06-14-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

services identified under Subtasks A through E shall be on a Time and Material basis in accordance with the Standard Hourly Rates shown in Appendix 2 of Exhibit C of the Agreement. ii. The total compensation for services identified under the Task Order for Subtasks A through E is not-to-exceed $ 669,330 as defined in the table below. iii. Estimated budget for Subtask B, Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees, Subtask C, Diversion Inlet Gates, and Subtask E, On-Call Services, are based on an allowance. 1. Engineer will notify Owner when eighty percent (80%) of the budget on Subtask B, Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees, Subtask C, Diversion Inlet Gates, and Subtask E, On-Call Services, is is expended. 2. Engineer will prepare and submit an amendment for additional compensation when ninety percent (90%) of budget on Subtask B, Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees, Subtask C, Diversion Inlet Gates, or Subtask E, On-Call Services, is expended. HMG TO8-A0 5 3. Engineer will not perform work beyond one hundred percent (100%) of the budget for Subtask B, Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees, Subtask C, Diversion Inlet Gates, or Subtask E, On-Call Services, without Owner’s authorization by an amendment to this Task Order. Subtask Assumed Distribution ($) A. Meander Belt Width Analyses $284,330 B. Identification and Assessment of Tie-Back Levees $40,000 C. EMB Openings (Allowance) $20,000 D. Diversion Inlet Gates (Allowance) $75,000 E. On-Call Services (Allowance) $250,000 TOTAL $669,330 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement and in Exhibit C. 6. Consultants: A. Barr Engineering Company B. HDR, Inc. 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Attachment 1-Cost Justification and Recommendation 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: None HMG TO8-A0 6 10. Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is June 14, 2012. ENGINEER: OWNER: Houston-Moore Group, LLC Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Authority Signature Date Signature Date Darrell Vanyo Name Name Board Chair Title Title DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name Name Title Title Address Address E-Mail Address E-Mail Address Phone Phone Fax Fax HMG TO09-A0 1 This is Task Order No. 9, Amendment 0, consisting of 6 pages. Task Order No. 9 In accordance with Paragraph 1.01 of the Agreement Between Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion Authority (“Owner”) and Houston-Moore Group, LLC (HMG) (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 8, 2012 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODELING B. Description: Provide hydrology and hydrologic modeling services in order to advance design components of the Diversion Channel. Specific modeling subtasks include: modeling of Diversion inlets to determine design flows, modeling to evaluate hydraulic impacts of various Diversion Channel sizes, extending model geometry of the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers, providing technical assistance and support for the physical modeling of the Maple and Sheyenne River aqueduct structures, and on-call services as requested. 2. Services of Engineer A. HMS DIVERSION INLET MODELING: The objective of this subtask is to develop an HMS model for each Diversion inlet subbasin using synthetic rainfall events, and to obtain parameters for an estimate of discharge-frequency using the NRCS method for small subbasins as per the ND Hydrology Guide. i. Discharge frequency curve at Amenia. ii. Adopted discharge frequencies at the inlet location after the initial HMS simulations. Scope: i. Model Diversion inlet inflows for 1.3-, 1.5-, and 2-yr rain events. Inlets to be modeled are: 1. Diversion Inlet 2. Local Drain 1 3. Drain 50 4. Drain 21C 5. Local Drain 2 6. Local Drain 3 7. Local Drain 4 8. Drain 14 (new location) 9. Original Drain 14 10. Local Drain 5 11. Maple River 12. Lower Rush River 13. Local Drain 6 14. Rush River Item 5b. (4) HMG TO09-A0 2 15. Drain 30 16. Drain 29 17. Drain 13 ii. Calibrate model to match each subbasin’s adopted discharge-frequency to obtain HMS hydrographs for each inlet to the Diversion. iii. Obtain the following parameters: Clark’s Tc, R, R/(Tc+R), CN, slopes, and drainage area. Parameters to be used to estimate Diversion inlet discharge-frequency using the NRCS method for small subbasins, as per the ND Hydrology Guide. Deliverables: i. HMS hydrographs at each inlet to the Diversion in a separate DSSVue file. ii. List of parameters used or determined such as: precipitation, Clark’s Tc, R, R/(Tc+R), CN, slopes, and drainage area. iii. Schematic showing drainage area for each inlet, with the Diversion alignment. iv. Brief report describing method, assumptions, parameters used, maps, and results. B. UPDATES TO THE RUSH/LOWER RUSH The objective of this subtask is to produce working HEC-RAS models using updated HEC-HMS hydrology for local peak flows in the Rush and Lower Rush areas for use in project design. Scope: i. Red River Peak Flood -Modified Rush River hydrographs from the existing conditions model will be input into the Phase 6 LPP model, which initially will be conducted for the 100-year flood event. ii. Rush River and Red River Peak Flood -The updated hydrographs from the HEC-HMS models developed for existing conditions will be run for the Red River Peak 10 and 100-year flood events in the Phase 6 LPP model. iii. RAS Mapper will be used to map the floodplain outside of the diversion channel for the peak tributary event on the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers. Deliverables: I. Updated existing conditions and with-project HEC-RAS unsteady models. C. EVALUATION OF CHANNEL SIZE The objective of this subtask is to evaluate various Diversion Channel width sizes to determine hydraulic impacts based on channel size. i. Evaluate alternatives using the criteria below to assess the size of the Diversion Channel and conduct a Screening Analysis using the HEC-RAS steady state software with the objective of determining the most favorable alternatives: 1. Bottom width of the main Diversion Channel. 2. Channel bottom elevation of the Diversion Channel. 3. Considerations of the water surface profile in the Diversion Channel with respect to existing ground elevations. 4. Modification of the Hydraulic Structure at the Maple River. HMG TO09-A0 3 5. Other criteria can be applied at a later time if it is determined that optimizing the Diversion Channel is justified with this initial evaluation. 6. The 100 and 500-year events for the Red River peak flood event will be analyzed. 7. Peak discharge values from the current Phase 6 unsteady model will be used, which is also being applied to the bridge analysis (MFR-001) currently being updated by the USACE. ii. Conduct an Impact Analysis using the HEC-RAS unsteady state software for the most favorable alternatives identified in Task 1. 1. The 100 and 500-year events for the Red River peak flood event will be analyzed using the latest Phase 6 unsteady flow model. 2. River impacts will focus only on the Red River upstream, downstream, and throughout Fargo-Moorhead. Impacts will be compared to those determined in Phase 4 and Phase 5, which may require that the gate operations may be modified to obtain similar impacts. 3. Additional impacts can be further evaluated at a later time if it is determined that optimizing the Diversion Channel is justified with this initial evaluation. iii. Develop a preliminary cost estimate for the most favorable alternative identified for optimizing the Diversion Channel. 1. Quantify the cost savings based on unit-cost savings using the Feasibility Study unit prices, focusing primarily on costs associated with earth work and at the Maple River Hydraulic Structure. 2. Additional cost detail can be further evaluated at a later time if it is determined that optimizing the Diversion Channel is justified with this initial evaluation. iv. Prepare a Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizing whether the size of the Diversion Channel warrants additional and more detailed study. Deliverables: v. Draft report. vi. Final report. D. EXTEND RAS GEOMETRY OF THE RUSH/LOWER RUSH The objective of this subtask is to account for break-out flows between the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers by extending the RAS model geometry of the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers upstream to the beach ridge of Glacial Lake Agassiz. Scope: I. Extend existing conditions Rush River HEC-RAS model approximately 10 miles upstream from Amenia and add model detail between the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers to incorporate breakout discharges. Deliverables: i. Updated existing conditions and with-project HEC-RAS unsteady models. E. PHYSICAL MODELING ASSISTANCE: HMG TO09-A0 4 Provide ongoing assistance to the Diversion Authority during the transition for Feasibility Study to Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) in support of the Maple and Sheyenne River aqueduct structures. Scope: I. Participate in USACE design team meetings, Local Sponsor/Local Consultants Technical Team (LSLCTT) meetings, and workshops as requested. II. Provide technical assistance for physical modeling of hydraulic structures. III. Provide hydrology information, as requested, to USACE. IV. Provide additional assistance as requested. Deliverables: i. Meeting minutes. F. ON-CALL SERVICES: Respond to requests for services from PMC for tasks not identified to date. Requests will be provided by PMC in writing. Work will not be performed by Engineer without authorization by PMC or Owner. Deliverables i. On-call service deliverables as requested. Provide ongoing assistance to the Diversion Authority during the transition for Feasibility Study to Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED). 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in Article 2 and in Exhibit B. 4. Times for Rendering Services Subtask Start Time Completion Time HMS Diversion Inlet Model Updates to Rush/Lower Rush Evaluation of channel size Extend RAS geometry of Rush/Lower Rush Physical Modeling Assistance On-Call Services April 1, 2012 March 8, 2012 March 8, 2012 March 8, 2012 April 26, 2012 June 14, 2012 July 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 September 30, 2012 September 30, 2012 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: i. Compensation for services in accordance with the Standard Hourly Rates shown in Appendix 2 of Exhibit C of the Agreement. ii. The total compensation for services identified under the Task Order is not-to-exceed $194,341 as defined in the table below. iii. Estimated budget for Subtask F, On-Call Services, is based on an allowance. HMG TO09-A0 5 1. Engineer will notify Owner when eighty percent (80%) of the budget on Subtask F, On-Call Services, is expended. 2. Engineer will prepare and submit an amendment for additional compensation when ninety percent (90%) of budget on Subtask F, On-Call Services, is expended. 3. Engineer will not perform work beyond one hundred percent (100%) of the budget for Subtask F, On-Call Services, without Owner’s authorization by an amendment to this Task Order. Subtask Assumed Distribution ($) A. HMS Diversion Inlet Modeling $22,121 B. Updates to Rush/Lower Rush $16,401 C. Evaluation of Channel Size $27,605 D. Extend RAS Geometry of Rush/Lower Rush $17,714 E. Physical Modeling Assistance $10,500 F. On-Call Services (Allowance) $100,000 TOTAL $194,341 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement and in Exhibit C. 6. Consultants: None 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Attachment 1-Scope of Work 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: None HMG TO09-A0 6 10. Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is June 14, 2012. ENGINEER: OWNER: Houston-Moore Group, LLC Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Authority Signature Date Signature Date Darrell Vanyo Name Name Board Chair Title Title DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name Name Title Title Address Address E-Mail Address E-Mail Address Phone Phone Fax Fax HMG T010-A0 1 This is Task Order No. 10, Amendment 0, consisting of 4 pages. Task Order No. 10 In accordance with Paragraph 1.01 of the Agreement Between Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion Authority (“Owner”) and Houston-Moore Group, LLC (HMG) (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 8, 2012 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: UTILITIES DESIGN and IDENTIFICATION -OUTLET to I-94 B. Description: Provide utility relocation plans, utility relocation services, utility relocation designs when required, utility relocation support services, relocation determination and performance specifications, for the relocation of utilities from the Diversion Outlet at the Red River (Station 0+00) through Reach 10 of the Diversion Channel (Station 901+00) at I-94. C. Background: Various utilities such as power lines, communication lines, gas lines, and water lines have been identified and located within the proposed Diversion Channel footprint or will cross the Diversion Channel, and there may be additional utilities that have not yet been identified. These utilities will have to be relocated or abandoned prior to construction of the Diversion Channel and appurtenant structures. Some utilities will be relocated by contractors under contract with the Diversion Authority, while others will be relocated by the utility owner. Currently identified utilities include: i. Overhead power (9), buried power (4). ii. Buried fiber optic (4), buried copper wire (7). iii. Buried natural gas (2). iv. Buried water (8). 2. Services of Engineer A. UTILITY RELOCATION PLAN for USACE: i. Identify and field locate utilities for Reaches 6-10. ii. Obtain copies of filed easements for reaches 6-10. iii. Work with impacted utility owners and provide utility relocation plans for impacted utilities. iv. Comply with requirements in the Fargo-Moorhead Metro Area Flood Risk Management Utility Relocation Requirements, MFR CEMVP-PM-B. Deliverables i. Preliminary Utility Relocation Plans. ii. Final Utility Relocation Plans. B. UTILITY RELOCATION SERVICES FOR SPECIFIC UTILITY OWNERS i. Work with impacted utility owners to provide utility relocation plans for impacted utilities. ii. Provide performance specifications for utilities to be relocated by utility owners. iii. Assist with negotiations of relocation agreements with the utility owners. Item 5b. (5) HMG T010-A0 2 C. RELOCATION DESIGN: i. Provide relocation design services for utilities to be relocated under contract to the Diversion Authority. Deliverables i. Utility relocation design documents. D. RELOCATION SUPPORT SERVICES i. If requested by Owner or PMC, review design and construction documents prepared by utility companies. 3. Owner’s Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in Article 2 and in Exhibit B. 4. Times for Rendering Services Subtask Start Time Completion Time Utility Relocation Plan for USACE Utility Relocation Services for Specific Utility Owners Relocation Design Relocation Support Services 06/14/12 06/14/12 07/02/12 07/16/12 08/31/12 09/30/12 09/30/12 09/30/12 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: i. Compensation for services identified under Subtasks A through E shall be on a Time and Material basis in accordance with the Standard Hourly Rates shown in Appendix 2 of Exhibit C of the Agreement. ii. The total compensation for services identified under the Task Order, for Subtasks A through D is not-to-exceed $ 94,000 as defined in the table below. iii. Estimated budget for Subtask C, Relocation Design, is based on an allowance. 1. Engineer will notify Owner when eighty percent (80%) of the budget on Subtask C, Relocation Design, is expended. 2. Engineer will prepare and submit an amendment for additional compensation when ninety percent (90%) of budget on Subtask C, Relocation Design, is expended. 3. Engineer will not perform work beyond one hundred percent (100%) of the budget for Subtask C, Relocation Design, without Owner’s authorization by an amendment to this Task Order. HMG T010-A0 3 Subtask Assumed Distribution ($) A. Utility Relocation Plan for USACE 37,000 B. Utility Relocation Services for Specific Utility Owners 22,000 C. Relocation Design (Allowance) 30,000 D. Relocation Support Services 5,000 TOTAL 94,000 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement and in Exhibit C. 6. Consultants: None 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Attachment 1-Cost Justification and Recommendation 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: None HMG T010-A0 4 10. Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is June 14, 2012. ENGINEER: OWNER: Houston-Moore Group, LLC Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Authority Signature Date Signature Date Darrell Vanyo Name Name Board Chair Title Title DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name Name Title Title Address Address E-Mail Address E-Mail Address Phone Phone Fax Fax AWD-00004-R1-Rush-Lower-Rush_2012.06.14 1 of 3 AUTHORITY WORK DIRECTIVE AWD-00004 REV-1 Lower Rush/Rush Connection WORK TYPE: WIK TO: Moore Engineering, Inc. DATE INITIATED: 12/14/2011 REVISION DATE: 06/14/2012 OWNER: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Authority PROJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Feasibility Study PROJECT NO.: City of Fargo No. 5683-5 GENERAL LEDGER DIVISIONAL CODE: 7915 = WIK -Project Design Assigned by PMC PROJECT CODE: V00902 Contact Jamie Bullock, Grants Accountant, for setting up new accounting codes. The following additions, deletions, or revisions to the Work have been ordered and authorized: OBJECTIVE: Determine approach for the Lower Rush River and Rush River connections to the Diversion Channel. BACKGROUND: The Diversion Channel intersects the Lower Rush River and the Rush River upstream of their natural outlets at the Sheyenne River. During the feasibility study, it was determined that the flow from both the Lower Rush River and the Rush River would be directed into the diversion. The feasibility study includes a combination of a reinforced concrete drop outlet structure and a separate rock ramp for fish passage at each the Lower Rush River and the Rush River. Value Engineering (VE) Proposal No. 17 recommended connecting the Lower Rush River to the Rush River and, therefore, constructing only one drop outlet structure with associated fish passage. This VE Proposal was adopted. Before starting detailed design work, an alternatives assessment is needed to select the alternative to be designed. This assessment will be based on design concepts and associated cost estimates (including construction and right-of-way costs) developed to a feasibility level, and it will also identify data gaps and additional analysis needed to advance the design of the alternative selected. SCOPE: 1. Prepare for and participate in a workshop with USACE to evaluate: a. connecting the Lower Rush River to the Rush River and eliminating both the drop structure and separate rock ramp at the Lower Rush River b. connecting the Lower Rush River to the Rush River and modifying the Lower Rush River drop structure. One possibility is having a connecting channel that runs parallel to the diversion and handles high flows only, while maintaining the rock ramp at the Lower Rush River to allow for fish passage during low to average flows c. modifying both the Lower Rush River drop structure and the Rush River drop structure. Subtasks: a. Before the workshop, compile existing design information. b. Before the workshop, develop suggested primary design and cost considerations, including environmental, permitting, right-of-way, construction, and operation and maintenance issues. Item 5b. (6) AUTHORITY WORK DIRECTIVE Form Rev. 0: 12/12/11 2 of 3 c. Attend workshop with USACE. Prepare initial calculations, design, and cost estimates for alternatives. d. Prepare memo outlining workshop results. 2. Develop up to three (3) feasibility level design alternatives from the results of that workshop for use in cost estimating and graphics creation. a. Determine unit quantities for use in cost estimating, including land. b. Determine needed support for USACE environmental coordination/documentation. 3. Prepare cost estimates for each alternative. a. Prepare construction cost estimates for three alternatives based on unit costs from feasibility report. Cost estimating will not use MCACES. b. Prepare right-of-way cost estimates for three alternatives based on unit costs from feasibility report. Cost estimating will not use MCACES. 4. Prepare a draft Technical Memorandum (TM) and attend a follow-up workshop with USACE to present and discuss the alternatives and cost estimates. a. Before the workshop, prepare draft TM including figures/graphics. b. Before the workshop, prepare PowerPoint presentation of main results. c. Attend workshop with USACE, which will result in selection of a recommended alternative. 5. Prepare a TM presenting the results of the evaluation and the recommended alternative. Develop a brief graphics-rich Power Point presentation of the alternatives and results suitable for a non-technical audience. a. Reconcile comments/prepare comment & response log. b. Prepare final TM. c. Develop PowerPoint including graphics for non-technical audience DELIVERABLES: 1. Technical Memorandum – Lower Rush/Rush Connection 2. PowerPoint Presentation SCHEDULE: 1. Initial Workshop by January 23, 2012 2. Draft TM – February 13, 2012 (3 weeks following the initial workshop) 3. Follow-up Workshop by February 16, 2012 4. Final TM – February 23, 2012 HOW WORK IS PERFORMED: This work will be performed on a time and material basis. COST: Cost Revision No. Amount ($) Estimated Cost REV-0 125,050 Increased Cost REV-1 20,000 Total Cost , The limit will not be exceeded without further written approval. AUTHORITY WORK DIRECTIVE Form Rev. 0: 12/12/11 3 of 3 Estimated cost for this AWD is $145,050. The limit will not be exceeded without further written approval. REASON FOR CHANGE(S): 1. USACE requested Diversion Authority perform this work as Work-In-Kind (WIK) ATTACHMENTS (List Supporting Documents): 1. None It is understood that this Authority Work Directive will not change the Contract Price or Times, but is evidence that the parties expect a Contract Amendment to be subsequently issued reflecting the changes. Recommended by: CH2M HILL Program Management Consultant Bruce Spiller PMC Technical Services Manager Name Title Signature Date Ordered by: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion Authority Owner Darrel Vanyo Board Chair Name Title Signature Date Copies: Finance Staff: Mike Montplaisir, FM Diversion Finance Chair Kent Costin, Director of Finance Jenica Flanagan, Accounting Manager (Secondary Contact for New Project Codes) Jamie Bullock, Grants Accountant (Primary Contact for New Project Codes) Engineering Staff: Mark Bittner, Director of Engineering April Walker, City Engineer Bev Walker, Office Manager Agreement Date required Accelerated June 6,2012 funding notification FY13 Work Plan Jul12,2012 decision +Adding Protected area levees Work in Kind Sep 30, 2012 request Design Sept 30,,2012 Agreement (amendment) JPA (revised) Sept 30, 2012 Construction April1,2013 Memorandum of Understanding Project Upon Partnership Authorization Agreement Diversion Authority Decision Timelines DFLOOD--, !VERSION AUTHORITY Draft Due Approval Dependent Activity Comments June 4, -Notify Need accelerated funding 2012 Congress notification prior to execution of Design Agreement May 2S, Authority Initial decision needed at July 2012 Board board, final confirmation prior to Design Agreement signature Sept 30th. -Provides flexibility Jul12, Corps-FY 13 Work Plan Initiates Integral Determination 2012 MVD Report {I DR) process Jul12, Corps/IDR letter Draft presented at Jul12th DA 2012 Authority FY 13 Work Plan Board meeting Board Accelerated funding JPA Jul 1,2012 Authority To be signed before Design Agreement is signed Nov 1, Corps/IDR letter -Required to begin construction 2012 Authority FY13 Work Plan prior to authorization and PPA. Board -Would be required for $SSM FY13 program. Aug 1, Corps HQ Congressional -Needed to initiate construction 2012 /Sponsors Authorization -Requires Congressional Authorization Item 7a. (1) Item 7a. (2) Item 7a. (3) Early Acquisition Sub-Committee Report For Land Management Committee Meeting – June 14, 2012 General Notes:  The Sub-Committee held its first meeting on Monday, June 11 at 11:00 am at the Fargo Commission Chambers.  Sub-Committee members in attendance included Pat Zavoral (chair), Tim Solberg, Mike Redlinger, Brian Berg, and Bob Zimmerman. Advisors and other attendees included Keith Berndt, Mike Montplaisir, Nancy Morris, Brian Neugebauer, Tom Waters, and Eric Dodds.  A preliminary draft Charter for the Early Acquisition Sub-Committee was reviewed during the meeting and revised subsequently to incorporate feedback. The updated Charter is attached for review and adoption by the Land Management Committee.  The Early Acquisition Sub-Committee approved the recommended buyout list from the Hardship Review Committee (see report from Hardship Review Committee).  The Early Acquisition Sub-Committee discussed the funding of hardship acquisitions. It was suggested that all acquisitions be considered considered Authority project expenses and that the finance committee track the dollars accordingly for future invoicing to appropriate MN or ND entities.  The Early Acquisition Sub-Committee discussed the disposition of acquired early acquired properties and developed the following general plan. o The Diversion Authority will negotiate a lease-back plan with the jurisdiction in which the early acquired property is located, such as the City of Oxbow. o The jurisdiction will be asked to manage, maintain, and assume the liability for the property, and will be given the ability to sub-lease the property if desired. o The Diversion Authority will provide some assistance to the jurisdiction for assuming the responsibility to manage and maintain the property. o The property must be made available, upon fair notification, when the project requires. o If the jurisdiction is not able to assume the responsibility to manage and maintain the property, the Diversion Authority will proceed with removal of the structure. Recommendations:  Recommend adopting the attached Charter for the Early Acquisition Sub-Committee.  Recommend that the Land Management Committee authorize appraisals of the three qualifying properties, per the recommendation from the Hardship Review Committee.  Recommend that all early acquisitions be considered Authority project expenses and that the finance committee track the dollars accordingly for future invoicing to appropriate MN or ND entities.  Recommend that a general policy of negotiating a lease-back plan with the jurisdiction in which the early acquired property is located be developed  Recommend that if jurisdictions in which acquired properties are located are not able to assume the responsibility of managing and maintaining the property, the Diversion Authority will proceed with removal of the structures. Path Forward:  The Early Acquisition Sub-Committee will formalize a plan and policy for the disposition of early acquired properties.  The next Early Acquisition Sub-Committee meeting meeting will be scheduled near the July Diversion Authority Board Meeting. Item 7b. (1) Item 7b. (2) CASS COUNTY GOVERNMENT Auditor Michael Monrplaisir, CPA 701-241-5601 Treasurer Charlotte Sand\'ik 701-241-5611 Director of Equalization Frank Klein 701-241-5616