Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 8, 1986 CITY of ANDOVER APRIL 8, 1986 Meeting - SW28 Group - 7:30 P.M. Special City Council Meeting l. CCO 86-8B 2. Councilmember to CCWD Meeting 4/9/86 3 . Warning Siren Change Order Adjourn CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 8, 1986 MINUTES A Special lleeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on April 8, 1986, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Lachinski, Orttel Councilman absent: Knight Also present: City Administrator/Engineer, James Schrantz SW28 GROUP MEETING The following were present for the discussion: Anoka County representatives - Robert Hutchinson Colleen Herrmann Commissioner Natalie Haas 11PCA representatives - Rich Sandberg Nancy Missa lIichael Conoery CRA representatives - Don Haycock Alan Van Norman SW28 representative - Marcia Kull from Bowman and Brooke Ms. Missa informed the City and County that the MPCA's role in this is to see that the project is managed properly and is progressing smoothly, appreciating any assistance they can receive from the City and County. They also want to keep every- one informed of the project. Secondly, the group came to them in early February asking for an extension on the time allotted under the consent order to do the Detailed Analysis Report which looks at the various alternatives in greater detail. After a great deal of deliberation, the MPCA has decided to grant the SW28 group a 90-day extension for that report. The reason for the extension is they did not feel the time allotted was sufficient to produce a good in-depth report, which is what is desired, The deadline for that report is now June 3. Ms. Missa also explained the report is divided into two parts -- one for the hazardous waste pit and one for the landfill itself. Representatives from CRA explained the feasibility report provided all new information about the site which has substantially changed the initial understanding of the site. A concern is that though the pit is a substantial cause of the problem, there are also other locations identified as probable sources. The extension of time for the Detailed Analysis Report allows them time to adequately look at the various alternatives in greater detail. It was also felt that the 21 days allotted in the original consent order was not sufficient to complete the work. There are more than 20 alternatives to examine, which makes 21 days impractical to give detailed costs, engineering, etc. Ms, Kull stated the June 3 date will be met, Mr. Van Norman also stated after the RI report, they have installed four additional observation wells, two gas probes, and collected another set of samples from the lower sand aquifer. There opinion still is there is no contamination of the lower sand fill. Special City Council Meeting April 8, 1986 - Minutes Page 2 (SW28 Group Meeting, Continued) Ms. Kull stated she is now reprenting the SW28 group and is willing to talk with anyone who has questions regarding the Detailed Alternatives Report, etc. Mr. Van Norman then gave a detailed report on the process done to date and the alternatives being addressed in the Detailed Analysis Report. He noted the process summary of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/FS) having to meet state and federal laws and that agreed to in the consent order; reviewed the planning process and execution of those plans for the RI; explained the Alternatives Report of the Feasibility Study which is completed; and discussed the Detailed Analysis of that Feasibility Study which will include the costs, benefit, technicality, and practicality of each of the alternatives. Mr. Van Norman continued that the Alternatives Report was submitted on January 17; and the alternatives selected for the Detailed Analysis Report were 1) monitoring only (which is required), 2) capping only, 3) groundwater cutoff wall with cap and groundwater collection, 4) groundwater pumping, 5) leachate collection, and 6) excavation and disposal off site, which pertains to the pit only. Mr. Van Norman then went on to explain in detail the six alternatives as to how each would be constructed, what that would mean in terms of resolving the problem, etc. For all intense purposes, no one is seriously considering monitoring only as the ultimate solution; but that alternative is required by law to be included and studied and is also in the interest of everyone to continue monitoring the site. It may be the ultimate solution would be a combination of the alternatives selected. CRA engineers also explained it is unlikely the deeper aquifers would become contaminated. There is a clay layer under the entire landfill, which is about 5 feet thick in the southwest corner to in excess of 40 feet thick closer to Coon Creek. Also, they have observed an upward water barrier, which provides protection from the lower aquifer. Primarily, the ground slopes toward the creek. Mr. Van Norman continued to explain the five capping alternatives being considered. Council expressed concern over a larger amount of run-off being created if the site is just capped, which could create a problem for that area and for the creek. Mr. Haycock explained part of the reason for the Detailed Analysis Report is to determine these factors. Institutional acceptance is also required; and if the City is not in favor of that alternative, it will be taken into consideration when evaluating that alternative and would be dropped as an alternative for this site. Mr: Conoery stated the end result is to clean up the upper water aquifer to meet drinking water standards at the facility's boundaries. Mr. Hutchinson also stated the County continues to monitor residential wells every six months. Mr. Haycock stated all landfills generate methane gas; and if the site is capped, one of the provisions would be to install vents. Mr, Van Norman then went on to explain the alternatives of groundwater cutoff wall with cap and groundwater collection, leachate collection drain, extraction well, each in combination with capping alternatives, slurry wall, groundwater pumping, and excavation and disposal of only the pit. Mr. Haycock stated it appear's the amount of comtamination coming from the landfill has peaked, as over the last three years the contaminates escaping are on the way down. Discussion was on the hazardous waste pit, with the Council noting it has always been their position that the contents of the pit be removed. Mr. Haycock explained the SW28 group would like to investigate the contents of the pit; but because of Special City Council Meeting April 8, 1986 - Minutes Page 3 (SW28 Group Meeting, Continued) the insurance problems, they have not been able to find a contractor who can get the insurance to be able to open up the pit. Practically, at the present time, depending on what is in the barrels, there may be no place to dispose of the contents of the pit. Fewer and fewer wastes are being allowed to be disposed of at other facilities. Also, Mr. Haycock estimated the contents of the pit are only about 10 percent of the total hazardous waste on site. The rest is buried in the landfill itself. The alternative of incineration is no longer being considered because the technology is not advanced enough in terms of safety and economics. Mr. Haycock also felt the costs given for the various alternatives are fairly accurate, based on operations they. have undertaken or are being done in other situations. Councilman Elling requested an end-use plan of the landfill. With the property going tax forfeit, it will ultimately end up belonging to the State; therefore, the State should prepare the end-use plan. He stated that plan is needed before the EIS study can be completed for the County on the Site Q landfill site in Andover/Coon Rapids. He asked to see a report on the end use of the landfill and how it will impact the other landfill. Discussion was then on a time proposal when some results would take place on the site itself. Once the Detailed Analysis Report is completed on June 3, there are other time periods for review, rebuttal, public hearings, etc. Ms. Missa also noted the SW28 group has not yet consented to do the remedial work. She stated she would send a letter noting the specific time periods before a final alternative of remedial action is determined, Councilman Lachinski went on record as stating if any of the alternatives ultimately proposed do not include the excavation of the pit, he will strongly make his views known during the process. Council recessed at 9:38; reconvened at 9:46 p.m. CHANGE ORDER 86-8B Mr. Schrantz reviewed the TKDA letter of March 31, 1986, regarding the Improvement Project 86-8B asking for a change order for a $52,548.70 increase to the Kenko contract because of the additional work and the 220-foot extension of the sewer line on the project. Council felt the increase was considerable, asking that TKDA provide more details on the adds and deletes to the project as a result of the changes. They also asked to be shown the impact this change will have to the assessments. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the Council approve Change Order No. 1R for the trunk watermain and sanitary sewer extension for the City's Project 85-8 for increasing the total amount of the contract from $175,568.64 to $228.221.05. Motion carried unanimously. WARNING SIREN CHANGE ORDER MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council increase their authorization for warning sirens to $91,500 from $90,000. Motion carried unanimously. LEAGUE CONVENTION MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Administrator to reserve five rooms for the League Convention in June in Duluth. Motion carried unanimously. Special City Council Meeting April 8, 1986 - Minutes Page Ii COUNCILMEMBER TO CCWD MEETING ON 4/9/86 Mr. Schrantz explained this is a Finance Committee meeting; and Al Sannerud, the Watershed's Secretary, asked that a councilmember be in attendance. Council briefly reviewed the present status of the storm drainage ponding program of the Watershed. None of the Councilmembers were able to attend the meeting on April 9. WATER LAKE DRIVE/RIGHT OF WAY Mayor Windschitl stated the residents along Ward Lake Drive are to the point where they just want to see a road constructed. They realize the problem has been with compensation wanted by Wally Arntzen and hoped that some compromise could be worked out. They may be agreeable to compensate Mr. Arntzen or possibly an agreement could be made to allow Mr. Arntzen and Mr. Bradley to split off four lots on the property between them. Council discussed the road alignment for Hanson Boulevard through that area, the requested by Mr. Arntzen, and possible solutions. Council generally felt if Mr. Arntzen were compensated and everyone else donated the right of way, it would violate the assessment policy and possibly invalidate that policy. It was suggested that in order to assess for the right of way, the City must purchase it. Therefore, everyone should be treated the same. A suggestion was to condemn all of it. Mr. Schrantz suggested in the instances where the people are willing to donate the property, the City could enter into a friendly condemnation, which also has some benefits for the property owners. No further action was taken at this time. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meering adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '1\ ~ c~~ti;::I Mar lla A. Peach Recor 1- 'Secretary