2006-12-28 Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's Interr.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Declaratory Judgment/Breach of Contract
Gold Key Development, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation,
Court File No. CV-06-2998
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS
TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORIES
City of Albertville,
Defendant.
TO: PLAINTIFF, ABOVE-NAMED AND ITS ATTORNEY, CINDI S. MATT, JOHNSON,
LARSON, PETERSON & MATT, P.A., 908 COMMERCIAL DRIVE, BUFFALO,
MINNESOTA 55313,
Defendant, for its Answers to Plaintiff s Interrogatories, states as follows:
1. Identify all persons who provided information or assistance with the preparation
of your answers to these Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Michael Couri, City Attorney
Paul D. Reuvers and Jason J. Kuboushek, Attorneys
for the
City
Adam Nafstad, Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Jim Schulz, SEH
Dan Boxrud, SEH
Bob Moberg, formerly with SEH
2. Identify any and all persons who are known to you to have personal knowledge of
any of the facts, claims and/or defenses raised or at issue in this lawsuit. For each such person,
provide a general description of the knowledge held.
ANSWER:
Larry Kruse
Albertville City Administrator
Mr. Kruse is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over the issuance of
permits for the Prairie Run subdivision.
Mayor Don Peterson
Mayor Peterson is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over the issuance of
permits for the Prairie Run subdivision.
Councilmember John Vetsch
Councilmember John Vetsch is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over the
issuance of permits for the Prairie Run subdivision. .
Councilmember LeRoy Berning
Councilmember LeRoy Berning is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over
the issuance of permits for the Prairie Run subdivision.
Councilmember Tom Fay
Councilmember Tom Fay is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over the
issuance of permits for the Prairie Run subdivision.
Councilmember Ron Klecker
Councilmember Ron Klecker is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over the
issuance of permits for the Prairie Run subdivision.
Jon Sutherland
City Building Inspector
Mr. Sutherland has knowledge regarding the request for certificates of
occupancies in the Prairie Run Subdivision.
Adam Nafstad
City Engineer
Mr. Nafstad is aware of the current lawsuit and has knowledge regarding the 100-
year flood elevations.
Mark Kasma
City Engineer
Mr. Kasma is aware of the current lawsuit and has knowledge regarding the 100-
year flood elevations.
2
Pete Carlson
Former City Engineer
Mr. Carlson was involved in the approval process of the Prairie Run Subdivision.
Todd Udvig
Former City Engineer
Mr. Udvig was involved in the approval process of the Prairie Run Subdivision.
Jim Schulz
Former City Engineer
Mr. Schulz was involved in the approval process of the Prairie Run Subdivision.
Robert Moberg
Former City Engineer
Mr. Moberg is aware ofthe current lawsuit and has knowledge regarding the
Prairie Run Subdivision.
Dan Boxrud
Former City Engineer
Mr. Boxrud is aware of the ongoing lawsuit and dispute over the issuance of
permits for the Prairie Run subdivision.
Dean Johnson
Gold Key Development
It is believed Mr. Johnson has information regarding the development agreement
and the lawsuit.
Randy Hedlund
Hedlund Engineering
It is believed Mr. Hedlund has information regarding the platting of Prairie Run
Subdivision and the storm water plans.
Colleen Allen
Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District
It is believe Ms. Allen has knowledge of the Prairie Run Subdivision.
Laura Eldov
Svoboda Ecological Resoureces
3
It is believed Ms. Eldov has knowledge of Exhibit C of Plaintiff s Complaint.
John Brennan
It is believed Mr. Brennan has knowledge of Exhibit G of Plaintiff s Complaint.
Brian D. Walter, P.E
Director of Engineering
Hancock Concrete Products Company
It is believed Mr. Walter has knowledge of Exhibit G of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Discovery continues
3. Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial or
hearing ofthe above-referenced matter and for each such person, state:
a. Such person's educational background, place of employment and area of
expertise;
b. The subject matter on which said expert is expected to testify;
c. The substance of all facts and opinions to which each such expert is
expected to testify; and
d. A summary of his or her response for each such opinion.
State in detail the factual and legal basis for each of your affirmative defenses.
ANSWER:
The City has not made a determination yet who it will call at trial. The City will,
however, supplement this answer pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure
26.05.
The City also, objects to the last sentence of Interrogatory No.3 because it seeks a
legal conclusion.
4. Identify specifically each and every basis for your claim Developer is in default of
the Development Agreement.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 13F of the Developer's Agreement states:
Developer represents to the City that Said Plat complies with all City, county, state
and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision
4
ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. Developer agrees to
obtain all required federal, state and local permits. If the City determines that Said
Plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or
development work in the plat until Developer so complies. Upon the City's demand,
the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
Developer has violated the following City's subdivision ordinances in the following ways (the
cites below are to the ordinances as they were in effect at the time of final plat approval):
· Section A-600.4(g) in that the lowest proposed opening (window or door) as shown on
the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or as constructed on the following lots is less than two
feet above the highest known water level (951.47) for these lots: Lots Not Built Upon =
8,9, 10, 11, 17,21,23 and 24, all of Block 2.
Lots Built Upon = 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20, all of Block 2.
· Section A-600.4(g) in that the lowest proposed opening (window or door) as shown on
the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or as constructed on the following lots is less than two
feet above the 100-year flood level of 950.9, as determined by the 2006 County Ditch No.
9 Flood Study, for these lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8, 9 and 17, all of Block 2.
Lots Built Upon = 14, 15, 18 and 19. all of Block 2
· Section A-600.13( c)(1) in that the post development 100-year storm peak discharge
runoff rate exceeds the pre-development 100-year storm peak discharge runoff rate.
· Section A-700.6 in that the surface and underground drainage systems on the plat do not
adequately remove all natural drainage that accumulates on the developed property, nor
do they provide a permanent solution for the removal of drainage water.
· Section A-700.6 in that the plat discharges at more than one-half of the pre-development
rate of runoff.
Developer has violated the City's zoning ordinances in the following ways(the cites below are to
the ordinances as they were in effect at the time of final plat approval):
· Section 1000.9(d) in that the lowest floor as shown on the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or
as constructed is less than two feet above the highest known surface water level (951.47)
for adjacent ponds or wetlands for the following lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 24, all of Block 2.
Lot Built Upon = 7, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of Block 2.
· Section 1 000.9( d) in that the lowest floor as shown on the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or
as constructed is less than one foot above the 100-year flood level of950.9, as
determined by the 2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study, for adjacent ponds or wetlands
for the following lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8,9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, all of Block 2.
Lots Built Upon = 7 of Block 2.
· Section 5000.4 (a) in that the lowest floor as shown on the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or
as constructed is less than three feet above the 100-year flood elevation of950.9, as
determined by the 2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study, for the following lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,33 and 34, all of Block 2.
5
Lots Built Upon = 14, 15 and 16, all of Block 2.
5. Do you claim the 100-year flood elevation for the Property was known on July
16,2004? If yes, what was the 100-year flood elevation for the Property on July 16, 2004?
ANSWER:
Yes. Wright County was in possession of an estimated headwater elevation in 2000. Moreover,
information contained in Svoboda's June 30, 2004 report indicates the property was subjected to
"multiple extreme 'flash-floods'" in July and August of2002.
6. Identify specifically the basis for your claim that the Developer and its engineer
had an obligation to determine the 100-year flood elevation for the Property.
ANSWER:
Based upon the information possessed by Wright County and Svoboda, sufficient date on high
water levels was available to ascertain the 100-year flood level pursuant to the City's Ordinances
and pursuant to Paragraph 13(1) of the development agreement. Moreover, the Developer's
Engineer indicated he was aware of the 100 year flood elevations associated with ditch 9.
7. Identify specifically the basis for your claim that at the time the Development
Agreement was entered into, sufficient data on high water levels was available.
ANSWER:
See Answers to Interrogatories Numbers 5 & 6.
8.
Property.
Identify the date on which the 100-year flood elevation was first known for the
ANSWER:
Sufficient data to determine the 100-year flood elevation was available in 2000 and 2002. See
Answers to Interrogatories Numbers 5 & 6.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
BY~
C.:.k (ij:)~j01
&-'
SUb~~d and s~me
this day of. , 2006.
6
~~,~~)
Notary Public
Dated: R:)~B J b0
BRIDGET MA~IE MILLER I
NOT AAY PUBLIC. MINNESOTA
M( CommissIOn Expues Jan. 31. 2008 . \
.
IVERSON REUVERS
By
Paul D. Reuvers, #217700
Jason J. Kuboushek, #304037
Attorneys for Defendant
9321 Ensign Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55438
(952) 548-7200
Michael Couri
Attorney for Defendant
Couri & MacArthur Law Office
705 Central Avenue E.
P.O. Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
763-497-1930
Michael Couri
Attorney for Defendant
Couri & MacArthur Law Office
705 Central A venue E.
P.O. Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
763-497-1930
7
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Declaratory Judgment/Breach of Contract
Gold Key Development, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation,
Court File No. 86-CV -06-2998
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Albertville,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.,
Third Party Defendant.
T/C Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Court File No. 86-CV -06-4997
Plaintiff,
vs.
Gold Key Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
Hedlund Engineering,
Third Party Defendant,
and
City of Albertville,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.,
Third Party Defendant.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE'S SUPPLEMENTAL
ANSWERS TO GOLD KEY'S INTERROGATORIES
TO: PLAINTIFF, ABOVE-NAMED AND ITS ATTORNEY, CINDI S. MATT, JOHNSON,
LARSON, PETERSON & MATT, P.A., 908 COMMERCIAL DRIVE, BUFFALO,
MINNESOTA 55313,
Defendant, for its Supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, states as follows:
4. Identify specifically each and every basis for your claim Developer is in default of
the Development Agreement.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER:
After further analysis of the data available to the Albertville City Engineer, including
photographs of the flooding which occurred in the areas near the Prairie Run development in
July, 2003, the Albertville City Engineer's office has arrived at revised figures for the 100-year
flood elevation and the highest known water elevation for the Prairie Run plat. They are as
follows:
1 DO-year flood elevation: 949.9 feet above sea level.
Highest known water elevation: 951.47 feet above sea level.
Paragraph l3.F. of the City Of Albertville Planned Unit Development Agreement Prairie Run
between the City of Albertville and Gold Key Development, Inc., dated July 16, 2004
("Developer's Agreement") states:
Developer represents to the City that Said Plat complies with all City, county, state
and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision
ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. Developer agrees to
obtain all required federal, state and local permits. If the City determines that Said
Plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or
development work in the plat until Developer so complies. Upon the City's demand,
the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
2
Developer has violated the following City's subdivision ordinances in the following ways (the
cites below are to the ordinances as they were in effect at the time of final plat approval):
· Section A-600.4(g) in that the lowest proposed opening (window or door) as shown on
the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or as constructed on the following lots is less than two
feet above the highest known water level (951.47) for these lots: Lots Not Built Upon =
8,9, 10, 11, 17,21,23 and 24, all of Block 2.
Lots Built Upon = 7, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19, all of Block 2.
· Section A-600.13(c)(1) in that the post development 100-year storm peak discharge
runoff rate exceeds the pre-development 100-year storm peak discharge runoff rate.
· Section A-700.6 in that the surface and underground drainage systems on the plat do not
adequately remove all natural drainage that accumulates on the developed property, nor
do they provide a permanent solution for the removal of drainage water.
· Section A-700.6 in that the plat discharges at more than one-half ofthe pre-development
rate of runoff.
Developer has violated the City's zoning ordinances in the following ways (the cites below are to
the ordinances as they were in effect at the time of final plat approval):
· Section 1000.9(d) in that the lowest floor as shown on the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or
as constructed is less than two feet above the highest known surface water level (951.47)
for adjacent ponds or wetlands for the following lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 24, all of Block 2.
Lot Built Upon = 7, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of Block 2.
· Section 1000.9(d) in that the lowest floor as shown on the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or
as constructed is less than one foot above the 100-year flood level of949.9, as
determined by the 2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study, for adjacent ponds or wetlands
for the following lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, all of Block 2.
Lots Built Upon = 7 of Block 2.
· Section 5000.4 (a) in that the lowest floor as shown on the grading plan dated 05/15/04 or
as constructed is less than three feet above the 100-year flood elevation of 949.9, as
determined by the 2006 County Ditch No.9 Flood Study, for the following lots:
Lots Not Built Upon = 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, all of Block 2.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
BY~~
Subscriked and s~to ~me
this~day of € . ,2006.
~tv\a-~~
Notary Public
I
.
.
BRIDGET MARIE MILLERI
NOTARV PUBLIC. MINNESOTA
My Commission eKpir~s Jan- 3t. 200e ,'.
.
3
Dated:
IVERSON REUVERS
By
Paul D. Reuvers, #217700
Jason J. Kuboushek, #304037
Attorneys for Defendant
9321 Ensign Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55438
(952) 548-7200
Michael Couri
Attorney for Defendant
Couri & MacArthur Law Office
705 Central Avenue E.
P.O. Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
763-497-1930
4