​Minutes of Pucks Point Subordinate Service District Member’s Informational Meeting.
November 19, 2015
 
Kabetogama Township chairman John Stegmeir opened meeting at 7:00 pm. Township Board members present were Supervisor Marlene Tomczak and Supervisor Paul Kliner. Twenty four people attended the meeting, eleven attended in person, thirteen called into the meeting. Chairman Stegmeir turned meeting over to Colin Marcusen, SEH project manager for the Pucks Point project.
 
Colin started meeting by reviewing following: (See attached agenda)

• Project Costs: 3 construction projects (Collection, Treatment and Dispersal) plus engineering, legal, administrative, and land costs.
• Project Funds: Funding sources, Details on DNR capital contribution and estimated Monthly fees to members. Colin explained importance of Good Neighbor Policy as final monthly EDU costs is based on % of subordinated service district members participating.
• PFA Requirements – specifically Commitment Cards.
• Projected project schedule.

Colin opened the floor to questions, comments and concerns.

• Colin stated he was aware there were individuals who were willing to sign their commitment cards but would like to state they were still not in favor of the project. He encouraged people to check yes on commitment card and run a line through the statement “we are IN favor of connecting to the project”.

• Larry Warrington asked how many people have committed to project. To date verbal or written commitments from all but 3 or 4. By end of meeting only 2 had not committed.
• Jerry Mitchell requested additional details on project costs broken down by property owner. Colin reviewed project costs, stating some phases of the project could be broken down by property but the lump sum portions could not.  Also asked for was an explanation of the current cost of the project versus the initial estimate of $1 million.  Colin addressed this by explaining the increase in construction costs over time, a different design from the original proposal and, the additional properties added to Pucks Point Subordinate Service District since 2003 have contributed to higher price tag.
• Another concern was the amount of rock excavation involved in project and potential for cost over-runs. Colin agreed that adjustments may be needed over the course of the project.  These adjustments would require a change order to the contract where the additional work is described and cost agreed on before the work is done. The project has $175,000 in contingency monies built in of which any unused portion will applied to the PPSSD debt upon completion of the project.
• Colin responded to a concern about the capacity of the treatment system for future expansion.  Colin stated that the treatment system was designed to handle additional use.  There is sufficient land in the treatment area to expand if needed.
• The PPSSD have already been paying an assessment for costs incurred to this point.  Has the DNR been assessed as well?  Colin/Township stated they were not sure but assumed not.  This issue will be looked into.   
• Colin addressed questions on how cost of operational maintenance will be computed. First year cost will be distributed evenly by EDU.  This will establish a base.  Future costs would be distributed based proportional to use established by monitoring run time on the grinder pumps.  For those sharing a tank, a proportional use would have to be determined based on that tank’s grinder pump run time.
• There was a question regarding electrical hookup for the grinder pumps – would ther be a need for upgrading individual electrical service?  Colin stated that these would be wired into the property owners electrical box.  Most will be using one horse pumps; a few will be using ½ horse pumps requiring a dedicated 15/20 amp breaker/line.  He was not sure if there were issues with sub-standard boxes or no capacity in current boxes but this would need to be addressed by the property owner.
• Colin stated Township will hire operator to maintain and service the system.  

Suggestion made to consider working with International Falls operator since
position will require specific licensing.

• Colin addressed project warranties and willingness of MPCA to work with Subordinate Sewer district on timelines in reaching and maintaining acceptable discharge levels.
• Casey Deziel expressed concern on who will be overseeing project once construction starts. Colin stated he expects this to be a 3 month project. SEH will have staff on site monitoring the project through all 3 stages of the project. Project overseer will be experienced in construction. MPCA and possibly St. Louis County will be completing intermittent inspections. Colin encouraged property owners and Township officers to also monitor the project and contact SEH with any concerns. All property will be returned to condition prior to start of project. Locations are pretty much unchanged from last summer. Colin anticipates seeing some small changes once construction starts.
• Peter Thompson asked if it would be possible to request earlier start date projected for their property. Colin stated this would be difficult to accommodate. Project is broken down into 3 stages and will not be able to move from one stage to next until previous stage is fully completed.
• Bill and Mary Drystad requested if there is a reevaluation on EDU a member be allowed to review before final ordinance is passed. Colin stated this is possible, expects there will be some adjustments but does not expect a lot of change.
• Allan Burchell expressed concern people who invested in their properties are paying as much as those who have not keep properties up to date. John Stegmeir stated years ago it was determined there was a community need to form a Subordinate Sewer District. People had systems that were not able to become compliant. Subordinate Sewer districts look at the larger picture
• Larry Warrington, spoke on need to look forward not backward. Ecologically sound and environmentally necessary to hook up.
• Question voiced if Colin was aware of any data on average % increase sewer projects incurred from start to finish in Minnesota. Colin stated he was not aware of data.
• Colin will send email to all members of Pucks Point Subordinate District on the results of the commitment card responses.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Minutes of Pucks Point Subordinate Service District Member’s Informational Meeting.
 November 19, 201
 
Attendees
 
            Colin Marcusen -  SEH project manager
            John Stegmeir – KabetogamaTownship Chairman 
            Paul Kliner – Kabetogama township Supervisor
Marlene Tomczak – Kabetogama Township Supervisor
 
            Attendees  onsite:
            Jerry Mitchell – property owner
            Larry Warrington – property owner
            Betsy Warrington – property owner
            Allan Burchell – property owner
            Ken Pederson – property owner
Rusty Lehto – community member
            Casey Deziel – property owner
            Bill Roden – community member
            Mark Strum – community member
            Carol Stegmeir – community member
 
            Attendees via conference call:
            Mike Larson – SEH
            Tom Rukavina – St. Louis County Commissioner
            Mark St. Lawrence - St. Louis County Environmental Services
            Dale Olson     - Koochiching County Environmental Services
            Nancy Johnson – State of Minnesota Public Facilities Authority
            Peter Thompson – property owner
Carol Bacon – property owner
Bob Yaritz – property owner
Dennis Johnson – property owner
            Bill Drystad – property owner
            Mary Drystad – property owner
            Mary Nichols – property owner

KABETOGAMA TOWNSHIP
PPSSD PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 27, 2011
 
Chairman Nevalainen opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.  Clerk Manninen stated that a notice of public hearing had been sent out on June 17, 2011 to all members of the PPSSD district.
 
Julie stated that Scott Harder was not able to catch his flight and could not be at our meeting tonight.  He will call in on the phone line to discuss the options he has sent via Julie Kennedy.  Between Julie Kennedy and Robert Nevalainen the attached option table was discussed and explained.  The PPSSD residents that attended had many questions and concerns but at the end of the meeting a hand count was taken and option two had the most votes so the town board will bring this information back to the July 5th regular township board meeting and will likely pass a motion to go with option two.

See option/fee estimates. 
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Mary Manninen, Clerk,
Kabetogama Township
 
 

KABETOGAMA TOWNSHIP
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 16, 2011

Kabetogama Township Special Meeting
Subject:  PPSSD

The special meeting began at 7:15 pm.  Chairman Nevalainen opened the meeting by having all persons attending introduce themselves.  Chairman Nevalainen introduced Julie Kennedy (SEH) and asked that she take over this next part of the meeting.

PPSSD explanation – the project is currently funded for the 1.5 mil through the PFA, two different programs.  The first program that it is under is the small communities waste water treatment program for 1 million under a 50/50 grant & loan.  The third $500,000 comes from the clean water revolving fund. We are at 43% grant with the remaining, loan.  The design is spray irrigation; woodland irrigation is only fundable in certain programs.  SEH has had to manipulate some of the design and some of the project so that it meets the audits that the funding agency need to go through so they can sign off and say it is eligible through the projects.  Of the 1.5 million when you adjust numbers here and there so that eligibility is defensible for the project we are at 43% grant and the remaining loan.  Commissioner Nelson has met with the IRRB for the remaining funds to bring us back up to the 50% mark.  The Kabetogama Township Board has agreed to move forward if we could be at the 50% funding mark.  Small Communities program is for physcal year 2011and ends June 30th 2011. We need to move forward prior to June 30th with a commitment, with the remaining million coming in 2012 which starts July 1st.  We qualify as a green project.  We need to move forward quickly with the project to have access to those funds before other entities get them.

Financial Advisor – Scott Harder was hired by the Kabetogama Township Board at our May 3rd.meeting. Scott was shown around by Supervisor Town on Thursday the 12th of May.

Currently there are no board policies set as to how the members of the PPSSD will be assessed for this project.  How do the members of PPSSD want to be assessed at this time – capitol cost for   installation at each site (by EDU).  Capitol cost would be covered by everyone in the district.  Metering seemed to be a choice.  Julie explained many different scenarios that could be used.  A lengthy discussion followed on this topic with many different opinions as to this process. Nothing was determined at this meeting.  The Financial Advisor will give his recommendations to the Township board at a later meeting and at that time some decisions will be made and rules put into place.

This project is a 1.5 million dollar project; the small communities waste water program is really for small systems multi year commitments can be made but only 1, $500,000 commitment per state phiscal year July 1 to June 30th.  What we need now is funding for cash flow.  The first could possible be funded by the end of June if all goes well.  The advantage of going forward right now is that the funding is available, if we wait until after June 30th the funding is not secure and may not be available. 

The financial advisor will bring to the township meeting breakdowns to show to the PPSSD members what the costs will be.  This is to be presented at the June 7th township regular board meeting. 

Bond Counsel – Mary Francis Skalla was hired by the township for the PPSSD on a motion by Supervisor Town, seconded by Supervisor Kiner, motion carried.

Chairman Nevalainen moved to continue on with the PPSSD project and begin filling out financial paper to move forward, seconded by Supervisor Town, motion carried.

Chairman Nevalainen moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Supervisor Town, motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted

Mary Manninen, Clerk

Kabetogama Township

KABETOGAMA TOWNSHIP
PPSSD PUBLIC HEARING
July 6, 2010

The meeting was opened by Chairman Nevalainen at 7:00 pm and immediately handed over to SEH Engineer, Julie Kennedy.  Ms Kennedy introduced herself and asked if everyone in the room was up to speed with the PPSSD.  Julie gave a brief explanation to the group about reason for the meeting, the Addendum to the Preliminary Engineering Report.

The purpose of the addendum is to provide an update to the treatment system with respect to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency nitrogen policy and treatment system suitability and to further evaluate an alternative for seasonal woodland irrigation.  The addendum includes these updates to the PER;  Design Basis Update, Nitrogen Removal Policy, Treatment System Suitability, Seasonal Woodland Irrigation/Infiltration Bed System, Recommendations.    

Design Basis Update;  In section 4.3 wastewater design loadings of the PER, mass loadings were provided in Table 4.4 based on an equivalent design population of 253 and typical per capita loading factors.  In Appendix F of the Amended PER dated May 2007, a revised flow of 22,000 gpd was provided.  Table 4.4A provides an update to the design loads based on the increase in the projected wastewater flow from 20,000 gpd to 22,000 gpd (a 10% increase).  Design flow and loading assumes the inclusion of the Wooden Frog Campground.

Nitrogen Removal Component;  The MPCA has a Large Subsurface Treatment System (LSTS) ground water nitrate nitrogen policy.  This policy requires every new LSTS to achieve a 10 milligram per liter or less nitrate nitrogen concentration in ground water at the property boundary or nearest receptor.  The policy includes two permitting options.  Option No. 1 requires an abridged hydrogeologic assessment..  Option No. 2 requires a complete hydrogeologic assessment and a ground water monitoring well network

The project has a projected design flow that is above 10,000 gpd and therefore the system is classified as an LSTS.  AS an LSTS, the treatment system will need to be designed to meet the MPCA nitrate nitrogen removal policy.  The PER selected option No. 1.  However, for this project, it is recommended that a pretreatment treatment system be provided to meet an EOP limit of 10 mg/L total nitrogen under permitting option No. 1.  Option No. 1 is a guaranteed method of complying with the nitrogen policy.

Treatment System Suitability;  because of the reliability of the aerobic treatment units to provide treatment throughout the year, the aerobic treatment unit is recommended over the constructed wetland.

Seasonal Woodland Irrigation;  the use of a woodland irrigation system during summer would preclude the system from falling under the design requirements of an LSTS.  However, nitrogen treatment would be addressed in the design as well as the requirements for disinfection.  The woodland irrigation system would be designed to minimize environmental disturbance.

Recommendations; The recommended system includes a STEP collection, aerobic treatment, seasonal woodland irrigation with offseason infiltration beds. 

Comment Period:

Questions asked were about the timeline for the work to be done and cost.  Brett Balavance commented on the permitting process.  EDU versus monitoring of business parcels.  Mr. Balavance stated that Debt service and operating and maintenance stated individually on a statement works very well.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary Manninen, Clerk

Kabetogama Township

See attached attendance list

Kabetogama Township Working Meeting June 26, 2008

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nevalainen with everyone reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.  Board members in attendance were; Robert Nevalainen, Richard McGregor, Edward Town, Jill Kiner and Marlene Tomczak.  Guests in attendance were; Mike Kolb (St. Louis County), Mike Larson, Denny Reagan, Jim Johnson and Dan Vial (SEH), Gary Cerkvenik (Lobbyist), Bridget Chard (Consultant) and Robert Ruppe (Attorney) on conference call.  There were 22 residents in attendance.

Agenda – Chairman Nevalainen moved to accept the agenda as is, seconded by Supervisor Town, motion carried.  PPSSD residents Jack McMahon and Larry Warrington asked to be put on record as objecting to SEH attending the meeting.  PPSSD resident Bill Congdon asked to be put on record that he was in favor of SEH attending the meeting.

Consultant Bridget Chard suggested that the board allow SEH to give their presentation to explain their presence here. 

Speaker, Gary Cerkvenik Lobbyist, SEH – Mr. Cerkvenik used to work for Congressman Oberstar many years ago, he was a St. Louis County Commissioner who dealt with these types of issues.  He has been a lobbyist on the state and federal level for a number of years.  Mr. Cerkvenik lives in Britt, MN and has knowledge of the relationships that we all have with northern St. Louis County.  One thing that is very clear for sanitary sewer projects, economic development and infrastructure is that it is very difficult to get money for local communities from outside sources.  An asset that this area has is Voyageurs National Park and we need to turn it to our advantage and leverage funding and that is why Mr. Cerkvenik is here.  Mr. Cervenik’s idea for a funding source would be a congressional earmark.  He gave the following background on this. 

Congress appropriates money to run the government every year on an annual basis; they have a budget process, an authorization process and an appropriations process.  We will try to get funding through an annul appropriations bill.  Congress does not generally fund little projects like this, they’ll give a chunk of money for clean water for the United States and it’s divided among the agencies and you compete with everybody else.  It is not easy to get funds this way.  Mr. Cerkvenik went beyond the competition and asked Mr. Oberstar if he would introduce a direct appropriation (earmark) to fund PPSSD for 1.25 million dollars to give PPSSD a federal grant (100% federal money) to build their project.  It is then in sub-committee, there is a sub-committee hearing for water & energy appropriations (sub-committee) and they report out a bill and they are actually reporting a bill out today (6/26/08).  When information comes down on this bill Mr. Cerkvenik will contact Chairman Nevalainen. 

Now if it gets it in the house (sub-committee on appropriations) it then has to go through the full committee.  After the full committee, it has to get the house to pass it.  Once the house passes it then you match it up with the senate as well.  Senators Klobuchar and Coleman have both introduced this legislation on behalf of PPSSD, we then go through their sub-committee, full committee, full senate.  The two bills are different, then it goes to what is called a conference committee, things get worked out, the president weighs in, the president decides how many earmarks there will be.  This is the Pucks Point section of the process. 

Larger Issue (Namakan Basin Project)  What happens if we don’t get the 1.25 million?  We then look at it as a larger picture (Namakan Basin – Kabetogama Township, Crane Lake Township, Ash River Trail).  Mr. Oberstar has written legislation that has been submitted on April 25th to the Water Resources Redevelopment Act, its an authorization.  We are asking basically that Congress is authorized to fund a 28 million dollar project over a 5 year period to fund projects in all three of these areas (Kabetogama, Crane Lake, Ash River).  This is being referred to as plan B.  If we receive the 1.25 million dollars it will be independent of the plan B.  It is possible to get both sets of funding.  In that case the 1.25 million will take care of PPSSD and the other funding will be spread out between the three areas (Kabetogama, Crane Lake, Ash River).  These three entities will decide on what happens how, when and where.  If the 1.25 million funds get approved we would receive them in 2010.  The 1.25 million project is a direct appropriations project not an Army Corp of Engineers project.  It is 100% grant money.  Regarding the 28.8 million dollars; Congress will only do earmarks for up to about 75 to 80% of a project so congressional money covers about 21 of the 28 million we are asking for.  That leaves a gap.  The gap is funded by asking the State of MN through their bi-annual bonding bill to fund the 7 million dollar gap as a grant to this project to match the Federal money.  We have asked Senator Bakk and Representative Dill who said they would introduce the legislation.  Bonding bills happen every other year in the State Legislature and are roughly a billion dollars in size.  The State generally spends a billion dollars every other year for Capital Investments.  What are the steps form here on out?  Since we can’t pay for all this ourselves, Mr. Cerkvenik approached the County Commissioners who on July 1st carrying on a proposal to get us about 100 thousand dollars in planning money so we can start to implement this project.  What is SEH’s part in this?  SEH has agreed to do work at no charge and no obligation so far to the township.  Their business structure and how they operate is if they can help us get the money then they get the work if the money does not come through they don’t have any work and we don’t have a project.  They are here helping Mr. Cerkvenik to prepare materials, a plan ect.  SEH has been helping work with St. Louis County to get the 100 thousand dollars.  We are on the agenda for the Committee on July 1, 2008.  If we get that money we then go to the IRRB and ask them for 100 thousand dollars to match.  We would then have 200 thousand dollars of grant money to use over the next couple of years to plan out work so if we get the Federal money and we get the State money we can work our plan (B), that is the overall big picture.

Following Mr. Cerkvenik’s presentation there were many questions and much discussion.  One question that came up was what if Ash River Trail does not agree to become involved in this big project?  That could possibly stop the project.  Another question was how is the district set up with the three different areas?  Until we get some funds for research we can’t answer that question.  If and when these funds were to come through then research will be done to plan how best to solve the sewer project or projects.  The goal of SEH through the whole process is to keep our cost in terms of the planning monies, in terms of the design & construction funds as close to zero as we can.  Hopefully once the project is finished the only cost we would have is the cost of maintaining & operation.  We should know about the 100 thousand by the end of August, IRRB money by the end of the year.  A question was asked that who sets the priorities on these projects?  The people or the joint powers?  If we get the appropriations for PPSSD the priorities get set here locally.  For the Federal money, it goes to the Army of Corp of Engineers.  They would set the priorities based upon local input but it would not be completely our decision.

Discussion regarding PPSSD – Does PPSSD want to move forward?  Where will the funds come from?  Some of the 200 thousand can be used for this project going forward only and then there is the 1.25 million if it comes through.  A hand vote was called foe to see if PPSSD should hold off spending any more monies until the federal grant comes through.  All in favor except for an opposing vote by Larry Warrington.  Mr. Cerkvenik has been hired by the township to lobby for funds and that is at no cost to the PPSSD project.

State and Federal funds can be used for residential and commercial properties.

Easements – Rural Development indicated that you would need a permanent access maintenance easement in order to fund the property hookup.  There are two types of easements; Temporary Construction Easement and Permanent Maintenance Access Easement.  With these easements the homeowner would not have to pay the cost of the hookups.

NAWE – Will not do any more work without another contract.

Compliant Wastewater Systems – There is an In Lieu of clause that can be used for these systems but they have to realize that there will be costs down the line.  These costs will be determined by a formula set up in an ordinance and that cost will be much higher than

they would be paying right now if they were to hook up.  These residents are still in the district but are not hooking up at this time because they are currently in compliance.

A question came up regarding systems that are currently suffering.  St. Louis County will be lenient on suffering systems and give them temporary options and more time because there is a plan already in place (PPSSD).  There is also no need for compliance checks right now.

User Fee – this will be discussed at a later date.

Grant Application Reimbursement - It is possible to get reimbursed up to $3,500.00 per application made.  Bridget says she may have done 4 of them.  She will get the information to the township ASAP.

Land Options – This will continue to be discussed.

A hand vote was taken:  If SEH is able to obtain the $200,000 Grant from St. Louis County & IRRB to do a feasibility study for the three areas, Kabetogama, Ash River and Crane Lake then PPSSD would retain them (SEH) as the engineer for their project.  Eight persons were in favor and 2 abstaining.

Following more discussion, Bridget Chard left the meeting at 8:45 pm.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary Manninen, Clerk

Kabetogama Township

Proposed Agenda for PPSSD Landowner Meeting
Date:   June 26th, 2008
Time:   6:00 p.m.
Place:   Kabetogama Community Center
Subject:  Fees, Funding and Status of Project

1: Call to Order:
   a) Pledge of Allegiance
   b) Roll Call
   c) Move to amend/approve agenda


2: Purpose of Meeting:  to discuss numerous items in relationship to the Puck’s Point Subordinate Service District


3: Agenda Items for Discussion:
   a) User Fees to recover existing costs
        i.      Compliant wastewater treatment systems
   b) Certificate of Indebtedness to use for future work
        i.      Compliance work
        ii.      Land option
        iii.      Legal / Financial work
        iv.      Design
    c) Easement Reply needed for on-site property work
         i.      Form from Clerk
    d) Lease from DNR for treatment and disposal site for system
    e) Second site for expansion of system
         i.      Surveys, drawings, amending the RD and PER, etc.
     f) Current status of Financial options
         i.      Federal level appropriations
         ii.      State level appropriations
         iii.      Local appropriations


4: Next step – does the Township go forward or not? Is this a “fundable” project


5: Future Meetings with landowners – update mailing list


6: Move to adjourn

Date:      01-Feb-08
Time:     1:00 p.m.
Place:     Kabetogama Fire Hall
 
Re:  Puck’s Point Subordinate Service District proposed Wastewater Project
 
Work Meeting Minutes
 
 
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Nevalainen at 1:05 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call was taken and all Supervisors, Deputy Clerk, and Treasurer were present. The Town Clerk was unable to attend. 
 
In addition to the above, the following invited guests were in attendance:  Dennis Tabbert, USDA Rural Development, Chris Holbeck, Voyageur’s National Park, Curtis Sparks, Engineer, Jacques Whitford NAWE, Curt Arnold, MN DNR (on behalf of John Steigmeir), Rebecca Luedtke, DNR Division of Forestry, Mike Forsman, St. Louis County Commissioner and Richard Hyrkss, St. Louis County Environmental Services, and Bridget Chard, Consultant for the Township.  On the phone for the majority of the work meeting was Ms. Darlene Magges, USDA Rural Development State Office. Attorney Bob Ruppe was not in attendance.  A sign in sheet is attached
 
Project Status – Curtis Sparks, Engineer for the Township
Mr. Sparks has large maps of the Puck’s Point and Voyageur Park Lodge areas along with the Woodenfrog Campground proposed wastewater treatment and disposal site.  He gave a small historical background of the beginnings of the project in the Township which began in 2003.  He indicated that the firm had prepared a Preliminary Engineering Report back in 2005-2006 and then did an Individual Service Connection Analysis in 2007 to determine the costs.  Due to the unique topography of the area and the density issues with the project, both the collection and treatment portions were challenging.  The design identified a STEP (septic tank effluent pump) system on the properties connecting to lines in public rights-of-way which would go to a recirculating gravel technology which is now a common technology used. He further explained the issue with the collection system costs due to distances and bedrock and the lack of a decent “large” site for treatment and disposal. 
 
The suggestion of a second site going through Voyageur National Park land to a parcel of land owned by the Kabetogama Lake Association was proposed.  The Engineer indicated that they could take a look at this in the spring and determine a general cost for the Township to consider adding into the present project.
 
Ms. Luedtke, DNR discussed the lease arrangements in the letter sent to the Township Board which requires a ten (10) year lease with other conditions.  Discussions were done regarding the fact the Rural Development might have a problem with this due to the fact that the loan was for a forty year duration and they would need assurances for that length of time. There were a few more items to put into the final Facilities Plan as well identified in the letter.  Ms. Luedtke stated that it was also a liability issue for their part should the system be abandoned.  She will check on the leasing arrangements to see if it can be extended through a contractual basis with some type of conditions for assurances. She will need the type and terms of the loan and then she will ask the Office of General Council (OGC) to see if it is adequate. As to the second treatment and disposal site, it would also go through the park land and easements will need to be done. 
 
 Rural Development – Mr. Dennis Tabbert, USDA RD Virginia and Ms. Darlene Magges, USDA State
Mr. Tabbert began by thanking everyone there and began to give a general overview of the Water and Wastewater Disposal Program criteria.  The Township meets the criteria because they are a public body,
meet the population criteria and therefore can receive a loan with a grant component based on income. He indicated that the Township met the income profile for a grant of some kind. It was identified as being $42,000 per median household income (MHI) for the 2000 census.  He indicated that if the Township thought the project had a lower income level that they could request from the Federal level to do an income survey. If approved though and the income survey was completed, then they would have to go with that number. He cautioned that perhaps they might want to stay with what they have since they do qualify for some grant although small.  Currently the loan rates are at about 4.3/8% market rate. Currently the Township qualifies for the intermediate rate which is 4.5%.
 
The demand for the money is very high and therefore they will usually partner with others for funding projects such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Wastewater Infrastructure Funding (WIF), Public Facilities Authority (PFA), Small Cities Grants and monies through MPCA such as State Revolving Loan Funding, etc.  Question is how much loan can the Township afford?  Affordability is usually 1.5% of MHI, which translates into $52.50/month per EDU.  At approximately 70 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), they would qualify for 70% loan and 30% grants for the project. Interim financing could be made available in different ways including working with the Rural Water and others.  Will need to work with others for the whole package which is about 2.15 million to get this project done.  Ineligible fees would be grant writer fees, street improvements beyond the existing, private property connections with some exceptions.  A permanent owner access easement would be required.  Interest in this was indicated especially on the south end of the project (Voyageur Park Lodge). Could make the sewer a little more fundable if public right of way is obtained.  Other issues that would impact this would be public health issues a failure of systems.  Suggestion may be to do compliance inspections in the spring and send them to the state.  St. Louis County Environmental Services suggested that they be sent directly to the State since the State will be working with the permitting.    The MHI for the Township is over the required MHI for 45% MHI and they are above the poverty threshold. It appears that at this time the project cannot be wholly fundable by just RD. Concerns about costs were expressed by landowners and how it this can be dealt with.
 
At this point Mr. Holbeck from Voyageur’s National Park addressed the nutrient studies that were conducted on the lake.  He noted that the bloom is not a natural bloom.  This is the first year of a three year study and he supports the efforts to clean up the lake.  Coli bacterial alone showed significant colonies.  Core study is for algae; however, they found mammal bacteria and when DNA tested human coli were found.  This is a priority issue with regards to the lake since it can cause public health and safety issues.  A request from the Town Board and the Township Engineer to supply data was done.  Mr. Holbeck will coordinate with the Township Engineer to get what data that is available.  Voyageurs National Park will support the efforts in whatever way they can and suggested that this would be a good time to do it or at least get a request in for an appropriation.  Congressman Oberstar submitted the bill and worked hard to get the Park and it seems that it would a good fit to work with him to help clean it up and make it an economic and healthy environment again.  At this point, it was suggested that VNP be designated as impaired water since it is currently an ORVW.  At this point, some landowners expressed concern about tourism and their economics should the perception about the lake be made known.  It was suggested that because they were already ahead of the curve to work towards clean-up that that might be a positive factor.
 
Mr. Tabbert continued through the pre-application materials and indicated that an application for Stage I have begun and most of the items have been completed.  He received a number of them today.  He finished his materials and answered questions. A question from the Consultant as to the proper designation for the application will be cleared up after research by Mr. Tabbert.  
 
Financing – Bridget Chard, Consultant for the Township
Discussion on the present status of the financing was given during the discussions above.  Consultant Chard identified the following: Rural Development (Stage I almost completed), WIF has been submitted, Project Priority Listing completed (only 28 points at the present time.need 40 to get somewhere), IRR (Iron Range Resources) for Engineering costs (to be submitted), CBDG (Community Block Development Grants) were solicited; however, the project was not eligible. The LCMR (Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources) deadline was missed for this funding session. It derives its’ money from the lottery for the environment.  NETCSC (National Environmental Training Center) which has the NOPD (National On-Site Demonstration Projects funded by EPA) was contacted; however, the funding has been stripped.  The 569 Program is currently not available until possibly sometime in the next year after the election.  There was one other program that will be researched which is the MPCA (MN Pollution Control Agency’s) program for small communities.  The program is funded by the legislature and will now do cluster systems. The Rural Development State Office party, Ms. Magges, suggested that this might be another funding option to add to the process and encouraged the Township to check it out.
 
St. Louis County Comments – Mr. Richard Hyrkss and Commissioner Forsman
At this point, Mr. Hyrkss from St. Louis County and Commissioner Forsman were asked for their comments.  Commissioner Forsman thanked everyone for coming and stated that St. Louis County would help support the efforts with the Township.  He encouraged the Town Board present a request for a Resolution in support of the efforts.  He was certain that it would be honored.  The Consultant also stated that they would probably also request a monetary effort as well since they had done this for other Townships in the past.  He further stated that he would also take any information and request out to the Federal level when they met in the early summer in June for the transportation committee work.  The Consultant inquired as to when St. Louis County had their Day at the Capitol and would it help to have the Board meet with the legislators down there as well.  The answer was in the affirmative.  Commissioner Forsman indicated the CBDG monies come directly to the County and also indicated that the project probably was not fundable since he checked.  Mr. Hyrkss indicated that he knew the area well and the problems with wastewater systems up there.  He was concerned, but surprised about the potential of a public health issue and said that they would definitely work with all concerned. 
 
Discussions
A question was asked if Woodenfrog Park was included in the hook-ups.  The Engineer said yes. The State Park people indicated that they want to be good stewards as well to the lake.  As to funding help, that was left unknown at this time.  VNP said the same…that their budgets were struggling. 
 
Landowners asked if the piping could go under the lake to Voyageur Park Lodge and the landowners there and if it has ever been done.  Engineer said it has been done; however, they would have to check this out.
Directional drilling or blasting would be contingent on permits, water depth, etc.  An Environmental Report and the Preliminary Engineering Report would be needed to be done. It was suggested that the Town Board consider the training being provided by Rural Water Association.  Consultant indicated that there was a session in Bemidji on the 12th of February in case the Board members could attend. 
 
At this point, Commissioner Forsman asked that Mr. Gary Cerkvenik be recognized.  He was a prior Saint Louis County Commissioner and is now a Lobbyist. He worked with the Crane Lake Sanitary District to get their financing. He also worked with the DNR project and moved it from a ranking of 431 to #1 and helped to get it funded.
 
At this point, he indicated that the biggest assets for leveraging funds to the Township were the State DNR and Voyageur’s National Park.  He felt that a direct appropriation would be what is needed here and that the Township should look at a bigger picture and take in the whole side of the lake and do it all. 
 
 
Some of the items covered by Mr. Cerkvenik were:
·         Direct Appropriations – Apply to Department of Interior (VNP to provide stats to help this)
o    Need statistics to show the members of Congress
o     
o    National Park  FY 2009
o    Package:
§  St. Louis County Resolution / package
§  VNP letter
§  DNR – legislative / send letter
·         569 Program – Annual appropriation will be in 2009
·         LCMR – Apply to it when it becomes opened up
·         State Bonding by Request to the Department of Finance
 
Suggestion is to also partnership with resource protection groups.  Mr. Holbeck suggested that the Township contact the Voyageur National Park Advisory Committee which helped to get the Park set up.  They have some very strong allegiances to the Park and might be able to help.  There was a consensus that there should be a packet of information (short and sweet) to hand out to legislators and congressmen and women to support the efforts.  The Town Board was asked if they were ready to consider a 
“bigger picture” and work towards this.  At that point there was no firm answer.
 
The meeting was breaking up and the Board Chairman thanked everyone for coming and that they felt it was a productive meeting.  Motion by Supervisor Town, seconded by Supervisor Nevalainen to adjourn the meeting.  Meeting adjourned at 3.50 p.m.
 
 
 
Submitted by: B. Chard                      
 
 
Amendments, if any:
 
 
Date: ____________________
 
 
 
Approved: ___________________________________________________

Work Meeting Notes

Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2007 (Sent via email & hard copy)
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Place: Kabetogama Community Center
Re: Landowner Work Meeting for Puck's Point Subordinate Service District

Present:
Ed Town, Kabetogama Township Supervisor, Liaison to Puck’s Point SSD
Shane Sparks, Jacques, GIT, Whitford NAWE, Inc
Bridget Chard, SCPC

Landowners:
Larry Warrington
Dick Seavey
Bob Yaritz
Peter Thompson
Christy & Jerry Mitchell
John Seville
Jack McMahon
Bill Congdon

Meeting began at 1:20 p.m. with a few misunderstandings.  The meeting was not posted for the Board to be in full attendance and therefore Mr. Town, as Liason, stayed for the meeting.  It also seemed that the meeting notices did not get mailed out in time and most received theirs on Wednesday of that week.  They have requested that two weeks notice be given in the future so they can make arrangements accordingly and the Consultant indicated that she would convey that to the Board.  The last concern was that many could not download the Preliminary Engineering Report from the website or they did not have e-mail.  The Consultant and Engineer will get copies to those that need them.  Sign in sheet is attached to hard copy of minutes for Town Clerk’s SSD Project Files.

Engineer Sparks then began his presentation and took the group through the report by slides (will send them in the future when available.  Considerable discussion was done on the collection system with questions regarding types of pumps, sizes, and what the landowners would need.  They also asked about whether the costs were included in the numbers so that property owners systems (on their own sites) were part of the total cost.  Engineer Sparks indicated that they were. 

The treatment and disposal portion of the system were discussed as well.  Questions were fairly straightforward with the treatment portion (i.e. what if it rains and how does this impact, what treatment happens and what about the winter and the design of the system itself and how much land was needed). Disposal had two options depending on whether the group wanted to think about getting it done for the existing flows now or if they should consider the future and possibly bigger flows.  They asked the Engineer to come back with those options in the next two weeks and they would meet independently after they received them and let the Board know which one they should move forward on. 

It was suggested that the Board begin to discuss land options with the DNR since the project cannot move forward unless they get land.  Supervisor Ed Town agreed that this should be done at the next meeting and instructed the Consultant to prepare the motions necessary to get certain things done so time would not lag. Everyone agreed that the Board should consider moving fairly quickly in regards to the project and that timelines and financing need to be started.

The Engineer proceeded to discussions on Operations and Maintenance costs and identified some of those costs and why they are needed.  He indicated that once the options were defined (as they were that day) he could get a better idea of what to do.  They went over the flows from each of the landowners and he was instructed to identify what costs for capital (construction, etc.) and the costs for Operations and Maintenance and future costs / per landowner.  He said he will now do this and get back to them ASAP. He also discussed flows and how they should be handled, bedroom, flows, or EDUs. It was determined that bedrooms should be used for now to reflect flow and metering possibly later. The landowners felt that this should be known prior to moving to a Public Hearing process.  If the project is too high, or land cannot be obtained, then they could stop and give the Board a dissolution resolution.  Mr. McMahan indicated that it would take 75% of the property owners to present this. 

The Consultant then handed out materials regarding financing and spoke about the different forms and how they work.  She also discussed the local, state and federal issues and where funding was currently at. She also discussed short term (interim gap financing) and the long-term financing and suggested that it might be time to begin this work now since some big costs could be coming up.  The issue of identification of failing systems and wastewater treatment systems in compliance was discussed since this will need to be done to receive state and federal money.  In addition, an income survey will probably be needed if Rural Development becomes involved.  She ended by stating that the deadlines for financing for some funding have passed for this year and that it is important the Board re-group to get others and we will try to pick up the rest early next year.

Mr. Warrington asked if they could escrow money for the Township to use since many have begun to put money away.  It was suggested that they could do this; however, the Township has a new Treasurer and it might be a bit daunting for this Treasurer at this point.  The Township would have to keep careful records on this. A Certificate of Indebtedness was explained as well as how it would work. After some discussion, the group will proceed to work with the Town Board and weigh the options as time passes. 

The Landowners stated that they wished to work closely with the Board and that communication was very important and they want to keep the project moving.  They felt that it had been delayed over the winter possibly unnecessarily and were concerned about some property owners with timelines from the County. The Consultant suggested that they should let her know that since there was a project in place and the County knew they were moving forward, that more time would be given to the property owners’ problems. Many had failing systems and were still using outhouses at this point and did not want to continue another year doing this. It was felt that it may take one-two years to get complete construction done. 

The next steps in the project were identified as follows:


1: Move to authorize the Attorney, Engineer and SSD Supervisor Liaison, Ed Town to begin negotiations on a land option on the Woodenfrog Campground property immediately.


2: Engineer to finish out costs for capital/property owner as well as Operations and Maintenance costs/property owner and send them out ASAP.


3: Get copies of PER reports to everyone that does not have one before we go to Public Hearing.


4: Move to authorize the Consultant and Board to begin work on financing and seek funding.


5: Move to allow more communication with the landowners on possibly a monthly basis via newsletter, e-mail groups, etc.


6: If the above is done and it is a go forward on the project, the following major steps would be done (not necessarily a total outline or in order of everything at this point):
a. Public Hearing for Preliminary Engineering Report (PER: needed for financing)
b. Secure Land Options and finalize Agreement with Woodenfrog Campground
c. May need to complete a more detailed Facility Plan from the PER.
d. Authorization of development of Plans & Specifications / Meeting on design
e. Easements for Collection System
f. Financing / short-term and long-term are to be identified and put into place
g. Ordinance developed and implemented
h. Possibly a Rate Hearing may be needed as well
i. Authorization to go to Bid on Plans & Specifications

There are many more steps than those identified, but once the project begins to move ahead, future work meeting will help everyone to understand what the next steps are.  The meeting adjourned about 3:15 p.m.

MOTIONS FOR BOARD

The following motions should be considered at your May 1st, 2007 Board meeting:

1. Motion by Supervisor _________________, seconded by Supervisor _______________ to authorize the Supervisor Liaison Ed Town, NAWE, and Attorney Bob Ruppe to begin negotiations regarding a Land Option Agreement with Woodenfrog Campground and the DNR Representatives for the Puck’s Point SSD.

 

1. Motion by Supervisor _________________, seconded by Supervisor ______________ to authorize  Consultant Chard, Town Clerk and Town Treasurer and Attorney Ruppe to begin on financing options for short-term and long-term financing and to set up the accounting procedures accordingly for the Puck’s Point SSD.

* Resolution to follow on reimbursement and for seeking funding applications which the Chairman and Clerk will need to sign will be done as soon as options are known.

1. Motion by Supervisor _______________, seconded by Surpervisor _________________ to authorize Consultant Chard and Supervisor Liaison Ed Town to set up for monthly communications tools to inform and answer questions to and from the property owners in the Puck’s Point SSD.

KABETOGAMA TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT 

Kabetogama Township is the gateway to the Voyageurs National Park.  One is taken back in time the moment of your arrival in this beautiful land of smooth worn rocks and clean clear lakes.  This peaceful lake county has its origins in great, natural disturbances.  Huge sheets of glacial ice from the north overrode this area.  As they passed through, the glaciers scraped and plowed the earth beneath their crushing weight leaving a beautiful smooth rocked landscape. 

It is believed that the area resembled the hill country of Kentucky and Tennessee as they are today.  There were numerous streams with very few lakes.  As the climate slowly became cooler and drier, forests of spruce and other conifers appeared, sea levels dropped, and land that had been originally submerged formed over bridges, which many new animals to this part of the world immigrated from Europe, and Asia.  Man did not leave any record of his existence at that time.  

The geology of the National Park area is mainly granite, biotite schist, and migmatite (a rock consisting of inter-layered granite and biotite schist on various scales).  The exception is the northwest corner of Rainy Lake, where a major volcanic-sedimentary (greenstone) belt projects in from Ontario. All of these rocks are early Pre-Cambrian.  According to many geologists, some are 2.7 billion years old.  As the glacier receded, ice was caught in the debris.  As it thawed, it made the now known kettle lakes that dot the area.  Other lakes formed in the natural depressions or as the glacier carved out basins in the bedrock. 

The climate warmed, the ground thawed and lichens, mosses, ferns and forest returned to cover the barren landscape.  As generations of these plants lived and died, they helped to build a thin mantle of soil.  Today you see smooth, polished and grooved rock surfaces on numerous islands which are the tops of rocky crags the ice failed to remove.  This is what creates the beauty of the area.[1] 

In the 1970s Congress created the Voyageurs National Park and the peaceful lake country we know today.  In 2000, Kabetogama Township, St. Louis County, was established and a Town Board of Supervisors was elected.  Their stated goals are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the small emerging community of Kabetogama.  The primary purpose for forming the Township government and the Community Action Plan was to allow the community to play a larger role in fulfilling its needs, providing a common voice in order to participate in a broader debate on issues and policy development on matters that impact the community. In December, 2002, Kabetogama finalized and adopted this Community Action Plan with the Land Use and a Wastewater Committee group of citizens interested in protecting the environment.  This Plan identified protecting the environment and wastewater as basic issues and concerns to pursue.

In 2003 Kabetogama Township merged the Land Use and Wastewater Committee groups and they were charged with developing a plan for wastewater improvements on Kabetogama Lake.  The Township Board desires to assess the long-term solutions to improving the community’s wastewater infrastructure.   The method of identifying the needs and priorities for wastewater improvement is through an amendment to the Kabetogama Township Community Action Plan dated December 2002.   

Currently the reliance on onsite wastewater systems represents a major impediment for business and development especially when the respect for natural resources is paramount.  The focus of this amendment is to identify the priority for establishing economically viable and environmentally sound approaches to the establishment of wastewater systems in the community.  The infrastructure improvements must be needed, affordable and merge with the environment – not harm it.  Improved wastewater services should be more attractive and more permanent that the current mound systems that are the predominant wastewater treatment choice.  Working together as a community to get this done will be necessary since costs to repair, replace and manage this very valuable and resource sensitive environment cannot be done individually in many areas.  Therefore, a community plan for more than one area in the Township will help define common groupings that could work together and save time and costs equally.

This Community Action Plan Amendment establishes the criteria for prioritizing the areas where wastewater services should first be considered.    These criteria include:

1. Existing and future development areas
2. Natural resources (lakeshore, soils, geology, wetlands and floodplain)
3. Environmental criteria 
4. Blending and working in harmony with the present ecological environment.

No attempt has been made to weight the criteria, as they were all considered equally important.  If any areas identified are referred for further study, the Town of Kabetogama can use the priority established in the Community Action Plan as well as input from the community. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Areas within Kabetogama Township were rated based on the criteria established by the Township.  The criteria were developed to identify potential locations where wastewater treatment needs exist and problems may arise.  Existing rules and ordinances establish the minimum standards for onsite wastewater systems. 

There are important definitions in State and County rules and ordinances that apply to individual sewage treatment systems.  These definitions impact the compliance of existing systems that in turn defines the need for upgrading wastewater systems in Kabetogama Township.  Below are the State and County definitions. 

Minnesota Rule 7080, for onsite wastewater systems, provided definition for sewage treatment systems that are considered “failing” and for those that are considered an “imminent threat to public health or safety”.   Definitions for these terms are as follows:

“Failed System” means a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, leaching pit, other pit, a tank that obviously leaks below the designated operating depth, or any system with less than the required vertical separation as described in 7080.0060, subpart 3.

“Imminent threat to public health and safety” means situations with the potential to immediately and adversely affect or threaten public health or safety.  At a minimum, this includes ground and surface water discharges and sewage backup into dwelling or other establishments.

St. Louis County adopted their Individual Treatment Systems Ordinance 55 effective August 1, 2000 (ISTS Ord. 55). The ISTS Ord. 55 governs treatment systems constructed in the townships and unincorporated areas of St. Louis County.   In addition, a point of sale provision applies to property transfers.  Important definitions are as follows:

“Imminent threat to public health” means situations where the system is discharging to the ground surface, backing up into the structure, or presents any other situation that prohibits system function.  This situation must be abated in 10 days and a new system installed in 60 days unless weather conditions prohibit.  In such case the administrator may issue a provisional permit for a holding tank or other method of temporary abatement for as period not to exceed 150 days. 

“Non-conformity” means any existing soil treatment system that has less than the equivalent of three feet but more than one foot of vertical separation between the bottom of the distribution media and saturated soil level or bedrock in shoreland areas or two feet in non-shoreland areas; any system that discharges sewage to a seepage pit, dry well, or leaching pit; or individual sewage treatment systems in use that are undersized relative to occupancy.  The system may be used until the property use is expanded or the system fails.

“Definitional Failure” means that the system has less than 1 foot of vertical separation but is not discharging to the surface.  The system must be corrected within 2 years

Also consulted in the criteria development was the Kabetogama Township Community Action Plan, the St Louis County shoreline zoning ordinance. 

METHODOLOGY

An initial set of criteria for wastewater were presented to the Kabetogama Town Board on April 19, 2004.  To determine densities aerial photos of the area were consulted.  Soils maps, floodplain maps and existing zoning maps were reviewed for environmental suitability. 

Wastewater Criteria

After consideration of the needs, natural resources and environmental considerations, the following criteria were established for wastewater prioritization:

1. Residential and commercial developments where lots have less than an average of 100 feet wide or where other nonconformance with zoning requirements is known. 
2. Groupings of buildings (commercial and residential) of at least ten (10) units.
3. Residential and commercial development in the shoreline zone (1000 feet).
4. Existing and potential development areas adjacent to roads considered by St. Louis County as “Major Collectors”.
5. Developments where the St. Louis County Soil Survey indicate the presence of poor soils for wastewater systems.  (currently no data is available)
6. Areas where wetlands or floodplains will impact future development.
7. Bedrock rock topography which hinders proper wastewater treatment.
8. Wastewater systems that are in noncompliance (based on St. Louis County records) or where wastewater systems variances have been granted (no variances were found).

Data may not be available in order to rank the project area on some of the criteria.  However, the criteria are important and when information becomes available the ranking will be adjusted accordingly. 

 KABETOGAMA TOWNSHIP

 

Kabetogama Township is the gateway to the Voyageurs National Park.  One is taken back in time the moment of your arrival in this beautiful land of smooth worn rocks and clean clear lakes.  This peaceful lake county has its origins in great, natural disturbances.  Huge sheets of glacial ice from the north overrode this area.  As they passed through, the glaciers scraped and plowed the earth beneath their crushing weight leaving a beautiful smooth rocked landscape. 

It is believed that the area resembled the hill country of Kentucky and Tennessee as they are today.  There were numerous streams with very few lakes.  As the climate slowly became cooler and drier, forests of spruce and other conifers appeared, sea levels dropped, and land that had been originally submerged formed over bridges, which many new animals to this part of the world immigrated from Europe, and Asia.  Man did not leave any record of his existence at that time.  

The geology of the National Park area is mainly granite, biotite schist, and migmatite (a rock consisting of inter-layered granite and biotite schist on various scales).  The exception is the northwest corner of Rainy Lake, where a major volcanic-sedimentary (greenstone) belt projects in from Ontario. All of these rocks are early Pre-Cambrian.  According to many geologists, some are 2.7 billion years old.  As the glacier receded, ice was caught in the debris.  As it thawed, it made the now known kettle lakes that dot the area.  Other lakes formed in the natural depressions or as the glacier carved out basins in the bedrock. 

The climate warmed, the ground thawed and lichens, mosses, ferns and forest returned to cover the barren landscape.  As generations of these plants lived and died, they helped to build a thin mantle of soil.  Today you see smooth, polished and grooved rock surfaces on numerous islands which are the tops of rocky crags the ice failed to remove.  This is what creates the beauty of the area.[1] 

In the 1970s Congress created the Voyageurs National Park and the peaceful lake country we know today.  In 2000, Kabetogama Township, St. Louis County, was established and a Town Board of Supervisors was elected.  Their stated goals are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the small emerging community of Kabetogama.  The primary purpose for forming the Township government and the Community Action Plan was to allow the community to play a larger role in fulfilling its needs, providing a common voice in order to participate in a broader debate on issues and policy development on matters that impact the community. In December, 2002, Kabetogama finalized and adopted this Community Action Plan with the Land Use and a Wastewater Committee group of citizens interested in protecting the environment.  This Plan identified protecting the environment and wastewater as basic issues and concerns to pursue.

 

In 2003 Kabetogama Township merged the Land Use and Wastewater Committee groups and they were charged with developing a plan for wastewater improvements on Kabetogama Lake.  The Township Board desires to assess the long-term solutions to improving the community’s wastewater infrastructure.   The method of identifying the needs and priorities for wastewater improvement is through an amendment to the Kabetogama Township Community Action Plan dated December 2002.   

Currently the reliance on onsite wastewater systems represents a major impediment for business and development especially when the respect for natural resources is paramount.  The focus of this amendment is to identify the priority for establishing economically viable and environmentally sound approaches to the establishment of wastewater systems in the community.  The infrastructure improvements must be needed, affordable and merge with the environment – not harm it.  Improved wastewater services should be more attractive and more permanent that the current mound systems that are the predominant wastewater treatment choice.  Working together as a community to get this done will be necessary since costs to repair, replace and manage this very valuable and resource sensitive environment cannot be done individually in many areas.  Therefore, a community plan for more than one area in the Township will help define common groupings that could work together and save time and costs equally.

This Community Action Plan Amendment establishes the criteria for prioritizing the areas where wastewater services should first be considered.    These criteria include:

1. Existing and future development areas
2. Natural resources (lakeshore, soils, geology, wetlands and floodplain)
3. Environmental criteria 
4. Blending and working in harmony with the present ecological environment.

No attempt has been made to weight the criteria, as they were all considered equally important.  If any areas identified are referred for further study, the Town of Kabetogama can use the priority established in the Community Action Plan as well as input from the community. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

Areas within Kabetogama Township were rated based on the criteria established by the Township.  The criteria were developed to identify potential locations where wastewater treatment needs exist and problems may arise.  Existing rules and ordinances establish the minimum standards for onsite wastewater systems. 

There are important definitions in State and County rules and ordinances that apply to individual sewage treatment systems.  These definitions impact the compliance of existing systems that in turn defines the need for upgrading wastewater systems in Kabetogama Township.  Below are the State and County definitions. 

Minnesota Rule 7080, for onsite wastewater systems, provided definition for sewage treatment systems that are considered “failing” and for those that are considered an “imminent threat to public health or safety”.   Definitions for these terms are as follows:

“Failed System” means a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, leaching pit, other pit, a tank that obviously leaks below the designated operating depth, or any system with less than the required vertical separation as described in 7080.0060, subpart 3.

“Imminent threat to public health and safety” means situations with the potential to immediately and adversely affect or threaten public health or safety.  At a minimum, this includes ground and surface water discharges and sewage backup into dwelling or other establishments.

St. Louis County adopted their Individual Treatment Systems Ordinance 55 effective August 1, 2000 (ISTS Ord. 55). The ISTS Ord. 55 governs treatment systems constructed in the townships and unincorporated areas of St. Louis County.   In addition, a point of sale provision applies to property transfers.  Important definitions are as follows:

“Imminent threat to public health” means situations where the system is discharging to the ground surface, backing up into the structure, or presents any other situation that prohibits system function.  This situation must be abated in 10 days and a new system installed in 60 days unless weather conditions prohibit.  In such case the administrator may issue a provisional permit for a holding tank or other method of temporary abatement for as period not to exceed 150 days. 

“Non-conformity” means any existing soil treatment system that has less than the equivalent of three feet but more than one foot of vertical separation between the bottom of the distribution media and saturated soil level or bedrock in shoreland areas or two feet in non-shoreland areas; any system that discharges sewage to a seepage pit, dry well, or leaching pit; or individual sewage treatment systems in use that are undersized relative to occupancy.  The system may be used until the property use is expanded or the system fails.

“Definitional Failure” means that the system has less than 1 foot of vertical separation but is not discharging to the surface.  The system must be corrected within 2 years

Also consulted in the criteria development was the Kabetogama Township Community Action Plan, the St Louis County shoreline zoning ordinance. 

 

METHODOLOGY

An initial set of criteria for wastewater were presented to the Kabetogama Town Board on April 19, 2004.  To determine densities aerial photos of the area were consulted.  Soils maps, floodplain maps and existing zoning maps were reviewed for environmental suitability. 

Wastewater Criteria

After consideration of the needs, natural resources and environmental considerations, the following criteria were established for wastewater prioritization:

1. Residential and commercial developments where lots have less than an average of 100 feet wide or where other nonconformance with zoning requirements is known. 
2. Groupings of buildings (commercial and residential) of at least ten (10) units.
3. Residential and commercial development in the shoreline zone (1000 feet).
4. Existing and potential development areas adjacent to roads considered by St. Louis County as “Major Collectors”.
5. Developments where the St. Louis County Soil Survey indicate the presence of poor soils for wastewater systems.  (currently no data is available)
6. Areas where wetlands or floodplains will impact future development.
7. Bedrock rock topography which hinders proper wastewater treatment.
8. Wastewater systems that are in noncompliance (based on St. Louis County records) or where wastewater systems variances have been granted (no variances were found).

Data may not be available in order to rank the project area on some of the criteria.  However, the criteria are important and when information becomes available the ranking will be adjusted accordingly. 

 

RESULTS    The results of the criteria ranking for wastewater are shown in Exhibit 1.  There were 8 areas in the Township that were ranked as shown on Map C1 Wastewater.  They were named as follows:

Area Name

Ranking

1. North Kab - Lost Acres, Harris Beach, Ness Road

6

1. Puck’s Point

4

1. State Point

6

1. Northern Lights

5

1. North 123 - Gappa Road

7

1. Burma Road

5

1. East 123 - Gappa Road (off lake)

2

1. N123 and N122 - (off lake)

2

Areas that have the highest score have the greatest need for infrastructure services.  Data available for ISTS systems not in compliance was available form the St. Louis County ISTS database.  There is no data indicating that variances have been granted.  If failed ISTS systems were discovered the ranking of the sites would change.  

 

RECOMMENDATIONS     The priority ranking of areas for potential wastewater services should be used as a guide.  If the opportunity for infrastructure development occurs in an area of lesser priority it does not mean that it should not be pursued.  Further, by adopting this priority it does not mean that wastewater services will necessarily follow.  This is a guide for the Town of Kabetogama to consider infrastructure improvements on a priority basis.  Further, if an area is proposed for infrastructure improvements it is not inferred that all properties within the improvement area will be services by the improvement.  These decisions will be made based on factors beyond this Community Action Plan Amendment. 

For wastewater, the existing infrastructure which consists of individual treatment systems should be managed in a manner that protects the public health and promotes the longevity of the system.  As the existing systems reach their useful life, the need for connection to or creation of community systems will become a higher priority.   

 

EXHIBITS     Exhibit 1 is the ranking sheet for wastewater.  The total scores are reflective of the need and priority for future consideration by the Township.  No weighting was placed on the criteria.  Future actions by the Township may consider weighting the criteria to meet opportunities that may arise for infrastructure development and improvement. 

Site Map C1 Wastewater shows the location of the sites that were ranked and their ranking is color coded to numerical ranking in Exhibit 1.   

Several maps and documents were utilized in the development of the rankings that are not produced herein.  These maps and documents are on file at the Kabetogama Town Hall.  They include:

1. Kabetogama Community Action Plan, December 2002
2. Aerial Photos  dated 9/23/1997 
3. Lake Kabetogama Lake Map, B-0208, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
4. Topographic Map, Kabetogama 69-21, St. Louis County, Provided by USGS
5. National Park Service Brochure:  Voyageurs (Geology)
6. Preliminary Soil description by the US Department of Agriculture
7. The St. Louis County Zoning Map effective December 19, 1995 titled Kabetogama 69-21
8. St. Louis County Wetland and Watershed Boundary Map dated June 1, 1999. 
9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 270416 0075 C,  dated  February 19, 1992 
10. The Town of Kabetogama Plat Directory dated 4/01/04
11. The St. Louis County 2002 Plat Book.

RESULTS    The results of the criteria ranking for wastewater are shown in Exhibit 1.  There were 8 areas in the Township that were ranked as shown on Map C1 Wastewater.  They were named as follows:

Area Name

Ranking

1. North Kab - Lost Acres, Harris Beach, Ness Road

6

1. Puck’s Point

4

1. State Point

6

1. Northern Lights

5

1. North 123 - Gappa Road

7

1. Burma Road

5

1. East 123 - Gappa Road (off lake)

2

1. N123 and N122 - (off lake)

2

Areas that have the highest score have the greatest need for infrastructure services.  Data available for ISTS systems not in compliance was available form the St. Louis County ISTS database.  There is no data indicating that variances have been granted.  If failed ISTS systems were discovered the ranking of the sites would change.  

 

RECOMMENDATIONS     The priority ranking of areas for potential wastewater services should be used as a guide.  If the opportunity for infrastructure development occurs in an area of lesser priority it does not mean that it should not be pursued.  Further, by adopting this priority it does not mean that wastewater services will necessarily follow.  This is a guide for the Town of Kabetogama to consider infrastructure improvements on a priority basis.  Further, if an area is proposed for infrastructure improvements it is not inferred that all properties within the improvement area will be services by the improvement.  These decisions will be made based on factors beyond this Community Action Plan Amendment. 

For wastewater, the existing infrastructure which consists of individual treatment systems should be managed in a manner that protects the public health and promotes the longevity of the system.  As the existing systems reach their useful life, the need for connection to or creation of community systems will become a higher priority.   

 

EXHIBITS     Exhibit 1 is the ranking sheet for wastewater.  The total scores are reflective of the need and priority for future consideration by the Township.  No weighting was placed on the criteria.  Future actions by the Township may consider weighting the criteria to meet opportunities that may arise for infrastructure development and improvement. 

Site Map C1 Wastewater shows the location of the sites that were ranked and their ranking is color coded to numerical ranking in Exhibit 1.   

Several maps and documents were utilized in the development of the rankings that are not produced herein.  These maps and documents are on file at the Kabetogama Town Hall.  They include:

1. Kabetogama Community Action Plan, December 2002
2. Aerial Photos  dated 9/23/1997 
3. Lake Kabetogama Lake Map, B-0208, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
4. Topographic Map, Kabetogama 69-21, St. Louis County, Provided by USGS
5. National Park Service Brochure:  Voyageurs (Geology)
6. Preliminary Soil description by the US Department of Agriculture
7. The St. Louis County Zoning Map effective December 19, 1995 titled Kabetogama 69-21
8. St. Louis County Wetland and Watershed Boundary Map dated June 1, 1999. 
9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 270416 0075 C,  dated  February 19, 1992 
10. The Town of Kabetogama Plat Directory dated 4/01/04
11. The St. Louis County 2002 Plat Book.