NORTH MANKATO — As North Mankato officials move forward with plans for a new Public Works facility, newly discussed details from a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency review of the city’s existing Webster Avenue site have further sharpened public concern.
At Monday evening’s work session, MPCA hydrogeologist Shanna Schmitt presented findings from an assessment conducted at the current site, a former municipal dump that has housed city operations for decades. Based on soil, groundwater and soil-vapor sampling investigations, along with borings, the waste material beneath the site was estimated at roughly 215,000 tons, Schmitt reported to the council.
“There is methane at this dump. It’s not so surprising. It’s municipal waste. Things are breaking down,” Schmitt said, adding methane is the largest risk to human health. “We generally don’t approve new construction on or within 200 feet of a dump.”
Along with methane, she reported that soil and groundwater samples identified a mix of contaminants, including metals such as arsenic and lead, various solvents and higher concentrations of volatile compounds. The assessment work was originally conducted to evaluate residential redevelopment, and that residential use is not recommended unless all landfill material is excavated and removed.
To clean up 215K tons of waste, cost estimates are about $8.5 million for excavation, disposal and transportation costs, and $3.8 million for fill material and grading.
She noted that a methane mitigation system has been installed on the existing building for several years and, while that system manages current risk, more testing would be recommended if the city seeks formal assurances from the agency regarding continued use of the structure.
She said it could also remain the public works site, but would require removal and off-site disposal of all dump material, with costs estimated by Terracon in the millions of dollars. She outlined redevelopment scenarios avoiding occupied structures — such as open storage, green space or unoccupied facilities.
Under the residential redevelopment plan, the developer could apply for state funding for waste removal, though “responsible parties aren’t eligible” for aid. Because it was a municipal dump, Schmitt said, it isn’t eligible for the funds were it to remain the public works building.
“The site can continue to be used as is, with some engineering controls, barriers, mitigation systems and such. The site can absolutely be redeveloped, but the redevelopment requires removal of a lot of dump material,” Schmitt said.
The environmental presentation occurred just before a discussion on design progress for a proposed new public works facility on Timm Road. Representatives from ISG and RW Carlstrom presented preliminary designs, renderings and a project timeline and requested council direction on design options to keep the schedule on track.
“I’m trying to understand the timing of this conversation. I’m wondering whether it may be premature to focus on architectural and interior design elements. The council has not yet approved construction of a new public works facility,” council member Sandra Oachs said, who has historically been vocal about her reservations regarding a new facility.
Public comment following the work session reflected frustration from some residents over learning details of the environmental findings after the city had already advanced plans for a new facility, specifically a Jan. 5 public hearing and authorization for the Port Authority to issue up to $27 million in bonds to help finance construction of the new facility.
“I’m going to push for this public works building to be voted on by the people, because I believe that the people of this town should be able to make that choice,” resident Danielle Bollman said.
The subsequent discussion of the proposed facility included renderings of multiple maintenance bays, a wash bay, office and conference space, vehicle storage, fueling infrastructure, salt and material storage and allowances for future expansion, senior architect at ISG, John Kretchmer, told the council.
“Only three members of the council voted to saddle the 14,500 residents of the city with this huge debt for the next 25 years,” resident Tom Hagen said, adding the information should have been presented earlier in the decision-making process. “Withholding that information from the public invalidates your public hearing, and should make everything from that point forward invalid as well.”
Mayor Scott Carlson asked for comparisons and operational costs between constructing a new facility and continuing to operate or rehabilitate the existing Webster Avenue building. City Administrator Kevin McCann stated that the existing building is undersized for current operational needs and would require substantial reconstruction to address structural and site limitations.
City documents included in the work session packet indicate that any response actions at the Webster Avenue site — including excavation, disposal and monitoring — would not occur before summer 2026 and would depend on funding availability and regulatory approvals.
No formal action was taken but identified follow-up items including providing cost comparisons and developing remediation estimates for alternative sites were requested.
“I don’t want our city workers who we value very much to work in an environment that is poisonous to them, but I also need to be concerned about the price tag of what we’re going to be doing and how we can really manage the safety of our staff as well as the financial responsibility we have to the city,” Oachs said.