Loading...
05-07-2012 Tri-City Council Agenda Packet1 . Call to Order JOINT CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION (Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope City Councils) AGENDA SUMMARY MAY 7, 2012 6:30 P.M. Crystal Community Center 4800 Douglas Drive Crystal A -B Room Open for public observation 2 . Attendance (list of attendees on back of agenda) 3. Update on the Feasibility of Backup Water Supply 4. Update on Surface Water Issues in the Vicinity of Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road, Terra Linda Drive, and the DeCola Ponds Neighborhood 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Participants may include the following: CRYSTAL COUNCIL: ReNae Bowman, Mayor Dave Anderson, Council Member Julie Deshler, Council Member Joe Selton, Council Member Mark Hoffmann, Council Member John Budziszewski, Council Member Janet Moore, Council Member CRYSTAL STAFF: Anne Norris, City Manager Tom Mathisen, Director of Public Works Randy Kloepper, Water Superintendent NEW HOPE COUNCIL: Kathi Hemken, Mayor John Elder, Council Member Eric Lammle, Council Member Dan Stauner, Council Member And Hoffe, Council Member NEW HOPE STAFF: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works GOLDEN VALLEY COUNCIL: Shep Harris, Mayor DeDe Scanlon, Council Member Paula Pentel, Council Member Mike Freiberg, Council Member Joanie Clausen, Council Member GOLDEN VALLEY STAFF: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Sue Virnig, Finance Director Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Pat Schutro , Recording Secretary OTHERS: Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis Council Member Bernie Bullert, Minneapolis Director, Water Treatment and Distribution Services Bonnie Morey, SEH, Inc., Facilitator Brian LeMon, Barr Engineering Company Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Company Todd DeJournett, Barr Engineering Company Jennifer Koehler, Barr Engineering Company 5/3/2012 Inform you of risks associated with your water supply Update on emergency supply work since last year Obtain direction for next steps 11 Why are we doing this? To ensure a water supply under emergency conditions where Minneapolis supply to the J WC is interrupted * Fire protection, health, safety & welfare during an emergency Peace of mind for residents during an emergency * Secure business viability during an emergency Identified action item in your Comp Plan Purpose of this work session Inform you of risks associated with your water supply Update on emergency supply work since last year Obtain direction for next steps 11 Why are we doing this? To ensure a water supply under emergency conditions where Minneapolis supply to the J WC is interrupted * Fire protection, health, safety & welfare during an emergency Peace of mind for residents during an emergency * Secure business viability during an emergency Identified action item in your Comp Plan Where are wLgoing... * JWC System Facts • Risks * Current Emergency Responses * Current Planning Results * Cost Considerations * Next Steps JWC System * Supply&treatment by Minneapolis * Crystal reservoir -19 MG * Golden Valley res. -9 MG • Elevated storage-3.5MG . Limited emergencysupply New Hope Well e 5/3/2012 2 * JWC System Facts • Risks * Current Emergency Responses * Current Planning Results * Cost Considerations * Next Steps JWC System * Supply&treatment by Minneapolis * Crystal reservoir -19 MG * Golden Valley res. -9 MG • Elevated storage-3.5MG . Limited emergencysupply New Hope Well e 5/3/2012 2 [M:in:neapoIis SLlpply nt * Supply: Mississippi River via single intake * Treated at Fridley & Columbia Heights facilities * Softened and filtered • No current emergency supply Emergency supply being planned now Water Quality Softened filtered water Low in iron & manganese Variable in temperature e Water Use JWC Avg. Day-6.8MGD Winter low use day -5.5 MGD Peak day—t8 MGD 2.2 BG/year JWC Water Facts ff x, Who is using our water? Residential: 76.8%(5.q MGD) Commercial: 18.1%(t.3 MGD) Industrial: 5%(0.3 MGD) Future Trends Stable to declining use trends Stable population (slight increase projected) Decline due to: Conservation (80 to 75 gpcd) Leak detection and repair Fixture replacement 5/3/2012 3 JWC Risks os --- Risk * Mechanical failure Power failure Major reservoir failure Short tern supply interruptions + Longterm supply interruption Mitigation Existing redundant systems + Multiple distant delivery points + Emergency power generator at the Golden Valley Reservoir Multiple reservoirs - Three days supply in storage New Hope well: -1/5 JWC avg. day Long Term Interruption: Risks Higher Probability Risks Drought (30's, 88, 07) + Flooding (65, 69, n) + Tornado(65,11) + Lossof Power + Bottleneck + Color means this has occurred but without long term interruption Other Risks * Fire/explosion Spill * Work Stoppage * Chemical Reaction/Spill * Terrorism and Cyber attacks * Operator Error * Water Hammer(supply main failure) 5/3/2012 4 5/3/2012 �n Demand Reduction Mei Stage 1: Voluntary Reduction Measures Stage 2: Mandatory Reduction Measures Stage 3: Mandatory Water Allocation Restrictions based on priority uses MN Statutes: 103G.261 Water allocation priorities Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply, and use for power production that meets the contingency planning provisions a use of water that involves consumption of less than 10,000 gallons of water per day agricultural irrigation, and processing of agricultural products involving consumption in excess of 1o,000 gallons per day (JWC has no 3rd priority water users) Priority Uses power production in excess of the use provided for in the contingency plan (JWC has no 4 I priority water users) uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production, involving consumption in excess of to,000 gallons per day (List of 5 I priority water users on next slide) nonessential uses, lawn sprinkling, car washing etc Golden Valley (9): Courage Center Mermaid Car Wash General Mills (Main Campus) Liberty Carton Honeywell General Mills (JFB) Tennant New Hope Minneapolis Die Casting Dakota Growers Crystal Regal Car Wash 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 Finish preparing New Hope Well for emergency use Drill three new wells One near the Crystal Reservoir One near the Golden Valley Reservoir One -t/4 mile from one of the reservoirs Total supply -5.5 to 6.8 MGD Work Since Last Ye` New Hope Well Emergency Reactivation Request January of 2012 (Regulatory requirement to allow use of existing New Hope well) Water Interaction Study to determine impacts of adding unsoftened groundwater to current system Cost estimate for emergency supply interactionhy the Study? Minneapolis Water Well Water Softened Unsoftened Low in iron and manganese Relatively high in iron and Variable temperature (upper manganese 30's to lower 7o's F) - Constant temp (-50's F) pH 8 t 8.3 pH 6.7 to 7.5 5/3/2012 Two -phased study Computer Model of Chemical Interactions „ Identify potential management methods Lab Tests to Verify Model Results Evaluate what management methods will be needed Look for unexpected results Identify what users would notice Sample Locations for Lab Work , ® �wv ,6,.E ♦�E--{ �:, ..RS+& _ .. ,... 5/3/2012 What would you notice? Move from soft to hard water (more soap use) Winter Emergency: move from very cold to cool water Summer Emergency: move from warm to cool water Some might notice more iron taste than now Remember this is an emergency and you have water! Results Chemical addition to manage iron from well water Monitor pH during transition to all groundwater pH adjustment not likely needed for emergency Lab Setup Approximate Costto Implement * Wells: —$2.9 M + Finish preparing New Hope well for emergency use + Adding three new wells . Minor chemical treatment to disinfect and control iron * Piping: —$1.3 M * Piping wells to reservoir 4 Connection into reservoir * Total: —$4.2 M to design and build Rate Implications: Basis 2009 1,006,879,000 659,025,497 705,329,948 2,371,234,445 2010 887,880,000 617,138,892 637,204,200 2,142,223,092 2011 934,773,000 575,591,136 624,889,300 2,135,253,436 Average billed consumption per year 2,216,236,991 5/3/2012 10 a e mpac so ou $4.2 M over t year Adds$,gojt000 gaffo (43°[incre11e) Average per connection increase -Sit to $i5hnonth for one year $4.2 M over 6 yean: Adds so.3zjt000 gallons ()X iruease} Average per —cti—itcrease - $7 to $2 50/month for 6 years $4.2 M over to years: Adds So.r9jt000 gallons (4.3%MC ase} Average per connection hc,-- s,— to 5,.5.1—th for to years Interruption of water supply is a risk to JWC & MpIs Minimal emergency supply in place: New Hope Well Mpls is currently planning emergency supply 5th priority users at risk Emergency supply is a Comp Plan action item JWC emergency supply cost: 44.2M Could be coordinated w/Mpls emergency supply plan �7 5/3/2012 11 Options * Authorize feasibility study to site and drill new wells that includes coordination with Minneapolis Water Works M Wait on Minneapolis study 5/3/2012 12 Medicine Lake Road & DeCola Ponds 2ARR Flood Mitigation Analysis • More recent flooding (2006 & 2010): o Terra Linda Drive & Medicine Lake Road — property damage o Rhode Island Ave • Long-standing issue in Golden Valley and New Hope 5/3/2012 1 V1hy is •' • • •me history... • 1970's — significantflooding around around DeCola Ponds E & F • 1984 — settlement; property owners control and operate A` the DeCola Pond F outlet ,— E • More recent flooding (2006 & 2010): o Terra Linda Drive & Medicine Lake Road — property damage o Rhode Island Ave • Long-standing issue in Golden Valley and New Hope 5/3/2012 1 5/3/2012 City of New Hope — 2006: Terra Linda Drive feasibility study — 2008: construction of improvements City of Golden Valley — 2011: DeCola Ponds Area ' Flood Mitigation Study — Held two public meetings to ' present analysis results — Staff meetings: Crystal, od o,aPo„nF Golden Valley, New Hope 5/3/2012 • Preliminary analysis — 11 alternatives analyzed — Results used to identify alternatives for more study • More detailed analysis of seven more detailed alternatives — diversion, storage, capacity, case-by-case mitigation DeCola Ponds flooding: — To reduce flooding on DeCola Ponds E & F requires diversion of stormwater flows away from Pond F, additional downstream storage & increased downstream capacity — Not reasonable to resolve with upstream storage — Not reasonable to reduce flooding to completely eliminate flooding of homes — Alternative: mitigate on a case-by-case basis Medicine Lake Rd flooding: — Solution will require significant amount of additional flood storage (33 ac -ft) — Not reasonable to provide all of the storage downstream, some must be provided at Medicine Lake Rd. — Not reasonable to resolve with additional downstream capacity (very expensive to divert) — Reducing flooding at Medicine Lake Rd does not affect the flood levels on DeCola Ponds E & F • Study results — extensive flooding, complex system, expensive to resolve, intercommunity watershed • Costs to reduce flooding at DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Rd: — $3.7 - $24.5 million cost range — $5.8 - $6.8 million for the most promising alternatives — Costs do not include land & easement acquisition or wetland mitigation costs Floodirgel e L ntla Dive, New Hoye 5/3/2012 4 • New Hope brought the flooding issue to Golden Valley's attention in 2006 (Terra Linda Drive study) • Golden Valley moved the DeCola Ponds study up in CIP to 2011 based on New Hope's study results • The cities are now aware of this Pwoane.iT eLindeD,ive.NewHope flooding issue and the causes, and need to address the associated liabilities: — Property damage — Public safety • All cities contribute runoff to the flooding problem • It's standard practice for all contributors to participate • All cities are responsible for the runoff leaving their community • Without cooperation, actions taken by one city may have negative impacts on the others DeCola PondD Phase II study: • Task 1 — initial assessment of alternatives — Cost to acquire flood -prone properties — Assess risk and costs of flooding — Identify alternatives, incorporating long-term land use changes • Task 2 — conduct a cost - benefit analysis of the recommended flood mitigation alternatives --1 1 da Dnve Naw Hope 5/3/2012 5 5/3/2012 • Each city enter into a cooperative agreement for Phase II study • Adopt strategies for resolution of flooding issues • Implement! H1Wh•afw•IDeCole P—A. GOIC•n V—y