DRAFT – These minutes are not official until approved at the next regular City Council meeting.

Special Meeting June 28, 2006

Members Present: Mayor Amy Tendrup, Lonnie Kacon, Amy Pifher, Richard Salmi, and Jean Lexvold

Absent: None

Also Present: Joan Hoeschen, City Engineer Julie Kennedy, Public Works Superintendent Mark Maki, Connie Maki, Bob Schwartz, Robert Johnson, Richard Miles, and Paul Berndt

Mayor Tendrup called the special meeting to order at 12:04 p.m. and asked City Engineer Julie Kennedy to begin.

Kennedy explained that she was ready to present her report of the analysis from the last 6 months on the Airport Mound System. She submitted a Corrective Action Report to the council, which includes flow monitoring graphs from 2004-2006, alternative solutions, and cost break downs.

The Mound System is designed to treat wastewater from the Bergquest Company and the Airport Restroom. It has been in operation since 2002 and has had problems the majority of that time. In February 2006, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued the City of Bigfork a Notice of Violation (NOV). The notice contained violations of the permit limits as well as corrective actions that the City was required to complete in order to resolve the NOV. The system was originally designed in August 2002 by Liesch Associates of Plymouth, MN. The parameters included a total flow of 1400 gallons per day, a pretreatment aeration system, and a mound system. It was designed to discharge subsurface with a 14” minimum depth to mottled soil. Mottled soil is indicative of where the ground water table has been. The soil type was classified as gray clay. The project was constructed in September and October 2002 by Mann Excavating of Deer River, MN. Kennedy paused to clarify that some things are not written in the report because she was only given certain information verbally and did not want to include anything that was not in writing. In the spring of 2003, the city contacted the engineer because the Mound System was saturated and not functioning. In July 2003, plans showed a modification to the original design which included a 4” perforated drain tile around the perimeter of the mound and then discharge it out to the creek, which means that the design went from subsurface to surface. Because of this change the city is now regulated by the MPCA for permitting. For cost reasons, the city and the engineer decided to put the wastewater treatment ponds and the Mound System on the same permit, so at any point that one system is in violation, the whole city is in violation. Kennedy asked for questions on the history of the Mound System. Salmi asked how deep the drain tile was. Kennedy replied that it was 24” deep. He then asked what the water table was. Kennedy said the mottled soil depth was 14”. Kennedy went on to the next section in the report which talked about the performance assessment. In 2004, on 5 different occasions the design flow was exceeded. The annual average daily flow was 502 gallons over the design limit. The system is hydraulically overloaded, which explains the saturation that was seen in the spring of 2003. In 2005, the design flow was exceeded on 4 different occasions. The annual average daily flow was 240 gallons over the design limit. Looking at the times of year that there was high flow, the precipitation at those times, and the ground water, led them to the conclusion that there was infiltration and inflow (I/I) in the system. Leakage is getting into the system and being treated. Starting in January 2006, Kennedy began a rigorous monitoring regimen that monitored flows every week from 4 separate locations in order to find out where the infiltration was coming from. For the times between January and June 2006, the recorded flow rates show that, on average, the amount of wastewater recorded at the mound influent is over double the amount being produced by the Bergquist Company and the Airport Restroom combined. It was concluded that the majority of the I/I is a result of leakage into the pipe system while the pumps are not operating. The I/I measured was 1942 gallons of leakage per day which is 9.7 times the measured flow at that time from the Bergquist Company and the Airport Restroom combined. The recorded flow rates show that, on average, the mound discharge is nearly double the amount entering the mound. It is predicted that the 4” perforated drain tile surrounding the mound is collecting groundwater that is then being measured with the wastewater effluent. Kennedy was unable to obtain any geotechnical information from the original project. Braun Intertec was hired to do on-site soil borings, 6 on the mound itself and 6 around the adjacent land. Of the 6 that were done on top of the mound, no rock or sand was encountered. In the 6 adjacent to the mound, topsoil and clay were encountered. The findings presented in the report reveal that the existing soil layers within the mound are significantly different from the layers specified in the design plans. The 2002 design plans consisted of 50” of sand and gravel covered with 3” of topsoil. The soil borings drilled within the mound in May 2006 showed no evidence of gravel and only a few lenses (less than 1/8” thick) and seams (1/8” to 1” thick) of poorly graded sand. Kennedy stated that we are definitely not operating a Mound System as a Mound System should function. So, in summary, the two major problems with the Mound System are too high of flows and wrong materials that were used in construction.

Kennedy presented 3 alternative solutions to the mound problem. The first is to connect to the city sewer system. The lift station is 2.25 miles away. This would be a transmission line that would not serve the residents along that route. The probable opinion cost for this alternative is $521,807. The second option is to abandon the mound and install an on-site wastewater treatment package and keep the surface water discharge to the creek. It is possible that the city would have to pay to dispose of the contaminated clay. The probable opinion cost for this alternative is $208,269 which does not include the annual operation and maintenance cost associated with the additional testing and reporting procedures required to satisfy the NPDES permit. The third option is to abandon the pretreatment aeration system and rehabilitate the Mound System to provide a subsurface discharge. The probable opinion cost is $171,624. Since this alternative would eliminate the surface water discharge, the City would request that the MPCA remove the Mound System from the City’s NPDES permit. The existing drain field would be removed, as well as the existing soil, and single-line pipe would replace the glued couplings that are every 20’ on the existing 800 feet of pipe.

In conclusion, the 2” main is adding significant I/I flow to the system. The soils in the mound are not acceptable for adequate wastewater treatment. Kennedy is recommending option number 3 – the mound system rehabilitation. She asked that the City Council accept the report and authorize the completion of plans and specifications. If given the authorization to proceed, the project would be put out for the usual 21 day bidding process the beginning of August and go through the necessary bidding requirements which would put completion of the project in mid-October.

In 2002, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) approved a Section 569 grant request for the Mound System project. The Project Cooperation Agreement between the Corps and the City of Bigfork stated an estimate Mound System project cost of $125,000. Of that, the estimated cost of betterment to the Bergquist Company was 16.5% ($20,625) and the remaining $104,375 was to be funded 75% ($78,821) by the Corps and 25% ($26,094) by the City. It was further agreed between the Bergquist Company and the City of Bigfork that the 25% portion required by the city would be funded by the Bergquist Company. In December of 2005, the Corps approved an extension of the 2002 Agreement which would follow the same funding conditions set forth in the 2002 Agreement for an additional $160,000. Kennedy had attended a meeting previously in 2005 with the Minnesota Association of Small Cities with other cities that had failing systems and found that the legislature through special appropriations had set aside money to aid in this effort. Kennedy applied for some of these funds and the application was accepted. PFA has awarded the grant money to the City under the 2006 Special Appropriations Corrective Action program. The PFA money is intended to provide the match to the Corps funds, although it is not yet known whether this includes the betterment funds.

Salmi asked whether Braun ran any air tests between Bergquist and the mound. Kennedy answered that it would have been too detrimental to Bergquist. He also asked about putting a line in to see what the condition of the pipe is. Kennedy stated that the pipe is most likely crushed and that at the time of construction we have the option of replacing some or all of the pipe and that there is no reason that that pipe should not be a single-line pipe. Salmi asked if it was a plastic or metal pipe. Kennedy replied that it is PVC and that when she spoke to the contractor, he recalled that it was 20” lengths with glued couplings. Salmi asked if the contractor was responsible for the line. Kennedy said that yes, he would have been from 2002-2003. She also stated that the Army Corp and Bergquist would not be able to hold anyone responsible. The only party that would be able to do anything legally is the City of Bigfork. Other cities have successfully gotten back some of the money incurred. Salmi asked if it was possible that the entire project could be funded at no cost to the City or to Bergquist. Kennedy said that this is possible if the betterment portion was covered as well. Salmi stated that he would like to see the mound system under warrantee. Kennedy replied that that would be up to the bidder that obtained the job through the public bid process and a warrantee would probably up the bid price. Salmi stated that the job needs to be done right and with a warrantee. Kennedy stated that this should be the case with any other construction job. She said that in the original specifications the owner is responsible, and the city is the owner, but as the engineer, SEH is our representative. That puts the accountability on the engineer and the contractor. Kennedy said that she has found no evidence that this is what happened in the past with the original engineer. Kacon asked if Kennedy could rephrase her last statement. Kennedy replied that an inspector needs to be hired to watch and make sure that safety, materials, and specifications are being taken care of. Salmi asked if the county has people to over see this project. Kennedy replied that it is the City’s project. Salmi asked if the county takes care of Mound Systems. Kennedy said that they do in their jurisdiction, but this is the City’s jurisdiction. Tendrup asked if hiring an inspector was included in the corrective plan quote. Kennedy replied that it was. Salmi stated that he would like to have Bob Schwartz talk about Mound Systems in light of the fact that he was put so many in. Bob Schwartz said that the original design is not a legal design, which Kennedy agreed with. He said that it failed because of the way that it was constructed. He also stated that the City should not be afraid of a Mound System. That they do work, if done right, Kennedy again agreed. Kennedy explained that the original system will not be the design that is used. Salmi asked Schwartz if plastic was the best way to go for the 4” pipe. Schwartz said Kennedy would no more about that. Kennedy stated that it would be a high density polymer. Kacon asked, if constructed and operated correctly, how long the system could last. Kennedy replied that it could last between 40-50 years. Salmi asked about chemicals that kill enzymes. Kennedy said that we still need to have an agreement between the City and Bergquist about what can and cannot be discharged. Salmi asked whether Bergquist could have a holding tank for industrial discharge. Representatives from Bergquist and Kennedy replied that Bergquist does not discharge any industrial waste. Kacon asked if the 40-50 year time frame is acceptable to Bergquist. The representatives from Bergquist replied that it was. Salmi again stated that he would like a warrantee put on the system with an inspection. Kennedy replied that this could be part of the bid. Salmi asked Schwartz if the cost would go up if there were a warrantee attached to the construction bid. He stated that it would, although he wouldn’t be afraid of a warrantee. Tendrup stated that the council didn’t need to focus on that now. The focus is on what option the council wanted to go with. A motion was made by Kacon and seconded by Pifher to authorize option number 3 – rehabilitate the Mound System, motion carried unanimously.

Resolution 2006-15 allows the City to enter into a grant agreement with the Public Facilities Authority for the Corrective Rehabilitation of the Mound System. Motion to approve Resolution 2006-15 by Kacon, seconded by Lexvold, MCU.

Resolution 2006-16 All Hazard Mitigation Plan was tabled at the May council meeting. Due to the lack of information, the resolution was tabled again. Motion to table resolution made by Salmi, seconded by Pifher, MCU.

Tendrup announced that an emergency item needed to be addressed at the special meeting. Public Works Superintendent Mark Maki had turned in his resignation effective July 27, 2006. Motion made by Lonnie to regretfully accept Maki’s resignation, seconded by Lexvold, MCU.

Tendrup explained that because of the short time frame, the job opening needed to be posted as soon as possible. Motion to approve Public Works Superintendent Job Description with the added 15 minute response time made by Kacon, seconded by Pifher. Motion carried with Salmi opposing.

Storlie then asked how long the council will like the job posted for. The council discussed which papers and websites to post with. It was decided that the city would contact the DeerPath, Manneys Shopper, Rural Water, Dept of Health, and the League of MN Cities. Motion made by Kacon to post the job for one week and then amended the motion to two weeks, seconded by Pifher. Motion carried with Salmi opposing.

Motion by Salmi to hire Dave Waters at $700/month as an overseer and use Waters’ license until new hire is trained . Motion died for a lack of a second.

Tendrup then brought up the Training and Experience Rating Form and suggested requiring some supervisory or lead experience or training. She suggested moving this requirement from Section B to Section A and requiring 42 points for Section A instead of 40 points. Motion by Lexvold to approve the form with the above mentioned revisions, seconded by Pifher. Motion carried with Salmi opposing.

Next on the agenda were the interview questions. These are the same as when Maki was hired. Motion by Lexvold to approve the interview questions, seconded by Pifher. Motion carried with Salmi opposing.

The council discussed the date of the next Special Meeting to be held to fill the Public Works Superintendent position. It was decided that the Special Meeting will be held on Thursday, July 20th at 6:00 pm.

Tendrup adjourned the meeting at 1:01 pm.

Tranette Stevens

Acting City Clerk

These minutes are available on the City website at www.cityofbigfork.com.

To sign up to receive the minutes by email, send your email address to ctyclerk@bigfork.net.