Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public safety building progress and vapor‑mitigation plan discussed after contaminated soils discovery
Summary
City staff reported progress on the Hibbing public safety building project and described a pending vapor‑mitigation proposal after excavation uncovered roughly 3,000 cubic yards of petroleum‑impacted soils; the mitigation proposal was not approved pending cost clarifications.
The Hibbing City Council received a construction update on the new public safety building on April 15, including schedule, budget and a pending environmental mitigation proposal after contaminated soils were discovered on site.
Todd Ericson of AP told council the project has completed foundations and is installing precast walls; he said the team recorded 197 work days and reported one lost‑time injury that worker has since returned to duty. Ericson summarized the schedule for precast and structural steel and provided a high‑level budget status: portions of the work show differing percent complete and contingency balances remain for forthcoming phases.
Ericson said excavation uncovered approximately 3,000 yards of petroleum‑contaminated soils and that the design team proposes a vapor‑mitigation system (described as large subfloor perforated piping leading to a roof‑mounted exhaust fan) to protect 24‑hour staff spaces where firefighters will stay. The proposal (PR06 in project packet) would place perforated piping below the floor slab and vent vapors externally. Ericson said the design team was still clarifying cost and technical questions from trades and the PR06 cost was not ready for council action; he expected to return with costs and clarified specifications.
Mayor and councilors asked about schedule impacts and winter weather delays; staff said the project largely stayed on track despite cold weather and that some winter allowances were used (rock fill) to maintain progress. Ericson also noted contingency use and that trades had posed follow‑up questions requiring answers before PR06 could be acted on.
What happens next: staff will return with a costed PR06 vapor‑mitigation proposal and any contract change order requests; the council did not act on PR06 at this meeting.
