Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atkins council considers $190,000 roof and safety repairs after DNR flags 1939 water tower
Summary
Atkins City Council heard a detailed inspection from Viking Industrial Painting showing roof gaps, a faulty overflow and safety deficiencies on the 1939 water tower; the Department of Natural Resources upgraded the finding to a "significant deficiency," and the council directed staff to request a written proposal and notify the DNR while planning a possible May budget amendment.
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atkins City Council met in a workshop session to review an updated inspection of the city’s 1939 elevated water tower after the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) upgraded the prior finding to a "significant deficiency." The contractor who performed the recent climb, Rob Johnquist of Viking Industrial Painting, told council members the tank needs a new welded roof, safety upgrades and sanitary repairs to meet modern standards.
Johnquist, a NACE certified inspector with Viking Industrial Painting, told the council he climbed the tank, photographed the structure and prepared a condition report. He identified multiple roof gaps, a fill pipe that can be sealed, an overflow that currently discharges from about 100 feet above ground and a primary manway with perimeter gaps that could allow contamination. He said those conditions justified replacing the roof and installing new vents, a secondary manway and welded perimeter seams so the tank can be made watertight.
"I think the smartest thing to do is put a new roof on it," Johnquist said, arguing a new welded roof would both stop sanitary ingress and provide a structurally sound platform for any future containment and sandblasting work.
Johnquist also described several safety and access deficiencies: an aged exterior ladder held by original bolts, missing cable lifeline and a ladder gate, and handrails below modern dimensions. He recommended ladder and railing upgrades and adding a secondary manway to improve worker safety and emergency egress during interior blasting or repairs.
On coatings, Johnquist reported many layers of old paint—likely lead‑containing in places—on the tank exterior. He said preparing the exterior by pressure washing or sandblasting would require containment and special disposal; as a result, the contractor estimated a full exterior sandblast and repaint under containment at roughly $300,000. By contrast, Johnquist gave a ballpark figure of about $190,000 for the roof replacement and the immediate repairs he recommended (not including a full exterior sandblast and repaint).
Johnquist described an alternative product (a sprayed mastic used by some vendors) that can be applied over existing coatings with contained pressure washing rather than full blasting. He said that approach can be appropriate where community or site constraints make sandblasting impractical, but it still requires containment during prep work.
Council members pressed on timing and operational impacts. Johnquist said the work could be scheduled in spring and estimated roughly 4–6 weeks for a roof job (weather dependent) and noted the tank would be out of service while major work is underway. Staff and council discussed storage and pumping capacity; participants cited roughly 270,000 gallons of system storage vs. a peak day use near 210,000 gallons and noted the city’s RO treatment skid has capacity around 240,000 gallons per day, information staff agreed to put into a spreadsheet for clearer public presentation.
Council members also discussed the DNR process: staff reported the DNR had asked for a response by March 6. The council agreed it could send a letter saying the council met with the contractor and has commissioned a formal proposal to address the deficiency, then vote on any project authorization at the next regular meeting. Council members noted the city did not budget for the unexpected work and discussed planning a May budget amendment if the council approves the contractor proposal.
No binding vote to award the work occurred at the workshop. The council instructed staff to request a written proposal from Viking, to notify the DNR that the council has met and is pursuing corrective actions, and to add the proposal to a future meeting agenda for a formal decision. The council also directed staff to prepare clear storage/usage figures to inform whether repair or replacement is the better long‑term option.
The workshop closed after brief discussion of an operator job description for the water/wastewater plant; a motion to adjourn carried.

