9.1 SR 10-18-2021
Request for Action
To Item Number
Mayor and City Council 9.1
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Work Session October 18, 2021 Cal Portner, City Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
Rolling Hills HOA SSTS
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Receive information and provide direction.
Background/Discussion
The Rolling Hills Homeowners Association (HOA) currently has a community Subsurface Sewage Treatment
System serving the 28 properties in the association.
The HOA is exploring opportunities to resolve their system, which is nearing failure. They are outside of the
Municipal Services Area and connecting to city sanitary sewer services is estimated at roughly $93,0000 per home.
The HOA would like to address the council with their concerns.
Financial Impact
N/A
Mission/Policy/Goal
City Mission
Attachments
Rolling Hills SSTS City Hook Up Project
2020 Rolling Hills UMN Memo
UMN Rolling Hills Over-Excavation Memo
The Elk River Vision
A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity.
Updated: August 2020
Situation: The Subsurface Septic Treatment System (SSTS) for Rolling Hills RH SSTS Permit:
(RH) is failing and an option to resolve the failure needs to be
No original permit found for an
implemented. The homeowners are faced with an incredibly challenging
SSTS install or SSTS operating
situation that is both resource extensive and has a significant financial
permit from the MPCA or by the
burden.
city.
th
Design Changes: Nov 8, 2000,
Background:
request for revision by the City of
th
June 19, 2000: Elk River City Council approved a 29-lot single
Elk River change design from
family residential plat called Rolling Hills.
10,000 gal/day to 13,000 gal/day
o Wetland Conservation Act Decision, Rolling Hills, Case No.
MPCA permit for the cluster, but
WCA 00-2
not the design, installation of the
o 38 acres of non-developable land allocated to RH (Back
SSTS.
40)
June 2020 RH initiated an
In 2000: RH SSTS was installed on a site that was not feasible.
operating permit through the City
January 2020 - June 2020: RH had several septic inspections and
of Elk River.
repairs due to surfacing effluent.
o Inspections concluded system was failing and overworked
RH SSTS Soil Assessments:
for many years.
Initial soil testing in 2000 conflicts
o Inspections concluded some residential repairs would be
current assessments done Fall
needed for managing I&I
2020.
October 2020: Soil and Site Feasibility tests were conducted and
o Fall 2020 Several subject
repairs for RH SSTS current system would not be feasible.
matter & environmental
experts assessed and
November 2020 May 2021: RH received consultations on new
concluded the current
design options from: Steinbrecher, LLC & Bolton & Menk.
site was and is not
June 2021: Due to the overwhelming costs for a new SSTS design
suitable for SSTS. I.E. See
option, RH Board and Septic Committee consulted with two
soil assessment from Sara
Attorneys.
Heger, PhD and Dan
o A construction attorney and HOA attorney both
Wheeler (U of M).
concluding we are past the statute of limitations for any
legal action on the current design and installation of our
RH SSTS New Design Options &
SSTS.
Estimated Costs
June 2020: RH HOA concluded the city hook up was the best
Steinbrecher, LLC: New SSTS in
option for long term sustainability, but major concerns with the
Back 40
financial burden.
Bolton & Menk:
Њ͵ City Hook Up (effluent
o RH HOA Preliminary vote June 2021: 26 of the 28 homes
only) Ћ͵Џ ƒźƌƌźƚƓ ε
responded
ƚƓŭƚźƓŭ ĭźƷǤ ƒƚƓƷŷƌǤ
21 indicated the city connection is our best option
ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ ĭŷğƩŭĻ
16 of the 21 indicated the city connection
2. Back 40 SSTS Њ͵Б ƒźƌƌźƚƓ
is a significant financial burden and would
ǞźƷŷ ƚƓŭƚźƓŭ operating
need other means to defray the project
costs
costs.
Ќ͵ Surface Discharge Ѝ
5 did not agree with the city hook up and
ƒźƌƌźƚƓ ǞźƷŷ ƚƓŭƚźƓŭ
indicated the financial burden would be too
ƚƦĻƩğƷźƓŭ ĭƚƭƷƭ
severe
Current: RH Board & Septic Committee continues to evaluate how
to fund the project.
RH HOA Considerations
RH SSTS Funding Options
RH SSTS was installed in a location that was feasible,
RH HOA applied for $2.0M state
o If it were a feasible site, the HOA SSTS would be planning a
bonding funds, which is pending
repair project rather than full replacement option.
decision
RH is a small community with only 28 homeowners to share the
RH HOA is investigating selling the
expense.
Back 40-acres
Current proposal does not afford additional homeowners along the
o 20 acres to B&B Sod
line to connect into the line to share in the costs.
~$200,000 market value
Concern for future assessment when/if line is upgraded to allow
o 40 Acres is not ideal for
additional connections.
development
City sewer connection Is effluent only
o City Ordinance and HOA
o Unlike other communities connected to city sewer, RH HOA
Covenants would need to
members will continue to have maintenance/repair
be amended
responsibilities and associated costs to the common interest RH HOA submitted a request to
the MN Conservation Legacy
compon
department to see if the back 40
city connection station) and maintenance/repairs to their
would be eligible for their
individual septic components.
program.
Despite effluent only, SAC fee per homeowner remains assessed as
RH HOA may be able to sell 3-4
part of the project.
lots at the current SSTS site but
will be years post project and full
Funding Mitigation Considerations
decommission of drain field
RH HOA has researched and
City to support the new Urban Development Expansion project to
reached out to several resources
initiate to County Road 33 to allow RH HOA to connect to this
rd
to evaluate other Grant options
location rather than 193. ** understanding that the Urban
with no options found to date.
Development Expansion project is a projected project, but
RH HOA discussed with the City
anticipation for development in the next 10 years for the city to
the American Rescue Plan Act of
recoup the costs for the trunk line to be initiated for the RH HOA City
2021 has provided $2.6M in
Hook up.
funding to be used for eligible
SAC & Trunk Sewer Fee waived for the RH HOA City Hook - $197k
expenses, at the discretion of the
Assessment interest fee waived
city.
Other considerations?
U NIVERSITY OF M INNESOTA
Room 173 McNeal Hall
Onsite Sewage Treatment Program
1985 Buford Avenue
Water Resources Center
St. Paul, MN 55108
University of Minnesota
Extension Service
800-322-8642
Fax: 612-624-6434
septic.umn.edu
To:RollingHillsHomeownerAssociation
From:Dr.SaraHeger
Date:11/10/20
RE:Replacementsepticsystem
TheOnsiteSewageTreatmentProgram(OSTP)isservingasaresourceforRollingHillsIƚƒĻƚǞƓĻƩƭ
Association(RHHA)helpingtheAssociationdesignandoverseeinstallationofanewsubsurface
sewagetreatmentsystem(SSTS).Ontwooccasions,ourstaff,includingasoilscientistandan
engineer,havemetonsitetoevaluatethesoilandsiteconditionsatvariouslocationsownedbythe
RHHAwiththehireddesigner/consultant.Belowisasummaryofthetwovisits:
1. OnSeptember23,2020,thefocuswasonthealternativeareanearthecurrentdrainfield
area.Thesoilsinthisareawould ƓƚƷ allowforTypeIsoiltreatmentduetoshallow
periodicallysaturatedsoilconditions,soilcompactionandimpactsfromtheexisting
drainfield.ThesesoilevaluationsalsoindicatedthatthecurrentsystemisͻCğźƌźƓŭtoProtect
DƩƚǒƓķǞğƷĻƩͼaccordingtoMinnesotaRulesChapter7080.Thelocationofthecurrent
systemintotheseperiodicallysaturatedsoilconditionsislikelyoneofthereasonsithas
beenproblematic.Thisdrainfieldareaalsorequiresa200footsetbacktoanydrinkingwater
well,duetothedailywastewaterflowvolumewithintheSSTS.Anotherpotentialareainthe
woodedhillslopewaslookedatbutnotfullyevaluatedatthistimeduetoonlyslightly
bettersoilconditions,limitedarea,andproximitytothepropertyline.OSTPrecommends
thattheconsultantdetermineifthenewsystemwouldfitintheexistingdrainfield,
consideringthepotentialforgroundwatermounding(anelevatedwaterlevelduetothe
additionsofwastewater).Thelimitedsystemlayoutoptionsandthecorresponding
moundingevaluationindicatedthatthissiteishighriskforsurfacingofeffluentand
thereforeotherlocationsshouldbeconsidered.Thesoilfromthisareacannotsimplybe
removedandreplacedtosolvetheproblems.Therearemanyfeetofclay,compactedsoils
andwetlandsoilscoveringtheentireareaandthisdoesnotimprovetheperiodically
saturatedsoilelevation.Inaddition,theğƩĻğƭflattopographyandsurroundingsoil
conditionswillexacerbatewetnessatthissiteΑevenifthesoilwasreplaced.Thesystemis
currentlydischargingapproximately9,000gpdthatmustbesafelyreturnedtothe
environmentwithpropertreatmentandremainbelowthegroundsurface.
2.OnOctober28,2020,thefocusofoursitevisitwasontheopenprairiearea.Thesoilsinthis
area Ǟźƌƌ allowforaTypeIsoiltreatmentsystem.Agroundwatermoundingevaluationwill
beneeded,butitisunlikelythattheresultsofthisevaluationwillbeproblematic.OSTP
recommendsthisareaforthenewsystemasthemostcosteffectivewaytobothdeliver
wastewatertothesiteandtreatittothespecificationsofMNRulesChapter7081.Building
inthisareacanavoidimpactstowetlandsandtheareacancontinuetobeusedfor
recreation,althoughsnowmobileandATVtrafficwillhavetostayoffthesepticsystem.The
Associationshouldconsiderafenceorothermeansofprotectionforthesystemarea.The
MPCArequiresapretreatmentsystemthatisanitrogenbestmanagementpracticedueto
thepredominantlysandysoils.Acoupleofbenefitsofusingapretreatmentsystemisthe
soiltreatmentareawillhaveincreasedlongevityaslongasthepretreatmentsystemis
properlymaintainedbecausewastewaterwillbecleanergoingintothesoilandthesoil
meetsecondary
treatmentareamaybeloadedatahigherratesincethewastewaterwill
treatmentstandards.
TheotherissuethatneedsattentionbytheRHHAaretherecordedflows.Forthenumberofhomes
inthecommunitytheflowsare~30%higherthanistobeexpected.Therearetwocommonsources
forexcesswaterinwastewatertreatmentsystems:
(1) sumppumps,watertreatmentdevicesandothercleanwatersourcesconnectedto
thesystemand/or
(2) leakyseptictanksandpiping
Itisrecommendedthatthisissueberesolvedpriortoreplacingthesystemasitis ĭƩźƷźĭğƌ thatthe
systemnotbereceivingandtreatingtheseothersourcesofwater.Thisevaluationcanbeconducted
bythehiredSSTSlicenseddesigner/inspectororanotherlicensedSSTSinspector.Itwillrequire
accesstoeachŷƚƒĻƭbasementandseptictank/pumpsystem.
Over Excavation (aka soil correction) at Rolling Hills’ Existing Soil Treatment Area
Dan Wheeler – UM Soil Scientist
Knowns:
1. The native and natural soils across the entire mowed grass area are drumlin-like in their characteristics. This
means that they naturally perch water (have saturated soil conditions) seasonally within 12” of the soil surface.
Underlying these unsuitable wet soil conditions is many feet of densely compacted glacial deposit of varying
textures including clay and clay loams as verified during earlier fall 2020 soil pits dug and described. These soils
do not allow for water movement, which is why there is saturation evident in the overlying soils. These very
similar soils were observed in their more natural state on the north side of the Rolling Hills property just north of
the trail off of Cleveland Avenue.
2. The soils across this entire mowed grass area have been compromised by previous activities on this site.
a. There are severely compacted soils from agricultural and/or construction activities.
b. There are areas closer to Jarvis Street that have the presence of fill in wetland areas as verified during
earlier fall 2020 soil pits dug and described.
c. Existing wastewater does not infiltrate/move vertically into and through these soils and has likely
plugged any voids with solids.
3. Clearly, the status of the soil resource in the entire mowed area is problematic.
Solutions:
1. Removal and correction of the problem soil.
a. This effort will remove some compacted and/or clayey soil.
b. Any replacement soil would have to be able to withstand placement with minimal compaction – MN
Rule Chapter 7080 specifications limit this to clean sand.
c. This effort will not remove or change the fact that water is moving in the landscape. Digging a large hole
in relatively impermeable materials and filling it full of different material creates a bathtub in the
landscape. Water will not be able to move into the surrounding unexcavated soils so will fill the new
area with water. In addition, the filled wetlands are still wet as was evidenced by gley soil conditions
(permanent saturated conditions) during our earlier fall 2020 soil pit in this area and will add to the
water in this area.
2. Underdrains to lower and/or drain water (in addition to soil removal/correction).
a. MPCA has considered any artificial drainage within the area of a wastewater soil treatment area to
require a surface discharge permit known as a National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES). This
moves the project into another permitting group with the MPCA and would require additional design,
monitoring, reporting, etc. along with larger permitting fees. This is considered a tall hurdle by many and
is one way the MPCA discourages such a solution (see attached MPCA factsheet).
b. In addition, saturated soil elevation does not necessarily lower with an underdrain. Underdrains provide
an easier outlet for the water. Additional work would be required to verify. A drainage maintenance
agreement would also be required.
c. The elevation of the periodically saturated soil will remain the same on the site for the design of a new
system. There will not be any credit given to any fill material that is at or below the original soil surface
as the surrounding soils remain and possess this limiting soil condition. This means mounds would still
be required to be constructed similar to earlier discussions, layouts, etc.
3. Find a natural soil condition that is favorable for treatment and acceptance of wastewater.
a. Allows for the use of established 7080/7081 design practices.
b. Provides a greater certainty of long-term performance and life span.
c. There will be a simplified permitting process
Rolling Hills City Council 10.17.21 SSTS
RH HOA Board and Project CommitteeHOA Septic RH –Alicia Thunell CommitteeHOA Septic RH –Tyler Erickson HOA Treasurer RH –Darin Thom HOA Vice PresidentRH -Dawn Doll RH HOA President-Megan
Hanson Committee
Update RH Neighborhood Preliminary Votesevereindicated the financial burden would be too did not agree with the city hook up and 5•other means to defray the project costs.a significant
financial burden and would need indicated the city connection is 16 of the 21 •optionindicated the city connection is our best 21•homes responded28 RH HOA Preliminary vote June 2021:
•project will entailOverwhelming input of the financial risk this •MeetingCity Council from last
RH Considerations with City assessed as part of the projectDespite effluent only, SAC fees per homeowner remains 3.components. maintenance/repair to the common interest Effluent only:
RH HOA Members will continue to have 2.costsalong the line to connect into the line to share the Current proposal does not afford additional homeowners •upgraded to allow for additional
connections. Concern for future assessments when/if the line is 1.Hook Up
RH Financial Burden bankruptcies of the homeowners.and foreclosures,abandonment,forrisk Significant•financial needs vs. assessment).choose paying for college & other major Generational
impact (forcing families to •
RH SSTS Funding Options be amendedCity Ordinance and HOA Covenants would need to-**For any of the Property options field.decommission of the drain and require fullbe several years post
replacement project would 4 lots at the current SSTS site: -3Not Ideal for development–Sell Back 40Market ValueSell 20 acres to B&B Sod Farm ~$200,000 5. RH HOA Property: datereached
out to several with no options to RH HOA researched and Other Grants: 4.be eligibleSubmitted a request to see if the Back 40 would RH HOA MN Conservation Legacy: 3.RiverAllocated through
the City of Elk Funds: American Rescue Plan Program 2.the funds appropriately.the city can allocate we get the MN state bond,other mechanisms to offset the project costs. If forward,
we need to assess move this projectapproval and there is a need to legislatureAs this is subject to MN State Bond: 1.
What to share the expense. homeowners 28 RH is a small community with only 2.~$500KestimatedThe HOA was prepared to fund this project in 2020, Initial repair/rebuild option is not viable
for RH. –not feasible. RH SSTS was installed in a location that was 1.Differentmakes RH
Project Cost Mitigation Considerations Other considerations??4.overall project cost equal to the repair costs. Due to the small size of Rolling Hills and site is not feasible for repair,
capping the •Project Cost Cap: 3.Allow 0% interest on funds allocated to project and assessed to homeowners.•$197k-City Hook With only effluent service, waive SAC & Trunk Sewer Fee
waived for the RH HOA •Assessment Fees and Interest2.recoup the costs of the trunk line to be initiated for the RH HOA Anticipated development in the next 10 years, which would afford
the city to which may allow RH HOA a viable connection with anticipated reduced costs. •Urban Development Expansion project to County Road 33 1.