Loading...
1. Water Treatment DiscussionCITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Bouievard PO Box 147 Ohanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phooe 952227 1100 Fax 9522271110 Building Inspections Phone: 952 2271180 Fax: 952 2271190 Engineering Phone: 9522271160 Fax: 9522271170 Finance Phone: 9522271140 Fax 952 2271110 Park & Recreation Phone: 9522271120 Fax: 9522271110 Becreatior} Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952227 1400 Faxz 952227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 9522271130 Fax: 9522271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952227 1300 Fax: 9522271310 Senior Center Phone: 952 2271125 Fax: 952.2271110 Web Site www ci chanhassen.mrl LiS TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: MEMORANDUM Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Matt Saam, Acting City Engineer/Public Works Director December 30, 2003 ~ ' Water Treatment Discussion PW024P The issue of water treatment in Chanhassen is being brought back before Council in order to provide an update on the status of recent CAP (Citizen Advisory Panel) meetings and to obtain direction on whether or not to pursue further work on the project. Attached is a memo from Mark Koegler, ofHoisington Koegler Group, which outlines the three treatment options that the Council is asked to provide direction on. These options are: central treatment plant concept, multiple treatment plant scenario, or a no treatment option. The CAP favored the multiple treatment plant scenario. As a separate but related item, City staff has been working on a utility rate study to ensure that the City can pay for future water treatment improvements. Attached is a spread sheet showing proposed utility rate and development hook- up fee increases. These increases are based on the CAP's recommendation ora multiple treatment plant scenario and also take into account the replacement of existing sewer and water lines as they deteriorate. jms c: Mark Koegler, HKGI Steve Nelson, SEH Mike Foertch, SEH CAP Members Kelley Janes, Utility Superintendent g:\cng\water treatment\water treatment discussion 12-30-03.doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with dean lakes quality schools a charming dowr}tow'n thrMr,g businesses winding has and beau:ihd parks A, qreat pla,;~ t, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To.' From: Subject: Date: Todd Gerhardt and Matt Saam Mark Koegler Citizen Advisory Panel Meetings December 29, 2003 This memorandum summarizes Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) meetings held on December 4, 2003 and December 18, 2003. The Citizen Advisory Panel meetings were held to review the status of Chanhassen's water treatment options, to weigh the pros and cons of alternative treatment approaches and to provide a recommendation to the City Council for follow-up action. CAP Meeting - December 4, 2003 The Citizen Advisory Panel met on December 4, 2003 to receive an update on the status of Chanhassen's efforts to implement water treatment. Acting as facilitator, ! provided the group with a background presentation that included an overview of the Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution System Master Plan prepared by Black and Veatch, an update on recent actions by the City and an overview of an incremental, multiple plant approach suggested by SEH. SEH was commissioned by the City to provide a supplement to the much more detailed Black and Veatch plan. The purpose of the presentation and discussion was to determine if the CAP felt that the incremental, multiple plant approach had sufficient merit to warrant further consideration. Discussion by CAP members focused on benefits to the community from a central plant versus a multiple plant approach. Panel members stressed that the City should implement water treatment in a manner that represents the best long-term investment for the City. After hearing more about the SEH approach, the Panel expressed interest in having a subsequent meeting to review some of the preliminary technical aspects of the approach. Accordingly, a second meeting was set for December 18, 2003. CAP Meeting - December 18, 2003 The CAP meeting on December 18th featured four agenda items; 1) a recap of the first meeting, a review of the incremental, multiple treatment plant (SEH) approach, consideration of the pros and cons of central versus multiple treatment plant options and formulation of a recommendation to the City Council. I provided t he Panel with an overview o f t he December 4 t~, meeting noting that i t w as a n on-technical overview of the central treatment plant option versus the multiple treatment plant option. Based on discussion at that meeting, the group agreed to further consider the technical merits of the incremental, multiple treatment plant approach suggested by SEH. Accordingly, Steve Nelson and Mike Foertsch of SEH were present to review a memorandum that they prepared in August. Their presentation outlined a series of system improvements that were designed to meet varying objectives for both the east and west sides of the community. Key aspects of the SEH approach included: East Side of Town (Lotus Lake Well Field) investigate Toluene, modification of Well No. 4 to reduce radium, construct a 4.32 MGD pressure filter treatment plant, expand the system of existing wells, add additional treatment plant capacity, and replace water mains as necessary. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minncapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph(612) 338-0800 Fx(612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7120 Email mkoegler~hkgi.com Water Treatment Memorandum December 29, 2003 Page 2 · West Side of Town (Galpin Boulevard Well Field) Test sequestering agents to control iron and manganese concentrations, construct an 8 MGD treatment plant and abandon the school well. · Water from the Galpin Boulevard Well Field is of higher quality than the Lotus Lake Well Field. Water from the Lotus Lake Well Field exceeds the aesthetic standards for iron by a factor of 3 and manganese by a factor of 7. · Consider establishing treatment of 80% of maximum day demand, a standard commonly used by a number of communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. · Place the highest priority on improving water quality in the east side of town since no compliance issues currently exist in the west side, high pressure area. Treatment is needed in the Lotus Lake Well Field to meet upcoming requirements, as soon as 2008. · Implement treatment in the west side of town in the future as needed based on capacity constraints and potential future compliance issues. After an overview of the memorandum prepared by SEH, the Panel examined the pros and cons of a central treatment plant option versus multiple treatment plants. The following lists the pros and cons of various treatment alternatives as well as the "no treatment" option: Central Treatment Plant Pros Cons Staff addresses operational needs Extensive disruption of at one location community for connected collection system. Chemical storage at one location in Requires securing of only one location Less ability to phase improvements Higher cost More complex approach, therefore, more risk to cost and schedule Requires "working against the grain", reversing the current flow of water in some areas Incremental, Multiple Treatment Pros Cons Plants Lower cost Staff must address operational needs at two or more locations Enhanced ability to phase Chemical storage at multiple improvements locations More flexibility for performing Requires securing of multiple sites periodic maintenance during non- peak demand times (back-up system) Faster implementation time leads to quicker compliance Allows priorities to be placed on addressing areas of most significant need Water Treatment Memorandum December 29, 2003 Page 3 Incremental, Multiple Treatment Plants (continued) Pros Area approach results in less community-wide disruption Cons Passive anti-terrorist measure (spread out facilities) "No Treatment" Option Pros Cons Lower cost No physical disruption to the community from infrastructure improvements Failure to meet mandated standards could result in strict penalties from the Minnesota Department of Health possibly including a Notice of Violation (NOV) or Administrative Penalty Order (APO). Under an APO, the State has the authority to levy a $1,000 ~er day fine on municipalities. Future conditions may warrant the City having to issue a "Boil Order" to ensure safe drinking water. Odor in the water is likely to increase. Iron and manganese concentrations may shield bacteria from chlorine meant to kill them. Water quality not likely to meet the expectations of residents and the business community After reviewing the incremental, multiple plant treatment approach and consideration of the pros and cons associated with each, the Citizen Advisory Panel unanimously suggested that the Chanhassen City Council proceed with steps necessary to further investigate and implement a multiple treatment plant approach to address the City's short and long-term water supply and treatment needs. The Citizen Advisory Panel also agreed to continue its service to the City Council and the community as needed in the future to provide input on plans tbr system improvements and corresponding funding mechanisms.