'll read to you from the minutes from �
17 ditch to the cities from the county until this agreement 17 October 17, 2005 city council. "Assistant City Engineer
18 was established, I don't know. 18 Nafstad reported on the County Ditch 9 stating that there
19 Q. Paragraph 2 of that County Ditch 9 agreement 19 apparently is an agreement between Albertville and
20 refers to a Ditch 9 Plan. Do you see where I'm reading 20 St. Michael. The agreement was signed in 2003. Staff is
21 from? 21 reviewing the agreeinent to report inore at a later date.
22 A. Yes. 22 Council would like to see a copy of the agrcement,as they
� 23 Q. Have you ever seen the Ditch 9 Plan? 23 did not recall approving the agreement.°
24 A. May I read this paragrapb? 24 I'm wondering if you recall,as we're sitting
25 Q. Sure. 25 here today, if you recall what the council's reaction was
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 41 - Page 44
� AbAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`�` Depo-Squish
Page 45 Page 47
1 when you brought up that agreement? I study find that any homes or proposed hoine in the Prairie
2 A. I do not recall the council's-- did you say 2 Run development would not be protected by flooding caused
3 action? 3 by a 100-year 24-hour storm event?
4 Q. What their reaction was when you brought up the 4 A. Yes, it did.
5 agreement? 5 Q. How many hoines or lots, I guess?
6 A. I take that back I recall the council not 6 A. There is an ainendinent to Gxhibit 2 that
7 reinembering the agreement, individual inembers on the 7 identifies that nuinber.
8 council not rcinembering the agreeinent. 8 (At this tune NaFstad Deposition Exhibit
9 Q. So, they were going to look into it and try to 9 Nuinber 3 and 4 were marked for
10 find the agrcement or were you charged with getting a copy 10 identification by the Courl Reporlcr.)
11 of the agreeinent to them? 11 �Y MS.titA�rr:
12 A. At that time, I don't reinember--what was that 12 Q. Mr. Nafstad,handing you what's been marked as
13 date'? 13 Exhibit Numbcr 3. Do you recognize that document?
14 Q. October 17, 2005. 14 A. I do.
15 A. I betieve I was going to ineet with the city IS Q. And what is it`?
16 engineer of St. Michael shortly after that to diseuss the 16 A. This is the amendinenl for the 2006 County Ditch 9
17 agreeinent. 17 flood study.
18 Q. Wt�o is that? 18 Q. And that was prepared by Bolton and Menk?
19 A. Steve Bott. 19 A Yes, it was.
20 Q. And did you eventually meet with Mr. Bott to 20 Q. And you're familiar wilh that document?
21 discuss the County Ditch 9 Agrc�;ment? 21 A. I ain.
22 A. We did ineet briefly to discuss the agreeinent, 22 Q. Mr. Nafstad,handing you what's been marked
23 yes. 23 Deposition Exhibit Nuinber 4. Do you recognize that
24 Q. And in your mceting with him,did you discuss any 24 document?
25 flood studies that had been done of the County Ditch 9 25 A. I do.
Page 46 Page 48
1 area? 1 Q. And what is it?
2 A. We most likety made reference to the existing 2 A. It is a preliininary engineering report for 2006
3 flood study, 2004 flood study, and most Iikely discussed 3 flood storage mitigation project.
4 the report Bolton and Menk was currently working on or 4 Q. And is that a document that was prepared by
5 going to be working on shortly. 5 Bolton and Menk?
6 Q. Do you recall if Mr. Bott made you aware of any 6 A. Yes, it was.
7 other flood studics that had been done of the County 7 Q. And are you familiar with that docuinent?
8 Ditch 9 area? 8 A. Yes, I am.
9 A. No. 9 Q. Did either of those docuinents tell you how many
10 Q. You don't recall or he didn't make you aware of 10 homes or proposc;d homes in Prairie Run development would
I 1 thein? 11 not be protected by flooding caused by a 100-year 24-hour
12 A. Mr. Bott did not make me aware of other flood 12 stonn event?
13 studies. 13 A. One;of them dces For sure, if not both. The
14 Q. Did you ask him if other flood studies had been 14 preliminary engineering report does.
I S done of the County Ditch 9 area? 15 Q. Could you tell ine how inany lots in Prairie Run
16 A. I do not believe I did. 16 development would not be protected by flooding caused by a
17 Q. Do you know if St. Michael ever did a flood study 17 100-year 24-hour stonn event?
18 of the County Ditch 9 area? 18 A. How many lots in Praine Run developmenY?
19 A. I don't know if they have. 19 (�. In Prairie Run.
20 Mx.tcUso[1SxEx: Cindi, are we at a 20 A. Off the top of my head, I cannot for the Prairie
21 point where we can take a short break? 21 Run development.
22 MS.MATT: Sure. 22 Q You cannot find where it is on the inap?
23 (At this time a brief recess was taken.) 23 A. The preliminary engineering report for 2006 flood
24 BY MS.MATT: 24 storage initigation, this identifies the homes in Albert
25 Q. Mr. Nafstad,did the 2006 Bolton and Menk flood 25 Villas that would not be protected against the 100-year
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 45 - Page 48
' AbAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt�"` Depo-Squish '
Page 49 Page 51 ,
I water. It dces not identify lots in Prairie Run that ] flooding in the Albert Villas subdivisions. I
2 would not be protected. 2 Q. That dcesn't explore -- the preliminary I'I
3 Q. Is there a document that dces? 3 engineering report dcesn't explore any option that would
4 A. T have prepared an exhibit for the City that 4 reduce flooding anywhere else other than Albert Villas; is
5 identified lots that I had concerns with in Prairie Run. 5 that right?
6 Q. And you don't know where that document went? 6 A. The focus is Albert Villas subdivision.
7 A. I do not have a copy with mc, but I do have -- 7 Q. Was the 2006 flood study that was done by Bolton
8 Q. Is it like a map like the figures in the 8 and Menk,did that, I guess, affect or have to do with
9 preliminary engineering report? 9 developinents other than Albert Villas, though?
10 A. Similar to that. 10 A. Partieularly, Albert Villas,emphasis was Albert
11 Q. And it's of Prairie Run? I 1 Villas.
12 A. Correct. 12 Q. But it also would encompass Prairic Run?
13 Q. And it identifies concerns you had with 13 A. The problems lhe City was aware of or the
14 particular lots? 14 flooding occurrences that the City was aware of occurred
IS A. Yes. 15 in Albert Villas. So, the emphasis was on Albert Villas
16 Q. And those--you believe there are lots that 16 as to why the flooding was occurring in Albert Villas.
17 would not be protected by-- lots in Prairie Run�that 17 Q. But in doing the study, you found some concerns
18 would not be protected by flooding caused by a 100-year 18 with Prairie Run as well? I
19 24-hour stonn event? 19 A. During the study, while work on the study was
20 A. I believe there are lots in Prairie Run, both 20 taking place,rain cvents occurred that caused water to be
21 constructed and lots that have not been built upon yet, 21 higher than expectcd in Prairie Run.
22 that do not meet the requireinents of the city code. I'm 22 Q. And how high did you expect the water to go in
23 not aware of constructed lots in Prairie Run that have a 23 Prairie Run'?
24 low opening below the 100-year high water elevation. 24 A. I did not-- at that time, I did not have
25 Q. So, what requirements of the city code would the 25 knowledge of how high water would get in Prairie Run.
Page 50 Page 52
1 lots that you're concerned with not meet? 1 Actually, I didn't anticipate water to rise as high as I
2 A. Freeboard requirements. 2 was told it did in the fall of 'OS rain events.
3 Q. And any other requireinents of the city code that 3 Q. You did or did not anticipate?
4 those lots would not meet? 4 A. I did not anticipate water to be as high as it
5 A. The lots themselves are not in compliancc;with 5 was noted in the fall of 2005 events.
6 the freeboard requireinents of the code. There are other 6 Q. In Prairie Run?
7 code requireinents that the development as a whole do not 7 A. Correct.
8 coinply with. S Q. Why not? Why didn't you anticipale water would
9 MR.KUaOtiSHEK: Cindi, I think I inay 9 be that high'?
10 have that map that you're looking for and we could 10 A. The plans I had for Prairie Run do not show a
11 certainly introduce it as an exhibit. 11 high water elevation or an ordinary high water elevation
12 Nts.MATT: Okay. 12 of that basin, that wctland that abuts it.
13 Mx.KFTTERn•rG: would you like me to 13 Q They don't show any high water level?
14 inake copies? 14 A. They show a high water level for a pond on the �
15 Mx.KUBOUStiEK: Yeah. I S southwest corner of the plat and that's the only water i
16 Ms.MATT: Thanks. 16 elevation those plans show. ',
17 (At this time there was a brief pause.) 17 Q. The plans you're referring to, are they the I,
18 sY�v1s_1vtA'1T: 18 grading plans that�were submitted in conjunction with the ��
19 Q. Mr. Nafstad,when we were talking about the 19 final plat? 'i
20 preliminary engineering report,when you were referring to 20 A. 1 may have been using a plan that included
21 some of the figures in there,you said that that only 21 additional infonnation. I believc it was an as-built I
22 reflects the flooding that would be done to homes in 22 plan. ',
23 Albert Villas; is that right? 23 Q. Meaning that -- �
24 A. Correct, this preliminary engineering report is a 24 A. An as-built grading plan. So, it would have �,
25 report that explores a potential option to alleviate 25 included the infonnation that was submitted for the --
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 49 - Page 52
� A�AM NAFSTAD CondenseltT'' Depo-Squish
Page 53 Page 55
1 during the application process,as well as additional 1 Q. Has it been shut down at all?
2 constructed elevations. 2 A. In the past, pennits were held due to -- building
3 Q. So, would the improvements that you propose in 3 pennits were held because of wetland issues.
� 4 this Exhibit 4 preliminary enginec;ring rcport,would they 4 (2. And are thox;wetland issues issues different
5 alleviate or mitigate any flooding that would occur in 5 than what's in your 2006 tlood study?
6 Prairie Run if thosc;improveinents were impleinented? 6 A. Ycs.
7 A. It has been explained to ine that an improveinent 7 Q. So,you have not -- the City has nol held any
S such as that proposed in the prcliminary engincering 8 permits in Albert Villas basc;d upon the 2006 E3ollon anci
9 report, Exhibit 4, would benefit the Prairie Run 9 Menk flood study?
10 development. To what degree, I do not know. 10 A. The City has not held pennits. The City has
11 Q. Who explained that to you? 11 adjusted hoine elevations as a result of the flood study.
12 A. Lani Leichty. 12 Q. On hoines that have yet to be built?
l3 Q. Exhibit 3 is the ainendment to the County Ditch 9 13 A. On lots that have yet to be constructed on,
14 study. Why was an a�nenci�nent being done? 14 correct.
15 A. Bolton and Menk had received additional I S Q. Has the City done that with respect to any other
16 infonnation froin the City, specifically,pictures from the 16 developments besides Albert Villas?
17 2003 rain event, which allowed Bolton and Menk to better 17 A. Yes, Prairie�Run.
18 calibrate its model of the Ditch 9 watershed. 18 Q. Any other developinents besides Prairie Run and
19 Q. And do you know where the City got those pictures 19 Albert Villas?
20 that it gave to you? 20 A. Could you repeat the question'?
21 A. I believe the building official, the Albertville 21 Q. I'm trying to figure out if there are any other
22 building official, took these pictures himself the day of 22 devclopments other tl�an Albert Villas and Prairic Run
23 or after the 2003 rain event. 23 where the City has hcld or refused to issue perinits for
24 Q. Sutherland, is that his na�ne? 24 lots that haven't been built on yet as a result of Bolton
25 A. Correct, Jon Sutherland. 25 and Menk's 2006 flood study'1
Page 54 Page 56
1 Q. So, those photographs would have been available l A. No, no other developinents, that I can think of,
2 when SFH did its 2004 flood study, would have been 2 that have been held up as a resull of the study.
3 available to Jon Sutherland, the building official for the 3 Q. Do any of the homes that are in Albert Villas
4 City of Albertville? 4 need to be raised as a result of the 2006 flood studies,
5 A. Jon Sutherland had those pictures at that tiine. 5 hoines that are already built?
6 Q. And the amendments that you made or Bolton and 6 A. There are homes in Albert Villas that will flood
7 Menk made to the 2006 study, what did that do to the flood 7 if an improvement is not made.
8 levels? What did the ainendinent do? 8 Q. So,what's happening to those homes? Is the City
9 A. In general, it lowered the 100-year high water 9 going to raise them or is the City coutacting the
10 level elevations. 10 homeowners?
11 Q. And some of those photos that were the basis for 11 A. For the most part,all those homes, temporary and
12 the amendment to the 2006 flood study were of locations in 12 final certificates of occupancy have been issued. I don't
13 Prairie Run'? 13 know if-- these homeowncrs are aware of the probleins. I
14 A. Locations surrounding the wetland that Prairie 14 don't know the communication of the City staff,other than
l5 Run abuts. 15 myself, have had with thest;homeowners directly.
16 Q. EIas Albert Villas completely developed? 16 Q. Are you aware whether there's a lawsuit involving
17 A. All utilities are in, roads have bcen constructed 17 that developinent'?
]S and the majority of the lots have been built upon. 18 A. I understand that there's a lawsuit involving
19 Q. Has development on the lots that have not been 19 Albert Villas developinent.
20 built upon in Albert Villas been shut down as a result of 20 Ntx.MAxxEx'r: �'m sorry, what was that?
21 your Ilood study? 21 THE wi`rtvess: i understand that there's
22 A. Repeat your question. 22 a lawsuit developing because of issues in Albert Villas.
' 23 Q. I'm wondering if developinent in Albert Villas has 23 aY tvts.;�tA7`[':
24 been shut down as a result of your 2006 flood study? 24 Q. Who's the developer of Albert Villas?
25 A. As a result of the flood study,no. 25 A. Edina Development Corporation Company.
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 53 - Page 56
� ADAM NAFSTAD CondenscIt�"' Depo-Squish
Page 57 Page 59
1 Q. You said that for the most part,all the homcs in 1 A. Yes.
2 Albert Villas, temporary and final certificates of 2 Q. And did that have elevations on it?
3 occupancy have been issued,most of the homes that have 3 �. No.
4 the problein, correct? 4 (At this tiine NaFstad Deposition Fxhibit
5 A. Correct 5 Number 6 was marked for
6 Q. So, what's that mean? Once they're issued,the 6 identification by the Court Reporter.)
7 City can't do anything about it? What's the big deal 7 t�Y�ts.Nt�TT: �
8 about those being issued? 8 Q. Mr. Nafstad, I'm handing you what's been marked
9 A. Those homes are occupied, fvnilies are living in 9 as Exhibit 6. Do you recogniic that document?
10 these homes. And I myself don't know why it's more 10 A. Yes.
ll difficult to control a hoine with that status. l 1 (�. And that's a memo froin you to Jon Sutherland, �
12 (At this time Nafstad I�position Exhibit 12 building official, dated December 20, 2005?
13 Numt�er 5 was marked for 13 A. Yes.
14 identification by the Court Reporter.) 14 Q. Why were you preparing that memo for
15 BY MS.MA1"]': 15 Mr. Sutherland?
16 Q Mr. Nafstad, handing you what's bcen marked 16 A. It's my understanding that the City requires the
17 Deposition f;xhibit Number 5. It's a planning report dated 17 as-built lot survey -- approval of thc as-buill lot survey
18 June 25, 2003 from Northwest Associated Consultants to the 18 to be recoimnended by an engineer prior to rclease of a
19 Albertville Planning Co�mnission and the city 19 landscaping escrow lhat's required by the City and prior
20 administrator. If you would turn to Page 4 of that 20 to issuancw of final occupancy.
21 document marked cityplanner0107. 21 Q. And as to this particular as-built survey Cor
22 At the bottom, it says, "Grading and Drainage," 22 Lot 16, Block 2, your recoimnendation was that it not be
23 and then under that paragraph, it says, "The city engineer 23 approved and final occupancy pennit not be issued?
24 should corrunent as to any" --excuse ine. "The preliminary 24 A. That was my reconvnendation, correct.
25 plat indicates a storm water retention pond both at the 25 Q. Paragraph 1 of your memo says, "High water
Page 58 Page 60
1 northern portion of the site and at the western inost 1 elevations of the water features (wetlands, ponds,etc.)
2 portion of the site. The City Fngineer should comment as 2 within the development are currently being questioned due
3 to any issues with regard to maintenance of these ponds. 3 to observed flooding events, insufficient calculations and
4 The subinitted grading and cirainage plan will be subject co 4 conf7icting elevations established by others." Do you see
5 review and approval by the City Engineer." Do you see 5 that?
6 where I am? 6 A. Yes.
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. What are the observed flooding events that you're
8 Q. So, if�he city engineer looked at those 8 referring to?
9 docuinents that are referred to and had any issues with it, 9 �. In the fall of 2005, the building official and
]0 would you expect him to coimnent? 10 other individuals witnessed flooding of the westerly
11 A. Yes. 11 cul-de-sac.
12 Q. And dces that --those references to the ponds at 12 Q. In Prairie Run?
13 the northem portion of the site and then the western inost 13 A. In Prairie Kun. In fact, fish were found in the
14 portion of the site,dces that match up with what your 14 cul-de-sac.
I S recollection of the plans that you saw was? I S Q. And this lot is near the westerly cul-de-sac; is
16 A. Yes. 16 that right?
17 Q. So,earlier I think you had testified that you 17 A. It abuts the samc wetland that was causing the
18 only saw elevations for a pond, I thought you said,on the 18 flooding.
19 southerly side? 19 Q. And when you refer in lhat first paragraph of
20 A. Southwest corner, I believe I said. 20 Exhibit 6 to insufficient calculations, what calculations
21 Q. So,would that be the western most portion that 21 are you referring to?
22 is referred to here? 22 A. I did not have a 100-year high water level to
_ 23 A. Correct. 23 review or coinpare to that of the subinitted as-built
24 Q. So, there also would have--do you recall seeing 24 survey.
25 a pond on the northern portion of the site on the plans? 25 Q. And why didn't you have a 100-year high water
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 57 - Page 60
' ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt"°` Depo-Squish
Page 61 Page 63
1 level to review or compare? 1 Q. Whose handwriting is on the docmnent?
2 A. There was not one on the plan. And at this 2 A. The "See attached for area," I believe that's my
3 particular time, the high water level that I was 3 writing. �
4 recoimnending be used, a high water level established by 4 Q Okay. And that area that's kind of blank there
5 the county, this ho�ne did not--using that elevation and 5 and says "sec;attached for the area," that's the Prairie
6 the fruboard require�nents, this home did not mcet 6 Run development?
7 requirements of code. 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what high waler elevation at the county were 8 Q. But you don't know what -- cio you know what the
9 you recoirunending? 9 attached would be?
10 A. This was an elevation thal was established by the 10 A. No, I do not recall why this was prepared or who
11 county for this buried arch box culvert that goes under 11 it was sent to.
12 esax ts at the southwest corner of the plat. 12 Q. Do you know what that means, that writing on
13 Q. And why were you recommending that that elevation 13 there, "Extra per Adain"?
14 be used? 14 A. I do not. I do not recall.
15 A. At that tune, I believe it was the only high 15 (At this time Nafstad Deposition Exhibit
16 water elevation I had. 16 Nuinber 8 was marked for
17 Q And where did you get that frrnn? 17 identification by the Couri Reporter.)
18 A. I got that elevation both from the county and at 18 sY tvts.�tA��T:
19 one point from sex. 19 Q. Mr. Nafstad, handing you what's been marked as
20 Q. And do you know when you got that elevation from 20 Exhibit 8, an October 11, 2005 inemo fronl yourself to Jon
21 the county? 21 Sutherland, building offieiaL Do you recognize that
22 A. It would have been in the fall of 'O5, I believe, 22 document?
23 November. 23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And do you know who at the county you got it 24 Q. And why were you preparing that memo?
25 from'? 25 A. This was a lot that abutted the cul-de-sac that
Page 62 Page 64
1 A. I sent soineone to the county to retrieve the 1 flooded. And the building official and myself, still not
2 information. 2 knowing what the calculated 100-year high water level was,
3 Q. And do you know when you got that elevation from 3 worked with the applicant to raise the hoine to a level we
4 s�x? 4 were comfortable with.
5 A. Within days either bef�ore or after I received it 5 Q. And at that point had a home been constructed on
6 from the county. 6 it?
7 Q. And turning back to Exhibit 6, Paragraph l, you 7 A. No.
8 refer to contlicting elevations established by others. 8 Q. And then,did you--was the lot eventually
9 What are you referring to there? 9 raisc;d to a level you were comfortable with?
10 A. I believe prior to this date, I had conversations 10 A. Comfortable at that tiine, yes.
11 with both previous --the previous engin�r and Randy 11 Q. And it met the City's requirements'?
12 Hedlund as to what the elevation of the wetland in Prairie 12 A Met the City's requirements using the highest
13 Run was. 13 known water elevation that was what we were told to use or
14 Q. And previous engineer,you're referring to SEH? 14 what was known at the ti�ne.
IS A. Correct. 15 Q. Who told you to use it?
16 Q. Do you know who at SFx you spoke with? 16 A. The high water clevation oF the wetland that was
17 A. I was in coimnunication with Bob Moberg. 17 being used at this particular tiine was based on
18 (At this tiine Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 18 infonnation provided Lo ine by Randy Hedlund.
19 Nuinber 7 was inarked for 19 Q. And in that inemo in Paragraph 1, where you say,
20 identif�ication by the Court Reporter.) 20 "Applicant has raised the proposed elevations of the home
21 aY Nts.tvtA�rr: 21 to mcet the City's requireinents," what are you referring
22 Q. Mr. Nafstad,handing you what's been marked as 22 to when you say "City's requireinents"?
23 Exhibit 7. Do you recognize that docuinent? 23 A. I believe this is a-- this appears to be the
24 A. I do not I recognize some of the handwriting on 24 second revision. So, potentially the third revised or the
25 the document. 25 second revised survey that was submitted to the City. I'm
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 61 - Page 64
� ADAM NAFSTAD CondcnseIt�`�" Depo-Squish
Page 65 Page 67
1 assuming that the original submissions did not meet City 1 was accurate enough to be used as the governing high
2 requirements. 2 water" -- "t►wL far the Prairie Run developinent." Do you
3 Q. And when it says, °Elevate the basement floor 3 see that?
� 4 slightly above the 1Jw[.of the adjacent pond," is that 4 A. Yes.
5 nonnal water levcl? 5 Q. Shouldn't the governing xwl,have been detennined
6 A. Yes. 6 before Prairic Run was approved and not on Dec;ember 16,
7 (At this time Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 7 2005?
8 Number 9 was marked for 8 A. Yes.
9 identification by the Court Reporter.) 9 Q. So,am I correct in stating that there havc been
10 BY tvts.MaTT: 10 three 100-year Ilood elevations determined?
1 t Q. Mr. Nafstad, handing you what's been marked as 11 A. Three 100-year flood cicvations were eventually
12 Exhibit 9. Do you recognize that document`? 12 determined.
13 A. I do. 13 Q. One of them being by st:t� in 2004'?
14 Q. What is iC? 14 A. The SEx too-year high water level was a nwnber, I
I S A. This is -- I believe I asked L,ani to infonn ine as I S believe,we noted or reccived from the model, the
16 to whether or not an elevation -- a high water elevation 16 hydrologic model they sent for the study they conducted.
17 that was calculated by the county was a reasonable 17 Q. That SEH sent to you?
18 number. And this was Lani's response to ine. 18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And why did you ask Mr. Leichty to do that 19 Q. And then, what are the other two 100-year
20 calculation, to infonn you as to the reasonableness of 20 elevations? 7fie one you came up with?
21 that calculation? 21 A. At this time, as of December 161h, I don't recall
22 A. That number was at an elevation such that 22 if the City or Bolton and Menk had calculated another
23 building pads would have had--would have to be raisc;d to 23 100-year high water level. I don't believe we had one at
24 a point at which either possibly a basement couldn't be 24 this time. One other one would have been the county's
25 constructed or a walkout would have to become a lookout, 25 high water leve,l.
Page 66 Page 68
i or just in general, you could not�neet code requirements. 1 Q. That's what Pm getting at, more in general, that
2 And so,the developer had concerns with the City using 2 therc have been three different 100-year high water levels
3 this number. 3 calculated for this -- I guess for the Prairie Run
4 Q. And you're referring to building pads in Prairie 4 development?
5 Run? 5 A. Yes,to date, three of thein.
6 A. Correcl. 6 Q. And the one that was calculated by Brian Hancock
7 Q. And the nuinber that you're referring to was 7 for the culvert siring?
S calculated by Iirian Walter? 8 A. Brian Hanc;ock?
9 A. That's what this memo says. 9 Q. t?xcuse me, Brian Walter. I think he's with
10 Q. For the purposes of installing a culvert? 10 Hancock Concrete.
11 A. Correet. 11 A. Yes,that would be one.
12 Q. Brian Walter didn't do a flood study of the 12 Q. And that one was 951.5'?
13 entire County Ditch 9 watershed, that you're aware of`� 13 A. Correct.
14 A. Mr. Walter did size this culvert based on the 14 Q. And the second one was calculated by SEx in 2004?
15 upstream -- the watershed contributing to this culvert. 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. But he didn't conduct a study of the entire 16 (�. 950.5?
17 County Ditch 9 watershed? 17 A. Correct.
18 A. Correct. 18 Q. And tben, Bolton and Menk calculated a 100-year
19 Q. And in your second--the second paragraph of 19 high water level at 950.7. Dces that sound right?
20 that memo, it refers to time constraints. Do you know 20 A. No, that does not sound right.
21 what was going on that was causing time constraints? 21 Q. Bolton and Menk did eventually calculate a
22 A. I don't recall what those tiine constraints were. 22 100-year high water level?
' 23 Q. That second paragraph says, "Given the time 23 A. Currently, Bolton and Menk's calculalions show
24 constraints associated with this review, I researched what 24 that the 100-year high water levcl is 949.9. At one time,
25 infonnation was available to determine if this elevation 25 it was greater than that. I don't recall what that number
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 65 - Page 68
ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt'�` Depo-Squish
Page 69 Page 71
� �'a�� 1 A. I can't say that i�— this should have been
2 Q. Okay. So,which of these high water levels is 2 reviewed before the plat was approved.
3 the develo�er supposed to foliow? 3 Q. It should have?
4 A. I think all these numbers are good numbers. A 4 A. It should have been designed properly and
5 developer could follow the numbc;r supplied by lhe county 5 reviewed before the plat was approved.
6 or a number calculated by his engincer,assuming it's 6 MR.K�.�-rFxttiG: Can I ask one other
7 approved by the City. 7 question? Is the culvert to the east or to the west of
8 Q. Ultimately,the developer has to do what the City 8 the Prairie Run development'?
9 says? 9 Txe wrr�t�r�:ss: 'rhe box culvert that goes
10 A. Correct. 10 under 18?
11 (At this time Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 11 Ma.x[�'['rhunvG: vcah.
12 Number ]0 was�narked for 12 1'xr Wrl�vess: 'rhat is on the westerly
13 identification by the Court Reporter.) 13 border of Prairie Run.
14 BY MS.MAT"I': 14 MR KP:ITERING: Downstream then?
15 Q. Mr. Nafstad,handing you what's been inarked as 15 TxF wr��vFss: �ownstream is fair to
16 Exhibit 10. Do you recognize that document? 16 say. It's on the southwest corner. It does touch the
l7 A. I do. 17 plat, tbe Prairie Run plat.
18 Q. What is it? 18 BY MS.MATT:
19 A. I had asked Lani to perform a real brief or l9 Q. So, based on your review of those grading plans
20 general review of the ponds within Prairie Run. And this 20 dated 1 U14/03, you believe all the ponds in Prairic Run
21 is Lani's response. 21 would have been inundated during a 100-year 24-hour stonn'?
22 Q. Why did you ask him to do that? 22 A. That's correct.
23 A. At this time,we had concerns that the high watcr 23 (At this tune Nafstad Deposition I:xhihit
24 level,whichever the 100-year high water level,whichever 24 Number 11 was marked for
25 elevation was used,was higher than that than the banks of 25 identification by the Court Reporter.)
Page 70 Page 72
1 the ponds. Meaning that this wetland would -- in a storm 1 sY Ms.MaTT:
2 event less than a 100-year could potentially go over the 2 Q. Mr.Nafstad,handing you what's been marketi
3 banks and flood and inundate the ponds. 3 Deposition [;xhibit Nmnbc.�r 11. Do you recognize that
4 Q. That first paragraph there says, "Ponding 4 docmnent?
5 calculaCions did not take into account the effects County 5 A. I do not recognize it.
6 Ditch 9 would havc on the hydraulics of the system." Do 6 Q. Do you recognize tt�e handwriting? Is it
7 you se�that`? 7 Mr. Leichty7
8 A. Yes. 8 A. I'in asswning that it's Lani L,eichty.
9 Q. What does that mean, in terms I can understand? 9 Q. Do you know what the numbers for the ponds in
10 A. This means that the water elevations oF the 10 Prairie Run are? [s each pond numbered?
I 1 wetland, the water elevations that this wetland can s�;, 11 A. I do not believe so. I don't recall if the ponds
12 were not aCcounted for. 12 in Prairie Run are ntunbered.
13 The last sentence in that paragraph, "The high 13 Q. Do you know what the--what it would mean at the
14 water level for the westerly NURP pond in Prairie Run is 14 top of Exbibit 11 wbere it's sayiug, "Shoot for 950.8 at
15 shown as 947,which is four and a half feet lower." 15 pond. Gi��es two feet freeboard for homes"?
16 That's four and a half feet lower than the high water 16 Ma.rcuaousHEx: object to tl�e fonn of
17 elevation that was calculaTed by the county. 17 the question, lacks foundation. EIe testifial he doesn't
18 MR.KETTERING: WiLI yoU tell us what 18 recognize the docwnent.
19 N-U-R-P means? 19 BY MS.MATT:
20 THE WI"INESS: It stands for National 20 Q. Go ahead and answer, if you know.
21 Urban Runoff Program. It's a design criteria. 21 A. I believe that shoot for pond and that pond's
22 BY MS.MATT: 22 number,a pond nwnber,I believe that's a nuinber tl�at
23 Q. So, why is it that you were looking at that in 23 comes froin a model,iYs inaybe a number we assigned a pond
24 2006? Shouldn't that have been figured out before the 24 or a basin or some sort of a water feature in a modeL I
25 ponds were built, before the ponds were in place? 25 don't know which pond that is. I'in assuining it's a pond
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 69 - Page 72
' ADAM NAFSTI�D �onden�eit`'''' 3�e��-Squish
Page 73 Page 75
1 within Albert Villas,just assuming. 1 Q. And would that option prevent flooding in Prairie
2 (At this tiine Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 2 Run if a 100-year storm event occurs?
3 Number 12 was marked for 3 A. No.
4 idcntification by the Court Reportcr.) 4 Q. Is there any option that will prevent flooding in �
5 aY t�ts.�a,Ti�: 5 Prairie Run if a 100-year stonn event occurs?
6 Q Mr. Nafstad,handing you what's bcen marked as 6 A. Yes.
7 Deposi�ion F,xhibit Nmnber 12. Is that your writing on 7 (�. What? �
S that docwnent? 8 A. Raise the site.
9 A. No, it is not. 9 Q. And when you say "raise the site," what do you
10 Q. Did you attend a meeting on March 23, 2006, an 10 mean, raise the building pads or raise the entire
1 l Albertville meeting? 11 infrastructure?
12 �. It appears that I did. 12 �. Gcnerally, tt�e infrastructure would have to be
13 Q. Do you recall at that ineeting if policy for 13 raised.
14 County Ditch 9 was discussed? 14 Q. But it's already developed?
15 A. I do not recall. �5 A. It's developed.
16 Q. Did you provide the city council with your 2006 16 Q. How much would that cost?
17 flood study on or about April 3rd at the council ineeting, 17 A. I don't have a number, a lot.
18 April 3, 2006'? 18 Q. In excess of a million dollars?
19 A. The council was provided with periodic updates of 19 A. Yes.
20 the flood study. And I don't recall the date of the 20 Q. In excess of five million?
21 fonnal acceptance of the study. 21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Did you ever have a workshop with council to 22 Q. Ballpark'?
23 discuss the tlood study with them'? 23 A Yes.
24 �. Yes. 24 Q. And in your opinion, that's the only way that
25 Q. And what do you recall about what was discussed 25 flooding can be -- flooding in the case of a ]00-ycar
Page 74 Page 76
t at that workshop? I stonn event can be avoided in Prairie Run'?
2 A. I believe we discussed alternatives to 2 A. Bol�on and Menk has not been coinmissioned to
3 mitigation, alternative for mitigation to flooding, as 3 design or thoroughly explore options for--to get Prairie
4 well as cost and potential funding options. 4 Run in compliance. As far as flooding, the option of
5 Q. Did you discuss the City trying to get Gold Key 5 raising the site, if you wi11, that is currently the only
6 to pay for those mitigation options? 6 option I see for correction to the ponding requirements.
7 A. I do not believe sa 7 As to will homes flood,that can be corrected by
8 Q. Did the City come up with an alternative that 8 a combination of things, whether it be not allowing
9 they were going to pursuc to mitigate the flooding? 9 basements on lots of undeveloped-- on homes of
10 A. At the workshop? 10 undeveloped lots or inaybe converting a walkout to a
11 Q. Yeah. 11 lookout. There's a combination of things that could be
12 A. I believe the council members gave Bolton and 12 done to get homes in compliance or to a point at which
�3 Menk further direction of alternatives to explore and 13 they won't flood.
14 provide insight as to what they did and did not like of 14 Q. Has the City asked Bolton and Menk what it would
15 particular alternatives. I S cost to conduct such a study'?
16 (�. And was a particular alternative eventually 16 A. No.
17 agreed upon? 17 Q. The March 23, 2006 met;ting that you had about
18 A. Yes. 18 Albertville, did you discuss the City doing planning as it
19 Q. What alternative was that? 19 should be done instead of doing studies on a piecemeal
20 A. A large pond with an emergency overflow. 2o basis?
2� Q. And the large pond to be created at the site of 2� A. Ycs.
22 the new school? 22 Q. First,tell me,were the people that were at that
23 A. Correct, new elementary school. 23 meeting yourself, Mr. Leichty, Williain Douglas,and then,
24 Q. That's what the City's current plan is? 24 who are Jon and Pete, J-O-N? Would it be Jon Sutherland?
25 A. That's the City's current preferred option. 25 A. No, I think-- I don't recall. That's how you
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 9?_2-1955 Page 73 - Page 76
' AI)AM NAFSTAll Con�ienseIt'�` ��po-Squish
Page 77 Page 79
1 spell Jon,J-O-N, for Jon Sutherland, but that could have 1 A. This includes all of the residential portion of
2 been a council member, John Vetsch. Petc, it's not coming 2 the Prairie Run development, the development we're
3 to my mind which Pete. 3 speaking of, yes.
4 Q. Okay. Do you recall anyone else being present at 4 Q. So, excludes the cortunercial part?
5 that meeting? 5 A. Correct.
6 A. I don't recall this �nceting. 6 MR. KETTF;RING: What's the number of
7 Q. But you do recall a time where you had a 7 residential lots?
8 discussion about the City doing planning as it should be 8 THE WITN1?SS: I don't know off the top
9 done instead of doing studies on a piecemeal basis7 9 of my head. ,
10 A. Yes. 10 MR. YOCH: It's 30-something. II
11 Q. What do you mean by that? 11 MR. KETTERING: 1 thought it was 32.
12 A. It's been recoininended to the City that stonn 12 THE� WITNESS: 53 lots, approxiinately.
13 water inanageinent plan or stonn water study of the entire 13 BY MS. MATT:
14 city be cxplored. This would assist in developinent, 14 Q. So, are these ones that are up here also in
IS redevelopment issues. 15 Prairie Run (indicating)?
16 Q. Was the City receptive to that idea'? 16 A. No, they are not in Prairie Run.
17 A. Yes, 1 think that's a goal of the City. 17 Q. So,just within the yellow line is --
18 Q. How much would something like that cost,doing a 18 A. Correct, within the yellow boundary.
19 stonn water inanagement study of the entire city, ballpark? 19 Q. And what are the lots that the City has concerns
20 A. From the hip, 100 to 150,000. 20 with?
21 Q. What's the problem with doing studies on a 21 A. The lots that are hatched or have thc hatches
22 piec;eineal basis? 22 running through the lots, those are lots of concern.
23 A. It often requires the work to be done twice. 23 Q. And why are those lots of concern?
24 It's not as comprehensive as reviewing an entire area, if 24 A. Due to required freeboard.
25 you will. Looking at a larger area maximizes regional 25 MR. KF,TTFRIN(c Can you define that
Page 78 Pagc 80
1 benefits, such as regional ponding, regional treatment. 1 tenn?
2 One large plan all condensc;d or several plans 2 TxE WI'r�F.ss: t�reeboard is really a
3 condensed into one allows the Ciry to have a document they 3 safety factor on top of a--establishing a low floor or
4 can use for-- a single document they can usc;for review 4 low opening or building elevation. Freeboard is the
5 purposes, maintenance purposes, planning purposes. 5 height betwcen the l�igh water level and that building
6 Nts.NtaTT: Did she bring tho.se copics? 6 elevation.
7 MR KETTERING: I'll g0 CheClc. 7 BY MS.MATT:
8 (At this time there was a brief pause.) 8 Q. Is that freeboard something that's regulated by
9 (At this tune Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 9 code?
10 Number 13 was inarked for 10 A. Yes.
11 identification by the Court Reporter.) 11 Q. And do you know what specific city code it is in
12 BY MS.MATI': 12 this case?
13 Q. Mr. Nafstad, handing you what's been marked as 13 A. Freeboard requirements are found in both
14 Exhibit 13. Do you recognize that document? 14 subdivision ordinances and zoning ordinances.
15 A. Ycs, I do. 15 Q. And were those subdivision ordinances and zoning
16 Q. What is it? 16 ordinances that rcgulate freeboard in eYfect at the time
17 A. This is an exhibit I prepared for the City, for 17 that the plat of Prairie Run was approved?
18 myself,whcever, to identify those lots that, one,the 18 A. Yes.
19 City has concern regarding the proposed or constructed 19 Q. The same ones were in effect?
20 elevations, to identify the lots in which some form of 20 A. Today's requireinents may be different or
21 occupancy pennit has bcen issued,to give a general 21 requirements that were in place al the time of Prairie Run
22 understanding of the layout of the development as far as 22 plat may have been amended, but freeboard requirements did
' 23 where the ponds are located and the wetland, the ditch. 23 exist at the time of the plat.
24 Q. So, is this a complete picture of the Prairie Run 24 Q. So, freeboard requirements existed, but the
25 development? 25 particular requirements, you believe, may have been
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 77 - Pagc 80
' ADAM NAFSTAD CondenscIt�"` Dcpo-Squish
Page 81 Page 83
1 amended since the Prairie Run plat was approved? 1 requirc�nents. And now,bascd on Exhibit 13, that's thc
2 A. The Prairie Run plat is not--dces not comply 2 home lhat you're telling me does not ineet the City's
3 with freeboard requirements in place at the time of plat. 3 requirements?
4 Q. Other than the freeboard requirements that caused 4 A. That's correct.
5 you some concerns as to those lots on Exhibit l 3, are 5 Q. And the lots that you refer to that havc not becn
6 there any other conc;erns that you have with those hatched 6 built upon, but would have proposed low 1loors, I guess
7 lots on Exhibit 13'? 7 that would be inundated in a 100-year (lood, are which'?
8 A. In general, they all have -- in general,the 8 A. Can you repeat that question?
9 concerns are with the freeboard requirements. 9 Q. Wc talked about the lot that concerned you
10 Q. Are there any of these lots in Prairie Run which 10 because a home was built on it and the baseinent floor was I
11 would be flooded if a 100-year flood event occurred? 11 lower than that of a 100-year high watc;r Icvel, And you
12 A. Developed or undeveloped lots? 12 also mentioned lhere are several lots that have not been
13 Q. Either. 13 built upon with proposed low floor openings Ulat concern
14 A. There is a hoine that has a basement floor lower 14 you. And Pin wondering,on �xhibit 13, which of those
I S than that of the 100-year high watcr level. And there are I S lots that are not built upon concern you'?
16 -- 1'm sorry, there's a c;onstructed home that has a 16 A. That's answered in Interrogatory Number 4 or the
17 basement floor lower than the 100-year high water level of 17 default letter. Can I see that?
18 the wetland that it abuts. 18 Q. Can you tell just based on Exhibit 13, before 1
19 And there are lots that have not been built upon 19 get to that?
20 that have proposed lowest tloors below that same 100-year 20 A. I'm sorry,would you repeat thc question?
21 high water level. 21 Q. I'in wondering which of the lots that haven't be<;n
22 Q. And the one home that's already been constructed 22 built upon would be -- have proposed lowest floor openings
23 with the basement floor lower Chan the 100-year high water 23 that would not mef;t the 100-year high water level?
24 level of the wetland,where is that on Exhibit 13? 24 A. I can tell you that the hoines-- lots that homes
25 A. That is -- it's shaded in green. It's on the 25 have not been constructed upon, they are identified with a
Page 82 Page 84
1 left side of the page at the end of the westerly t parentheses around the number and not a circle around the
2 cul-de-sac. It's just east of the pond. 2 number. Dces that make scnse,on the exhibit?
3 Q. Okay. And that -- dces thal sound correct to you 3 Q. I sc�what you're talking about.
4 that that's Lot 7, Block 2? 4 A. Those lots that have parentheses around their
5 A. Correct. 5 elevations, those are lots that have not bc;en constructed
6 Q. And that's t�he one we were talking about earlier 6 upon. And those lots -- of those lots-- ot�the lots that
7 that inet all the City's requirements in that memo I was 7 have not bcen constructed on, those with lhe hatching, the
8 questioning you about? 8 lines going through thein, those are the lots of concern.
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. So, there's eight? So, I should be looking for
10 Q. And now it dcesn't meet the Ciry's requirements? 10 hatch marks and parentheses?
11 A. Based on the inost recent high water elevations we 11 A. Correct. I believe I counted nine.
12 have, it dces not meet the City's requireinents. 12 Q. Oh,there's a purple one, too. That purple hatch
13 Q. Is that nonnal that the City is changing its 13 inark --
14 requirements after homes have been constructed? Is that 14 A. That should have a circle around that.
15 typical for a city to do that? 15 Q. The purple hatch mark one with the parentheses
16 A. It's not ideal. l6 should have a circle around it?
17 Q. Why not? 17 A. Correct.
18 A. Depending on the length of time that has passed, 18 Q. Because it's already been built?
19 progress, such as,the home could have bcen constructed 19 A. It's constructed.
20 and that home could potentially no longer be in 20 Q. So, on that one, is someone living in it?
21 compliance. 21 A. I'd have to--
22 Q. And just so we're clear on the record, in 22 Q. It says °final CO issued"?
� 23 Exhibit 8 -- Exhibit S,you are saying that Lot 7, Block 2 23 A. This indicates co has been issued.
24 meets the City's requirements. The applicant has raised 24 Q. So,that one would also--
25 the proposed elevations of the home to meet the City's 25 A. Pd have to look at the interrogatory or default
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 81 - Page 84
' ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`�"` Depo-Squish
Page 85 Page 87
1 letter on that lot specifically. I still tally nine lots ] A. Lots not built upon 8, 9, 10, 1 l, 17, 21, 23, and
2 that have not b�n constructed on. Without that one, 2 24 of Block 2.
3 without that lot, Lot 23, Block 2,I still tally nine lots 3 BY�ts.�taTT:
4 that have not been constructed on and are of concern. 4 Q. Can I stop you and ask you if that section that
5 Q. And are o1�concern because the hundred --because 5 you`re referring to, is that the freeboard requirement
6 of the 100-year high watc;r level or because of the 6 that you're talking about that we discussed earlier?
7 fr�board issue? 7 A. That is a freeboard requirement.
8 A. Because of the requircinents of the city code that 8 (�. And then,what other violations, 1 guess, of�the
9 have established a fr�;board -- certain freeboards above 9 code are there for zoning ordinance or subdivision
10 things such as highest known water level, 100-year high 10 ordinance for lhe particular lots,whether they're built
11 water level,things of those nature. 11 on or not?
12 Q. lfiose lots don'l ineet it? 12 A. As stated in the interrogatory, postdevelopment
13 A. Those lots as proposed do not meet certain code 13 peak, ]00-year peak discharge runoCf rate,exceeds that of
14 requirements. 14 predevelopinent, the 100-year storin peak dischargc rates.
I S Q. That was in existence at the time of the plaL? 15 A system that adequately stores drainage watcr and lhat
16 A. Correct. 16 the plat discharges more�han one-half of the
17 Q. So, on those, it would be pretty easy to just 17 predevelopment runoff rate under the zoning ordinance.
18 raise them up? How big of.a fix is that? 18 The first two bullets deal with freeboard
19 A. Those are the lots that could be fixed with, yes, 19 requireinents thal are not met. The third bullet also
20 raising thein up to a-- you're limited to how high you can 20 deals with another freeboard requirc�nent that's not inet.
21 go with a homc because of driveway grades and grades in 21 Q. I'm sorry,you said that last bullet also deals
22 general. Some of thesc;homes would be recoinmended that 22 with freeboard?
23 the basements not be constructed to be in compliancc with 23 A. Yes, all three of these do.
24 the code. 24 Q. Okay. So,going up to talk about discharge
25 (At this time Nafstad Deposition Exhibit 25 runoff rates, as far as you can tell from looking at
Page 86 Page 88
1 Number l4 was marked for 1 things, were they designed in accordance with the plans?
2 identification by the Court Reporter.) 2 Was the plat designed in accordance with the plans that
3 BY MS.MATT: 3 were submitted?
4 Q. Mr. Nafstad, handing you what's been marked as 4 A. ( don't undcrstand the qucstion.
5 E�ibit Number 14. Those are the answers to 5 Q. Let me think how to ask this question.
6 interrogatories that have been produced by the City in 6 t�tx.:viaxtcFRT: was the plat constructed
7 this inatter. 7 according to the plans?
s I think if you flip to the second to the last 8 tv1s.Nt�T-r: 1 don't know wha� I inean.
9 page, maybe third to the last page, that's the 9 L.et me think for a minute.
io supplemental answer to Interrogatory Number 4. Is that io sY Ms.Ma�i-r:
11 what you were referring to that would help you? 11 Q. It says, "Section A-600.13(c)(1) in that
12 A. That's coneet. 12 postdevelopinent ]00-year storm peak discharge runoff rate
13 Q. Can you now tell me, then, specifically which 13 exceeds the predevelopinent stonn 100-year storm peak
ia lots -- or, I guess, confirm which lots are of concern to �4 discharge runoff rate."
15 the City and why each lot is of concern'? 15 So,what exactly is in violation there? What
l6 A. On page -- the second to the last sheet, the lots 16 could have been done differently to make it not be in
17 that -- we're talking all lots constructed and not 17 violation?
18 constructed on. Lots that don't mcet the subdivision 18 A. The ponds and their outlets could have been
19 ordinances are as stated in -- the built upon lots are 19 constructed higher.
20 those stated under that first bullet, first paragraph, 20 Q. Were the ponds and their outlets constructed in
21 first bullet on the second to last page. 21 accordance with the plans that were submitted to the City?
22 MR. KETTERING: Page number what? 22 A. They were constructed as the construction plan
23 MS.MATT: It's the seCond to the last 23 subinitted to the City indicated.
24 page of Exhibit 14. 24 Q. "Section A-700.6 in that the surface and
25 MR KETTERING: Got it. 25 underground drainage systems on the plat do not adequately
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 85 - Page 88
� ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`'"` Depo-Squish
Page 89 Page 91
!� ] remove all natural drainage that ac;cumulates on the l because it's too low.
� 2 developed property, nor do they provide a pennanent 2 Ntx.x1:'rri�:x�Nc: what's bad about being
3 solution for the removal of drainage water." What's the 3 low in a pond?
4 problem there? 4 Tt�F:wr►�vE:ss: �rhe walls of the pond, if �'�
5 A. There again,the ponds are placed at an elevation 5 you will, the benn that cncompasses the pond, the top of �
6 that does not provide for the storage of the 100-year 6 that benn, that elevation is lower than that of the
7 stonn water-- 100-year stonn event runoff. 7 100-year water elevations of the adjac;ent wctland.
8 Q. Were the ponds placed at the elevations that the 8 So,water is going to over top this and
9 approved grading plans indicated they would be placed at, 9 inundate the pond,essentially. And onc;e you gct
10 as lar as you can tell? 10 flooding you don't have rate control.
11 A. To the best of my knowledge, they were. 11 titx. tc[�1��[�:a[?.r�: sorry.
12 Q. "Section A-700.6 in that the plat discharges at 12 �vts.�A7`r: That's okay.
13 inore than one-half of the predevelopinent rate of runoff." 13 sY tv1S. MaT�':
14 What's lhe problem there? 14 Q. (hi F,xhibit 13, those nuinbers that are in thc
15 A. Any time -- with development, again,you increase 15 middle of each lot, those elevation nuinbers,where did you
16 the impervious surfac;e. Therefore,you increase the rate 16 get all of thosc;?
17 of runofF and you increase the volume. Without providing 17 A. The elevations that are circled that represent
18 for the proper ponding, you inerease the rate of runoff. 18 lowest openings of ho�nes constructed, those numbers I
19 Q. But again, as to that one, the ponds were 19 rec;eived from Bolton and Menk. Our survey crews
20 constructed in accordance with the plans that were 20 detennined that at thosc;elevalions.
21 submitted and approved? 21 Q. And the number in parentheses?
22 A. Yes. 22 A. Those are taken lrom the grading plan or proposed
23 Q. And the lowest floor on each of the lots in 23 grading plan.
24 Prairie Run,was the grading done --was the grading done 24 MR.tvtAxKERT: So, you're saying thc
25 on each of the lots in Prairie Run in accordance with the 25 nwnbers in circles are actual shots donc by Boltou and
Pagc 90 Page 92
I grading plans that were submitted to the City and approved 1 Menk'?
2 by the City? 2 `rxe wi�rrEss: 7'hat's correct, a circic
3 A. Was the site graded as shown on the plans? 3 or a rectangle.
4 Q. Yes, that's what I'm wondering. 4 Ntx.�tAttKERT: And the numbers in
5 A. To the best oi'my knowledge. 5 parentheses is wliat's shown on the grading plan?
6 MK.KEITERING: Can I aSk SOlne 6 THE WI'INESS: YeS.
7 qUeSttOnS? 7 MR.MARKF,RT: All right.
8 Ms.tvtA'rr: Go ahead. 8 MS.'.�tATr: �don't have any further
9 MR.xlilTF:xtNG: t�ack on the ponds,when 9 questions.
10 we were discussing those,you've shown on Exhibit 13, it 10 Mx.Ke�'ExitvG: i'll just ask you a few
11 shows two ponds. That's all the ponds that are there, 11 questions.
12 nothing more? I Z
13 THE WI1'NESS: That larger pOnd t0 the 13 CROSS-t�:XAM[?VATION
14 north,that inay be considered two in itself, but for the 14 sY N1x.[cE�'ERitv�:
15 �nost part, it's one body. Yes,there's those two ponds 15 Q. Have you had any personal contact with Randy
16 and the wetland. 16 Hedlund?
17 Mx.KETTE[uNG: At its deepest point, 17 A. Yes, Randy, Pve had both meetings with Randy and
18 how deep is it? 18 phone conversations with Randy.
19 T'HE Wi�v�ss: t would have to review 19 Q. And when was your first contact with hiin?
20 the plans. Pm comfortable to say that it's not inore than 20 A. I would say it was late summer of 2005, regardin�
21 ten feet deep and it is more than three feet deep. 21 Albertville.
22 tv�R.xETTExING: And let's take another 22 Q. And what prompted that conversation?
23 measure of it. You criticize it because it's too sinall, 23 A. Al that point, I was beginning to review
24 correct? 24 individual lot surveys to make a recommendation to the
25 'rHE w[TTrtiSs: No, I criticize it 25 building official. Wanting to approve an elevation or a
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 89 - Page 92
� ADAM NAFSTAD Condenselt"" Depo-Squish
Page 93 Pagc 95
1 survey, I contacted Randy Hedlund to question him as to 1 Q. You've never come across that tenn before7
2 what the 100-year high water level oF the wetland and 2 A. Aqualic vegetation'? Yes, I have.
3 ponds were. 3 Q. What is its function in general?
4 Q. By phone or in person? 4 A. The function of the tenn7
5 A. Originally it was by phone. 5 Q. Yeah, what meaningFul benefit dces it provide to
6 Q. Followed then by an in-person mceting'? 6 a person who is working with land and clevations and plats
7 A I believe the first time I inet with Randy 1�edlund 7 and the like?
8 was in November. And it was after the City issucd--the 8 A. It's not much of a tool Cor myu;11�, if you will.
9 City cailed a meeting to -- I believe it was mainly 9 Our hycirologist will be able to answer that question
10 technical staff. 10 better than I can,but aquatic vegetation, a line of
11 Q. November of 'OS? 11 aquatic vegetation is usc;d by individuals who want to
12 A. Yes, 'O5. We had a meeting in which I was 12 establish maybe not an ��wi.,but an ordinary high water
13 prese;nt, a representative from SFx was present,and Randy 13 level.
14 and other individuals. And we discussed the concern we 14 Q. Was there a known l�igh water level as of�the time
15 had with elevations. IS that this project was being constructed?
16 Q. And the duration of that meeting was what,how 16 A. Yes.
17 long from beginning to end,roughly? 17 Q. And what was that'?
l8 A. I would be comfortable to say it was a couplc of 18 A. The highest known water level would have been the
19 hours. 19 levcl that -- at that time would have been the level of
20 Q. And your objective again for that meeting was 20 the water that was just-- the flooded wetland that
21 what? 21 occurred just prior to this plat in 2003.
22 A. Myself, I was still searching for a water 22 Q. And had that been measured by anyone in tenns of
23 elevation,a 100-year high water level for both the ponds 23 numbers?
24 and the wetland. That's what I was looking For. 24 A. I don't know whether or not that had becn or
25 Q. And what did Mr. Hedlund tell you, in suinmary? 25 not. There are pictures of it_ Pm assuming it had.
Page 94 Page 96
1 A. You know, the phone conversation I had with 1 Q. Whether or not it had been reduced to numbers,
2 Mr. Hedlund in the late suinmer, if you will,of 'O5, he 2 had it ever been �ublished by any entity?
3 expressed that he had used lhe elevation that approximated 3 A. Not to my knowledge.
4 the wetland boundary as the high water elevation. 4 Q. So, it was a nuinber that existed theoreticaity,
5 And then, if I recall correctly,he also informed 5 but really could not be accessed by someone who was
6 me that he had received a letter from the county, soii and 6 searching for it in some public suppository or some other
7 water services, that had concern with this elevation. So, 7 public location?
8 he raised his pads additionally to provide this 8 A. I was able to accx,ss it.
9 protection. 9 Q. And how did you do that?
]0 And he also indicated that he had a conversation 10 A. I asked the City for pictures and si�nply looked
11 with an individual f�rom SEH that provided him infonnation. I 1 at those pictures and went to thaC site and shot lhat
12 fIe didn't know where the infonnation caine from. At lhe 12 elevation. Pm referring to the highest known watcr
13 time, he didn't know where the information came froin, but 13 level.
14 this person froin SEx had a number he could use. l4 Q. And you would have been rclying on pictures that
15 Q. And the --his discussion with you about the line 15 were then roughly a year old'?
16 of vegetation,the tenn "aquatic vegetation," is that part 16 A. These pictures were taken the day of or the day
17 of the phrase he was using with you? 17 after the flood.
18 A. I don't recall if it was or wasn't at that 18 Q. And your observation of the picture itself was
19 initial phone conversation. 19 how long after the flood?
20 Q. Is there some role to be played by the line of-- 20 A. The flood occurred in 2003,we received the
21 the highest level of aquatic vegetation on the land? Is 21 pictures in 2006, threc years.
22 there soine role that plays in determining high water 22 Q. And you were perfonning that function as a
23 levels? 23 consultant to the City, correct?
24 A. Not for calculating a 100-year high water level, 24 A. Correct.
25 no. 25 Q. Because it wanted to make a detennination for its
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 93 - Page 96
� ADAM NAFS1'AD CondenseIt`�` llepo-Squish
Page 97 Page 99
1 citizens and the lands embraced within its boundaries 1 opinion.
2 about how to manage the building of hoines and other 2 Q. Hadn't the City already done thaY?
3 structures for the area,correct'? 3 A. Yes, to some degree with the 2004 flood study
4 A. I determined that elevation because I nceded it 4 report.
5 to review and make recoirunendations for approval or denial 5 Q. So, the City had performed that function,albeit,
6 of lot surveys. 6 from your view, in a flawed manner, correct?
7 Q. Of what? 7 A. Can you repeat thaC?
8 A. Ot lot surveys. 8 Q. The City had already established the 100-year
9 Q. Did you need it For any other purpose, for 9 high water leveL Have I used the right tc;nn?
l0 instance, for your overall advice to the City about its ]0 A Correct.
1 l ovcrarching drainage plans? 1 I Q. But they got an inc;orrect resulY?
l2 A. Anothcr helpful use of that information was for 12 tvtx.KtiBousxEx: Object to the form of
13 further calibration of our flood study model. 13 the question as to the time we're talking about. Are you
14 Q. My sense is, the City had a very strong interest 14 talking about at the time the development plans were
15 in figuring out high water levels as a inunicipal function 15 submitted or at the tiine the seri report was subinitted?
16 for itself, eorrect? This was important data that it had 16 BY Ntx. tcETTEa[ti�:
�� ]7 in order to inanage its affairs,correct? 17 Q. Which caine first'?
� 18 A. This was infonnation that engineering and the 18 A. I believe the rc;port was subinitted prior to the
19 building department very much stressed to�he City that 19 Prairie Run plat, I believe.
20 they needed to determine if an elevation of building was 20 Q. And was the ]00-year tlood level properly
21 correct or not. 21 calculated at all with respect to that report?
22 Q. And then, follow me this way: Compare and 22 A. The model of that report dcesn't inciude
23 contrast when an individual, say,a developer, is facing 23 infonnation that one could use as the 100-year high water
24 the question oC a high water mark, it isn't the case, is 24 level of the wetland that abuts Prairie]Zun.
25 it, that each and every developer who undertakes to 25 Q. Was it used for that purpose, though, by the I
Page 98 Page ]00
1 develop a piece of property within a municipal boundary 1 City? �i
2 should, on an ad hoc basis, undertake the task of 2 A. I don't know. I
3 establishing high water levels for a inunicipality, 3 Q. Easy for someone to conclude that it was an
4 correct? 4 accurate representation of lhat measure, though,correct'?
5 A. [ would disagree. If the plat abuts a water 5 A. I don't understand,I'm sorry.
6 featurc, 1 believe it's an engineering role to determinq 6 Q. Well, if this calculation had been perfonned by
7 if it hasn't been,what that elevation is. No,I do not 7 the City's enginc�;rs and put in the building and it had
8 agree it's the City who dces these tasks. 8 100-year high watc;r nuinbers in front of it, it appears to
9 Q. So, in this case, you would expect it-- from 9 be something folks coutd rely on?
10 your view,you would expect the developer to actually 10 A. Yes.
11 undertake an investigation and look for photographs of the 11 Q. And in that setting,you wouldn't expect an
12 2003 flood event, correct`? 12 ensuing developer to undertake an investigation to
13 A. I would expect the developer to establish a 13 establish the --either the 100-year high level mark or
14 100-year high water level of the water feature. f�ow 14 even just the best known high water mark,given that the
15 that's done, there's several inethods in which one could 15 City already apparently had done that,correct'?
16 come to -- to come up with a water level that's acceptable 16 A. If the developer asks for infonnation such as
17 to people. 17 that and the City had it, I would expect -- and was
18 Q. And the one you chose was to use the photographs, 18 coinfortable with the number, I would expect the City to
19 correct? 19 share that.
20 A. That's the method I chose to use to find the 20 Q. Is that what happened here'?
21 highest known water elevation,not to calculate the 21 A. It's my understanding that a plan was subinitted
22 100-year high water level. 22 and no feedback was received. The developer received no
23 Q. How many ways are there to establish the 100-year 23 feedback indicating that it was incorrect.
24 water level? 24 Q. And after that plan had been subinitted, it did go
25 A. The most common would be inodeling software,my 25 through an examination proc;ess by the City and/or its
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 97 - Page 100
� ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseItT"' Depo-Squish
Page 101 Page 103
I agenls, correcY? 1 A. Right.
2 A. I do not have documentation that it was reviewed 2 Q. And the job of thou;folks would be to look at it
3 by engineering agents. I have a plan report that shows it 3 and if there's something that is missing or incorrcct,
4 was reviewed by a planner, but I don't have any documents 4 they wiil alert the applicant, correct'?
5 that shows it was reviewed by -- 5 A. Correct.
6 Q. But in the nonnal course of things,the process 6 Q. And that happens all the time?
7 that is followed is that the developer subinits its 7 A. Correct.
8 proposal and all of its supporting infonnation, invests 8 Q. That's a standard feature of the procc;ss,
9 substantial suins to do that and provides the infonnation 9 correct?
10 that the City requires and then waits for the City to 10 A. Yes.
11 provide its response to whether or not this proposal meets 11 Q. And it didn't happen here,correct?
12 its requirements,correct? 12 A. Not to the best of my knowlecige.
13 A. That's correct. 13 Q. What did happen is the City gave its approval to
14 Q. And here,as you can tell from your work, having 14 the plat, correct?
I S coine on when you did, there were no criticisms by the 15 A. Correct.
16 City,correct? l6 Q. And you know from your experiencc; that the
17 A. None that I'in aware of,no. 17 developers then rely on that approval,corrcct?
18 Q. And fair to say in the nonnal course of things, 18 A. Correct.
]9 you would expect those criticisins to be raised so they 19 Q. Have you had any contact with Mr. I[edlund since
20 could be addressed before the development went forward, 20 this lawsuit was commcnc;c;d?
21 correct? 21 A. I talked to Mr. Hedlund bcfore the Christinas
22 A. Yes. 22 holiday.
23 Q. Back to Mr. Hedlund for a few moments. You 23 Q. And at all times when you've spoken with him,
24 described your first meeting with him. Did you meet with 24 he's been straightforward and you had no reason to doubt
25 him ever again,either telephonically or in person? 25 what he had to tell you?
Page 102 Page 104
1 A. Yeah, I want to say we had the initial phone 1 A. Correct.
2 conversation that started out in the surrnner of'O5, 2 �1R.KET-rra1N�;: That's all the
3 probably had our first meeting around November of'O5. I 3 questions I have.
4 had two, maybe three additional mcetings. 4
5 Q. In person or Over the phone? 5 CROSS-F.XAMINA"CION
6 A. In person and phone call conversations, like, in 6 sY 1vtx.YOcx:
7 the winter of-- the end of lhe 2005 year and winter and 7 Q. Sir, iny naine is Steve Yoch, I repre,sent T/C
8 spring of '06. 8 Hoines. I have a couple of questions for you. If you look
9 Q. Did he say or do anything during the course of 9 at F.xhibit 13, I just had a queslion about Block 2, Lot 7.
10 those ineetings that caused you to believe that he had made 10 That's the constructed home ii� the corner?
11 an error of any sort in his work'? 11 A. Did you say Lot 7, Block 2?
12 A. I don't believe that the 100-year high water 12 Q. Yes.
13 level of the wetland was calculated by Randy or Randy's 13 A. Okay.
14 firm. And that's be;cause I didn't have it on my plans,or 14 Q. I think you testified that was a constructed home
15 the water elevations of the northerly pond. To me, that's 15 where the opening is below the 100-year flood levei. Did
16 an error. 16 I misunderstand your testimony? Because you said, °I was
17 Q. Was the absence of a calculation,as you put it, 17 concerned about one lot that was currently constructed."
18 on the plans something that was conspicuous to those who 18 A. Yes,this home is of concern because as stated in
19 were looking at the plat during the approval process`? 19 the interrogatory, its lowest opening is less than --
20 A. I don't know who looked at the plans during the 20 Q. You're saying my question, I think.
21 approval process. That would be soinething that would be 21 A. Thc lowest opening is to be two feet above the
22 the first thing I would look for. 22 highest known water elevation,which would require a
23 C�. It's engineering staff, correct? 23 953.47.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. So, the difference here, you're saying, it's not
25 Q. Be it inside or outside? 25 the 100-year flood level, it's the highest known water
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 101 - Page 104
' ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt'�"` Depo-Squish
Page 105 Page 107
1 elevation. Because,obviously, it's significantly above 1 Q. And those are the result of errors in the plat or
2 the 100-year calculation,correcl, almost four feet? 2 errors in construction?
3 A. I'm sorry? 3 A. Bo[h.
4 Q. The opening here at 953 is almost four feet above 4 Q. Here I think you testified repeatedly,th�re
5 the 100-year flood elevation? 5 docsn't appear to be errors in construclion. That is, the
6 A. That's correct. 6 projcct was built consistent with the plans, correct?
7 Q. The highest known water, it's about a half a 7 A. I'm under that impression.
8 foot,given that two foot level difference; is that 8 Q. In this case, are there-- you had a chance to
9 correct? 9 look at the homes that have already been constructed,
10 A. That's correcL 10 correct?
1 I Q. When you detennine what's -- when you determine 11 A. Yes.
12 the extent to which there are properties here that are of 12 Q. Are you aware of any flooding that's occurred on
13 concern,did you analy��that in light of the ordinances 13 any of those homes? Has there been any flooding of the
14 that are currently in effect or the ordinances that were 14 hoines, construction theinselves, on the homes that have
15 in effect at the tune this plat was approved? 15 been constructed'? And I'in talking about Prairie Run,
16 A The lots on the exhibit, �xhibit 13,that are 16 obviously.
17 dashed and represents an elevation of concern, that 17 A. No, I'm not aware of constructed homes that have
18 concern is based on the ordinances in place at the time of 18 flooded.
19 plat approval. 19 Q. How about any other flooding'? Are you aware of
20 Q. For example, you understand there have bc�n some 20 any other 1looding that occurred in Prairie Run? I think
21 changes in the ordinances that havc happened since the 21 you mentioned one cul-de-sac tha�flooded; is that right?
22 plat was originally-- 22 A. That cul-de-sac on the left sidc of lhe
23 A. Correct. 23 developinent.
24 Q. And you analyred this based on the ordinance that 24 Q. West side would be near --
25 was in effect at that time,not the current or subsequent 25 A. That Lot 7, Block 2.
Page 106 Page 108
i ordinances? l (�. But that hoine itself did not flood in that
2 A. To so�ne degree both, but again, this exhibit is 2 situation?
3 referring to those in place at thc tune of the plat. 3 A. That home was not constructed at that time.
4 Q. How long have you been an engineer, sir? 4 Q. When I'm looking at Number 13, the way I
5 A. I began wark with Bolton and Menk in '99. I 5 understand the way the water tlows, does it move from the
6 graduated college in 2001 and passed my licensure test in 6 upper right, that's the northeast, to the southwest? Is
7 'O5. 7 that how the water is flowing here?
8 Q. Have you worked with other cities as an engineer? 8 A. Yes,the water--
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. I'm talking generally.
10 Q. What other cities? 10 A. Generally all the water on the Prairie Run plat
11 A. Several municipalities, the ones that come to 11 makes its way to the southwest corner of the plat.
12 mind are IIopkins, Montrose, Howard Lake. 12 Q. To Ditch Nuinber 9?
13 Q. Have you ever acted as an engineer for developers 13 A. Correct.
14 as opposed to cities? 14 (�. And to the north of iny client's--north of the
15 A. As a design engineer for a developer, yes. 15 development, that's the Albert Villas we've been talking
16 Q. And have you ever bec;n involved in a situation 16 about?
17 where a plat has been, for lack of a better word, 17 A. No.
18 retroactively adjusted after approval,as we have here, 18 Q. What's to the north?
19 for 100-year flood levels or other levels? 19 A. I think it's Hiring Meadows.
20 A. I have been involved with instances where pads 20 Q. Where is Albert Villa in relation to this
21 have been raised and lot lines adjusted. 21 develop�nent, Prairie Run'?
22 Q. After plat approval? 22 A. It would be to the south of Prairie Run,on the
23 A. (Witness moves head in an affinnative response.) 23 south side of csax is.
24 Q. How about infrastructure? 24 Q. Does water fiow on Albert Villa impact Prairie
25 A. To a very minor degree. 25 Run?
KIRBY A_ KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 105 - Page 108
� ADAM NAFSTAD CondcnseIt`�"` Depo-Squish
Page 109 Page 111
1 A. Say that again. 1 testimony that it should be the developer's responsibility
2 Q. Dces water Ilow or flooding or whatever in Albert 2 to engage in sort of the same broad hyclrological study
3 Villas iinpaet Prairie Run`? 3 that you did in 2006 to detennine the 100-year tlood
4 A. Not that I'm aware of, if I'm understanding your 4 level? I'm just trying to clarify your testimony earlier.
5 question correctly. 5 A. I do not believe the developer would have had to
6 Q. I think one of the criticisins you had of Albert 6 engage in such an expansive study to detennine this
7 Villa in your other report was that it is not --didn't -- 7 100-year water elevation.
8 wasn't water flow neu�ral,that it was passing water on l0 8 I believe the developer could have siinply
9 the neighboring properlies, correct? 9 contacted the county or reviewed pictures froin a flood
10 A. No, it dcesn'l pass water onto neighboring 10 that just occurred or received information from the City
I 1 properties outside of its boundaries, if you will. It l l or sitnplify the calculations required to come up with this
12 dcesn't pass water through its boundaries. 12 100-year high water level necessary for this particular
13 Q. So,you're saying that Albert Villa is water 13 wetland He wouldn't have had to do a stucly of the entire
14 neutral, the same amount of water coming in is the same 14 ditch.
15 amount of water coming out? 15 Q. So, for you, the standard of care would not have
16 A. I believe that Albert Villas dces mcet their 16 required a hydrological study of the rype that you did in
17 runoff requirements,yes. 17 2006; is that correcY?
18 Q. Let's back up and just keep that. Dces that have 18 A. I don't believe such a study would have hcen
19 any bearing or impact on Prairie Run? 19 required to detennine that 100-year high water elevation.
20 A. Albert Villas? 20 Q. Have you seen thc developinent agreement that the
21 Q. Correct. 21 developer Gold Key signed with the City of Alhertville?
22 A. No. 22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. So, what I'm trying to understand is Albert 23 Q. Did that docuinent lo the City in that agrcxinent
24 Villas' relationship to Prairie Run. It seems to me what 24 instruct the devcloper how to detennine the high water
25 happened is when you're having problems with Albert Villas 25 mark and the flood level?
Pagc 110 Page 112
1 and its f7ooding, its problems caused a general review 1 A. That development agrec;ment requires that the plat
2 that led to the study that ultimately became the 2004 2 meet the requirements of the city code.
3 study; is that correct'? 3 Q How about the high water aquatic -- thcre's an
a A. In the process of preparing the 2006 flood study, a aquatic -- what's the right tenn?
5 Bolton and Menk was asked to determine the high water 5 A. Line of aquatic vegetation.
6 level in Prairie Run as well. That's how I got it. 6 Q. Thank you. How dces the provisions regarding the
7 Q. They're not interrelated other than they were 7 aquatic vegetation line bear in that process? Isn't that
8 done essentially as part of the same project? 8 the City giving the developer-- in the absence of�a
9 A. The same project? 9 study,which al least as the developer knew there wasn't a
10 Q. The same project being to determine the high 10 study,at least that's the fact the developer set forth.
11 water level? 11 If they don't have that 2004 study and the City
12 A. The project being 2006 flood study, correct. 12 tells them to look at that aquatic vegetation line, isn't
13 Q. But from a calculation standpoint, there's no 13 that the City instructing them what to do? You said the
14 interrelationship with them other than the fact that 14 City defines what should be done. Isn't it appropriate
15 they're part of the same watershed? 15 that if you're the engit7eer that tells you to do that'?
16 A. Correct. 16 A. That would be if you didn't have the data
17 Q. And when you determine that 100-year flood level, 17 required, sufficient data to determine the 100-year high
ts the water levels, you looked at a large number of �g water level. This case,that data is available, it's a
19 properties. That is, more than simply Albert Villa and 19 ca11 to the county.
2o Prairie Run. You looked at 23,000 acres; is that right? 2o Q. The 2004 study?
21 A. Sure, the watershed. 21 A. Or the 2004 study.
22 Q. The entire watershed? 22 Q. Which,again,the developer said didn't have it.
' 23 A. (Witness moves head in an affirmative response.) 23 The photos you talked about, Mr. Sutherland's photos from
24 Q. In this case, the Prairie Run development is some 24 the City, which apparently you were the first person to
25 30-odd acres that we`re talking about. Is it your 25 get, correct?
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 109 - Page 112
� ADAIVI NAFS1'AD CondenseI�'" �c�so-Sq�ish
Page 1 l3 Pagc 115
1 A. I don't believe I was the first person, no. 1 I'm looking at7
2 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Sutherland provided those 2 A. Conect.
3 to the developer? 3 Q. And are all the pictures in this report flooding
4 A. I do not know if he provided those to the 4 at Albert Villa?
5 developer. 5 A. No.
6 Q. We talked about the 2004 study,we talked about 6 Q. There's a photo on the front page and there's
7 the photos. The county report,you're saying the 7 three photos on the back Are they somcwhere else?
8 developer should have gone lo the county? What are you 8 A. Do you have a photo that's titicd, "5337 Kahler
9 talking about with the county? 9 Drive"?
10 A. The eounty had rec;c;ntly installed a new box ]0 Q. There's a Bates stamp in the lower right-hand
11 culvert under Cs.e.x �s. [x;signing that box culveri would I 1 corner.
12 have required the designer to detennine a 100-year high 12 A. B&M0049.
13 water level for the wetland north of this culvert,the 13 (�. A11 right.
14 area that's fc�ding this culvert. And that's something 14 A. That photo is taken just north of the Prairie Run
15 the county has on record. 15 developinent. If you wcrc to look at this exhibit
16 Q. And you were saying that should have been used, 16 (indicating), Exhibit 13,I belicve that home would bc the
17 then,as opposed to aquatic vegetation line that's 17 lot on thc -- north of Prairie Run on the very west side
18 provided for-- 18 of the page, it has an eleva�ion circled of 953.40. Do
19 A. That should have definitely bcen used before an 19 you see that?
20 aquatic line of vegetation was used. 20 Q. Yeah, on the wetland?
21 Q. Now, your calculation differs froin even that 21 A. Correct. [ t>elieve it's that lot.
22 county calculation,do you agree? 22 Q. And I think it was your testimony that the--
23 A. Yes. 23 despite the elevation probleins in the Albert Villa
24 Q. A couple feet different. That was 951 and-- 24 developinent, the City was not pulling a certificate of
25 A. Yeah,just under a couple feet 25 occupancy, is that right, to your understanding?
Page 114 Page 116
1 Q. So, here,even in the standard of care,you're 1 A. Can you say that again?
2 within two faet difference, correct? 2 Q. Despite the probleins on the levels of the
3 A. There can be,using the best source of 3 properiy in Albert Villa, the City,to your understanding,
4 infonnation. 4 was not pulling certificate of occupaneies; is that right?
5 Q. Now, sir,when you talked about some of the 5 A. I don't know if I understand pulling certificate.
6 favorites -- what you called your favorite sources that 6 Meaning, taking a CO away from somebody?
7 you rely upon in addition to the city codes. Do you 7 Q. Correct.
8 recall that testimony? 8 A. That was done in no instance that I'�n aware of.
9 A. 1 do. 9 Q. How about preventing any future construction? Is
lU Q. Can you tell ine what you would view as some of 10 there any lots that were unbuilt when --
11 the dispositives or treaties or favorites you're talking 11 A. They were all built.
12 about when you mention that? 12 Q. And here you've got existing homes with obviously
13 A. An example for me would be the Penn State 13 severe flooding problems that is in Albert Villa,correct?
14 Standards for municipal waste water sewers or storm sewers 14 A. Correct.
IS or munieipal water systcins,just to give you an example of 15 Q. The contrast in Prairie Run,you've got existing
16 the technical papers that are available. 16 homes that never actually flooded7
17 Q. Do you know, sir, how much the 2006 study you 17 A. We have homes that are not in compliance with
18 did,how inuch you charged the Ciry for that? You being 18 code.
19 Bolton and Menk I know it didn't go into your pocket. 19 Q. But did not llood?
20 A. Without reviewing invoices, I would say somewhere 20 A. Correct.
21 along the lines of$60,000. 21 Q. Does it trouble you that there's an inconsistency
22 Q. When you talked about the defects and flaws that 22 in treatinent of developers'? One case you have a situation
23 existed in the Albert Villa plat, do you recall that? 23 where people aren't even being flooded and COs are not
24 There was the flooding. And, in fact,these photos, it's 24 issuing. Where in another situation, you have homes that
25 Exhibit Number 3. I gather that's a flood in Albert Villa 25 are actually flooding and the City is not imposing any
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 113 - Page 116
� � ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`„ Depo-Squish
Pagc 117 Page 119
1 penatties on the development. ► eRoss-�;�:�[���i�to�
2 A. I believe the City is going after or trying to 2 sY Mii.tvtAxxEaT:
3 impose a penalty on the developer oF that Albert Villas. 3 Q. My name is John Markert and I repre�;nt SNx. And
4 And I believe the City would have stopped issuing permits, 4 I apologize for the voice,but I'in going to have to suffer
5 teinp or final cOs, in Albert Villas should they had this 5 through it, I guess. I have some basic questions
6 infonnation bc;fore all the lots were built on. 6 regarding how the 100-ycar high water level is
7 Q. C;ertainly the situation at Albert Villa is more 7 detennined.
8 egregious lhan anything that's occurred on Prairie Run? 8 And my question is,are there standard factors
9 A. I'm sorry? 9 that every enginc�r would use whcn they're calculating a
10 Q. The si�uation in the Albert Villa in tenns of the 10 100-year high water level?
11 flooding is far worse than any flooding that's occurred in 11 A. Just standard or typical methods engineers use to
12 Prairie Run? 12 coine up with those factors.
13 A. Correct. 13 Q. You say there's standard methods. I Iow many
14 Q. In Albert Villa, you've got basements being under 14 standard methods can be ux;d by an engin�;r?
15 water? 15 A. I don't know.
16 A. Correct. 16 (�. But there are different methods that can be used
17 Q. Where in Yrairie Run,there's no flooding lhat's l7 by an engineer,two different engincc;rs'?
18 flooded a single home at this point,correct? 18 A. Correct.
19 A. At this point,no. 19 Q. And what standard method did you use to coine up
20 Q. Homes that, in fact, sit empty,no certificate of 20 with the 100-year high watc;r level?
21 occupancy? 21 A. This is a question I would defer to our
22 A. Correct. 22 hydrologist, but we detennine the high water level using
23 Q. And just back to my question. Do you find it 23 inodeling software.
24 troubling in the one hand you've got a developinent where 24 Q. And what type of-- specifically what type of
25 the basements are actually tlooding and there's no 25 modeling software did you ux?
Page ]]8 Page 120
1 withdraw of certificate of oecupancy or pennits and the 1 A. I believe we used a software called HydrocAD.
2 other one, you've got essentially dry basements and Cos 2 Q. Is HydrocAD a brand naine or is that a generic
3 aren't issued`I 3 na�ne used for the software?
4 A. I don't set;the inconsistency because here again, 4 A. I believe it's a brand naine. �
5 this is prior to residents moving into these homes. This 5 Q. Do you know if therc are other brands of software '
6 is the only time where the City can protect these 6 that are available Cor engin�;rs to use for modeling'? III
7 residents, protect them against this (looding. Once 7 A. Yes, there are other brands. �
8 they're in,other than a solution, requiring a resident to 8 Q. Do you know how inany other brands'? ''
9 raise a home or inove a baseinent, there's no fix. 9 A. No, I do not.
]0 Q. And again, flooding that has never occurred 10 Q. So, Bolton and Menk used HydrocAD. [f s�lt had
11 despite the 2003 event,correct? ]1 used a different method, is it possible t�hat s�H would
12 A. Correct. However, I still can't issue or 12 come up with a differcnt 100-year high watc;r level?
13 recominend issuing soinething that's not in coinpliance with 13 A. Yes.
14 the code, that would require a variance. 14 Q. And if, say, Hedlund Engineering used yet another
15 Q. And just one thing I want to be clear on, sir, 15 method, could they have come up with a different 100-year
16 the City has not commissioned you to examine what 16 high water level?
17 solutions could be implemen�ed, short of tearing out all 17 A. Yes.
18 the infrastructure and raising all the homes in Prairie 18 Q. Now, what factors do enginc�rs typically use when
19 Run, correct? 19 they're calculating the highest known water mark'?
20 A. Correct. 20 A. Either evidence iu the field left behind from a
21 N1x.YOCx: That's all I have, sir. 21 flooding occurrence, such as a mark on a-- a water mark
22 Thanks. 22 on a tree, stain line on a hoine, stain line on a box
23 23 culvert, pictures.
24 24 Q. And in this instance, for Bolton and Menk's
25 25 calculation of the highest known water mark,you were
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 117 - Page 120
� ADAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt'�` Depo-Squish
Page 121 Page 123
1 provided photographs with the flooding that occurred? 1 correlation betw�n the two?
2 A_ Correct. 2 A. If a highest known water elevation, if that
3 Q. How were you made aware that these photographs 3 highest water elevation is noC known, the 100-year high
4 existed? 4 water elevation is accepted as a design standard, industry
5 A. Some time ago we had asked the City at a meeting, 5 standard, code requireinent for detennining what the high
6 kind of a kickoff ineeting, if you will, for services for 6 water level is. If there's a highest known or if there's
7 review of the flooding conditions, we asked for 7 both,the most restrictive or the highest would govern.
8 information. We did not receive it at that time, but at a 8 MR. KETTERI�G: Noah's tlood, was that
9 later date, I believe we were instructed by the city 9 the all-timer?
t0 attorney to question the building official to make sure he 10 Tt3E w1�Ess: Yeah.
11 didn't have this information. And at that time we I 1 aY Ntx.ivtAxKEu r:
12 rec;c;ived it. 12 Q. So, what ainount of rain --I guess, is there a
13 Q. So, after your initial request, you were not 13 standard amount of rain that triggers a 100-year rain
14 provided with the photos or infortnation, but you had to do 14 event in Albertville?
IS so�ne digging in order to get this infonnation; is that 15 �1. The 100-year high wat�;r level is a 100-year �
16 right? 16 design event. That would be a 5.8 inch, 5.9 inch rain I
17 A. I don't belicve the building official,the 17 event over a 24-hour period of time. ''
18 individual who had the pictures was present at our initial 18 Q. Has that 5.9 inch number been used for years and
19 meeting. 19 years by engineers or has that number changed as climate
20 Q. So, for an engineer such as SEx or Hedlund, if 20 changes have occurred?
21 they were not privy to the information ihat the City had 21 A. I believe, and I defer to�ny hydrologist, the
22 these photographs,they probably wouldn'l have known they 22 number has changed over the years. And it is different
23 existed? 23 for geographic regions and locations in the state.
24 A. SEx would know the photographs existed. 24 Q. Are you aware of the nuinber changing recc;ntly in
25 Q. How would sEx know the photographs existed? 25 Minnesota?
Page 122 Page 124
1 A. To iny understanding, that they were with the t A. I believe in Albertville the nwnber used to be
2 building official on the day he took the pictures. 2 5.8 and the most current nwnber is 5.9. That's my belief.
3 Q. How do you know this infornlation? 3 Q. Now, isn't it possible that there could be a rain
4 A. In conversation with the building official. 4 event in lhe very near futw-e tbat will raise the highest
5 Q. And who from SEIi was with the building official? 5 known water elevation in the city of Albertville'?
6 A. I don't know, I'd be speculating. I don't know. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is there any direct correlation between the 7 Q. So, if that dces occur,what will tbe City do as
8 100-year high water level and the highest known water 8 f'ar as developments that l�ave had plats approved,but with
9 inark? 9 the lower highest known water inark?
10 A. No,no direct. To me, that highest known can be 10 A. Under the requirc,�neut of the city code is to
11 both. I've seen it in instances where it's higher and I 1 provide aud impleinent emergency overflows within
12 lOwer than that 100-year CalCulated elevation. 12 developments. And that's what provides protection against
13 Q. So, if we have -- 1n this Case,we have a known 13 the extreine event,the event being greater than the
14 high water mark that's approximately a foot and 14 100-year stonn event.
15 three-quarters higher than the 100-year high water level; 15 Q. Aren't there instances wl�ere the e�nergency
16 is that right? 16 overflows don't handle tbe ainount of rain that occars and
17 A. Yep. 17 subsequently you now have a new highest known watc,�r levcl?
18 Q. So, is the highest known water elevation the 18 A. You'll have a new highest known water level,but
19 500-foot high water mark or 500-year high water mark or a 19 with emergency overtlow devices, the homes will have
20 thousand-year high water mark? 20 protection against flooding.
21 A. 1 don't know. 21 Q. If you calculated and designed your emergency
22 Q. I guess I'm confused,just as a layperson,how 22 overflows with the lower highest known water level and
' 23 you can have a number that's considered the 100-year high 23 suddenly a rain event occurs and we have a new highest
24 water mark and then a number that is higher than that as 24 known wa[er level, isn't that earlier design no longer
25 the highest known water inark and that there be no 25 going to be adequate under the city code?
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 121 - Page 124
' ' t�iDAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`�` Dcpo-Squish
Page 125 Page 127
1 A. If your emergency overflow elevation is less than 1 Q. Okay. And it's one of chese tY�nx;niunbe,�red
2 that of the current highest known water level, if you 2 clauses just above Nu�nber 5'?
3 will, it will also provide protection if that highest 3 A. Yeah,Nwnber 2. [n fact,there's a table, I
4 known water level rises. 4 believe. The table on the very top of that page,that
5 Q. But at some point,the highest known water level 5 refers to the volume of the storage.
6 could overflow even the emergency backup systeins that have 6 It's�ny understanding tl�at the 2004 flood study
7 been designed in existing plats and developments? 7 report used a storage voliune in that large wetland of
8 A. At some point, yes, the emergency overflow device 8 approximately 110 acre-feet. And in the 2006 flood study,
9 inay not have the capacity for the ainount of water that's 9 Bolton and Menk believes that a more accurate volunie would
10 going through it or over the Lop of it or what have you. 10 be 45,approxi�natcly 46 acre-foet of volwne in that
11 Q. So, is one solution for Prairie Run possible is ]1 wetland.
12 for them to come up wilh an einergency overflow system that 12 Q. So,your proble�n was with how sEH calculated the
13 could handle the amount of water that's anticipated in a 13 storage volwl�e of the wetland;is that right?
14 100-year eVent? 14 A. Again, this is a technical question that I refer
15 A. No, that's not a solution. I S to the hydrologist Yar this. The 2006 study and the 2004
16 Q. And why noY? 16 study do have soine dissimilar areas, in that,culvert
l7 A. Our big prOblem is controlling runoff,the rate 17 sizes that were used for modeling are different I don't
18 of runoff. And an overflow wouldn't do that. 18 know why. That's tl�e f;rst one that comes to mind.
19 Q. SO,what-- what's the purpose of the emergenCy 19 I think this volmne is different and inaybe soine
20 overffow, then, if it's not to control the rate of runoff? 20 of the runoff ccefficients are different. Tl�ose are the
21 A. The einergency overflow is to provide additional 21 iteu�s tbat come co my mind as far as the differences of
22 flooding protection for homes in evcnts greater than a 22 tl�e models,as well as the software.
23 100-year designed stonn event. 23 Q. So,wben an engineer is looking at a wetland and
24 Q. So,as far as Prairie Run is designed now, it 24 he's attempting to calculate the storage volume of that
25 dces not acCount for that? 25 wetland, is there a standard set of factors that are
Page 126 Page 128
1 A. The ponds do not account for a 100-year designed 1 considered in order to calculate the storage volume of the
2 stonn event, correct. 2 wetland?
3 Q. And if the ponds were dug, say, 15, 20 fcet 3 A. Maybe not factors, but to calculate the storage
4 deeper, what would that do? 4 voluine, one needs contours or elevations of the wetland. ',
5 A. Nothing. 5 The�nore accurate volumc is going to be generated by the
6 Q. Why not'? 6 inost accurate topo�raphic survey of the wetland. �i
7 A. That would just-- that would be what is referred 7 Q. So, dces someone physically go out in the middle �
8 to as dead storage, it would just be water. The live 8 of the wetland with a boat and ineasure the depth of the I
9 storage you're looking for in a rain event is that water 9 wetland or how dces that go about'? �
10 that's from the nonnal water level to the high water 10 A. Not all wetlands are under water. In fact, this
I 1 level. Deepening the ponds is not changing the nonnal I 1 wetland can be traversed by foot. However, the
12 water level, it's just digging the ponds deeper, with more 12 infonnation that Bolton and Menk used to detennine this
13 dead water, if you will,dead storage. 13 storage was with the use of aerial contours or two-foot
14 Q. And what specifically do you See SEH did wrong in 14 contours.
IS its 2004 flood study, if anything? 15 And I believe the infonnation that was used in
16 A. Can I refer to a previous exhibit? 16 the SE}[report was based on infonnation submitted by the
17 Q. Certainly. 17 developer's engineer,which was based on USGS contours at
18 A. It is Exhibit Number 2. It's at B&M0011 page 18 a ten-foot interval.
19 of Exhibit 2. 19 Q. So, SEx relied on infonnation from another
20 Q. Okay. 20 licensed engineer who had done calculations on the storage
21 A. It's my understanding that the SE[�flood study 21 voluine of that wetland?
22 report used the storage volume that was used by the 22 A. That's my understanding.
23 developing engin�r for the large wetland within the 23 Q. Is it wmmon for one engineer to undertake a
24 Albert Villas developinent. This is just above 24 complete review of the work of another licensed enginecr'?
25 Paragraph 5, Number 2, Page B&M0011. 25 A. Yes.
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 125 - Page 128
�
J ' t'�DAM NAFSTAD CondenseIt`�"' Depo-Squish
Page l29 Page 131
1 Q. So, if you're provided infonnation from an 1 Q. Who exactly at the county holds that
2 engineer,you're going to redo all the work and 2 infonnation? Who would you go to to get that inforination'?
3 calculations done by that enginec;r before you use it? 3 A. The public works departinent.
4 A. No, I think there's definitely a difference 4 Q. And you just ask them for the ]00-year level for
5 between a design and a review. A design,a lot of the 5 what, for a particular pond or what would you ask thein
6 research is completed and all the field data has been 6 for?
7 collected. And a review, there's things that one can do 7 A. A particular box culvert, culvert structure,
8 to spot check or to review the work. 8 bridge.
9 Q. And do you know what spot checks SEH would have 9 (�. And if they tcll you they don't have a 100-year
10 done or may have done wl�en it calculated the storage 10 elevation for that, then what, you find out the 100-ycar
11 volwne of this wetland? 11 number a different way?
12 A. No, I do not. ]2 A. Then you calculate it.
13 Q. Bolton and Menk was paid an additional amount 13 Q. Highest known surface water level is different
14 beyond its city engineer fees in order to conduct a 2006 14 than ordinary high water level?
l5 flood study; is that right? 15 A. Yes.
]6 A. Bolton and Menk was coinpensated for the flood 16 Q. Could you cxplain to me how?
17 study. I don't know what's meant by general fc�s. 17 A An ordinary high water level is typically
18 Q. My question is, was this a separate project from 18 established and sct by the �*r[t. xighest known water level
19 Bolton and Menk's typical city engincer duties? 19 is what it is, highest known water level.
20 A. Yes, it was. 20 Q. Typically highest known water level, if there is
21 Q. And 1 think you testified earlier that the scope 21 one, it would be higher than the ordinary high water
22 of an engineer's duty is dictated by what the client has 22 level?
23 requested; is that right? In other words, if the City of 23 A. Yes.
24 Albertville didn't say, "Bolton and Menk,pleasf;do a 2006 24 Q. So, if an ordinancc; says no structure except
25 flood study," you guys would not have just voluntcered to 25 docks and retaining walls shall be placed at an elevation
Page 130 Page 132
1 do that? 1 sueh that the Iowest floor, including bascinent tloor, is
2 A. I think previously I testified that the standard 2 less than two fec;t above the highest known surface water
3 of care is dictated by the client, sure. 3 level or ordinary high water level or less than one foot
4 (�. And is it fair to say that sEx and Bolton and 4 above the 100-year flood level, if detennined, which of
5 Menk are competitors for municipality work'? 5 those numbers would a person use in order to comply with
6 A. Competitors,we do work together as we1L 6 that?
7 tvta.�AxtcExT: �have no further 7 A. The most restrictive.
8 questions. 8 Q. So, if lhe highest known water level is higher
9 vts.titA1��: �have a couple quick 9 than the ordinary water level and higher than the 100-year
10 questions. 10 level, �hat's the number Chat should be used?
ll ll A. Yes.
12 aE�[[tr�:cT F.xa,lvtitv.aTtON 12 Q. And if the highest known surfac;e water level
13 BY MS. MATT: 13 isn't known at the time you're placing the structure, then
14 Q. Mr. Nafstad, is Prairie Run a public waters 14 you would use the next inost restrictive'?
15 regulated by Article 4900, the shore land overlay 15 A. Correct.
16 district? 16 Q. Do you have an exhibit similar Co�xhibit 13 that
17 A. No,they are not. 17 you have prepared that's based on the ordinances that are
18 Q. In Prairie Run are there any flood plain 18 in effect now?
19 regulations applicable to that site? 19 A. An exhibit similar to this was created some ti�ne
20 A. No FEMA flood plain regulations. 20 ago and I helieve it was based on the ordinancc;s that were
21 Q. You said that the county--that a quick call to 21 believed to be in place at the tiine of plat. However, in
22 the county should have unearthed this 100-year number that 22 the past few months, I've become more aware of the
� 23 the county came up with? 23 ordinances in place at this time.
24 A. That was one means an individual could have 24 Q. And you created Exhibit 13 based on what you
25 received a 100-year high water level, yeah. 25 believe was in place at the time of the plat?
KIRBY A. KETTNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 129 - Page 132
� 1 A`DAM NAFSTAD Condenselt`�'' Depo-Squish
Page 133 ��;,ge��s
1 ST.ATF?OF;vfLNNESOT.A: )
1 A. That ls COrreCt. �ys
2 COL'N1Y OF WR[GHT: )
2 MS. MATT: I don't have any further
3
3 C]UeSt1011S. Be it known that I took the deposi[ion of ADAM
4 NAf�STAD,on the 3rd day of January,2007,at'.Ninnea�lis,
4 MR. KETTF,RING: Nothing here. M���ca;
s
5 MR. KUB�USHf-K: We��1 rCilCi fllld Slgll. That[was then and Cherc a Not�vy Public in
6 and for thc County of Wright,State of Mirmewta,and
6 ��OpOSlt101] COIICIUC�eC1 flt 1:2,5 p111.� that by virtue[hereof,[was duly authorized to
7 admimster an oa[h;
�
R That the witness before testifying was by me
g first duly sworn[o testify the whole truth and ncrthing
9 but the huth relative to said cause;
9
10 That the tesrimony of said witness was
1 n recorded in Stenotype by myself and transcribed into
I 1 typewriting under my direction,and that the deposition
1 1 is a[rue record of the testimony given by the witcess
12 to the bcst of my ability;
�2
13 That thc cost of the original transcript has
]3 been charged to the party noticing the deposition,
14 unless othenvise agreed upon by Caunsel,ar�d the copies
j Q have been made available to all parties at thc same
15 wst,unless otherwise agreed ttpon by Counsel;
15 1 G That[am no[rela[ed to any of the parties
]( hereto nor i�terested in the outcomc of the action;
17
]� Tha[the reading and signing of the deposition
18 by the witness was executed as evidenced by the
]g precedinB P�e;
19
19 Tha[Notice of Filing was waived.
�0
20 W[7NESS MY HAND.AND SEAL fhis the 6th day of �
�1 January,2007.
21 2�
22 �3 �'�i Q.Z('�('.�i�Ct�K.•K„�i�\..
23 Marcia L.Evenson
�4 Court RepoRer
24 25
25 MARCIA L EVENSON
Pa e 134 � ''�"���'
(Upon completion,the Original of this Reading and Signing g � ,(�k` MY COMh91SS!ON EXPIRES 1•31-2Q10
� Certificate should bc forwarded to Attorney Cmdi Spence
2 Man.)
3 ADAM NAFSTAD
[,ADAM NAFSTAD,do hereby certify that I have
� read the foregoing transcript of my Deposition and believe
the same to be We and correct(or,except as follows,
$ noting the page and the line number of the char�ge or
� addition desired and the reason why):
� Page Line Chaoge or Addition Reason
H
9
1�
11
IZ
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 --------------------------------------------------
24 Dated this__ day of___ ___ ,2007.
25 (M�E�
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (952) 922-1955 Page 133 - Page 135