2012.05.07 Work Session Packet (Tri-City Meeting with New Hope and Golden Valley)CyrAL
1 . Call to Order
l Id v of
golde'ioil.
s
VT .
JOINT CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
(Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope City Councils)
AGENDA SUMMARY
MAY 712012
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
Andy 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:
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
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
Why are we doing this?
* To ensure a water supply under emergency conditions where
Minneapolis supply to the JWC 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
5/3/2012
Where are we going...
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 emergency supply
* New Hope Well
2
5/3/2012
MinneapolisSupply, _
& Treatment
"tit Supply: Mississippi River via
single intake`
* Treated at Fridley & Columbia Minneapolis }_.
Heights facilities Waterworks i_.
* Softened and filtered Fridley campus ti
No current emergency supply I
* Emergency supply being it
planned now -- - -' - ---- -
J.;WC Water Facts
Water Quality
Softened filtered water
Low in iron & manganese
* Variable in temperature
Water Use
* JWCAvg.Day-6.8MGD
* Winter low use day-5.5 MGD
* Peakday-LBMGD
2.2 BGtyear
JWC Water Facts
Who is using our water?
Residential: 76.8%(5.4 MGD)
Commercial: 18.1% (1.3 MGD)
Industrial: 5%(0.3 MGD)
Future Trends
* Stable to declining use trends
* Stable population (slight
increase projected)
* Decline due to:
Conservation (8o to 75 gpcd)
* Leak detection and repair
Fixture replacement
3
5/3/2012
JWC Risks
Risk
• Mechanical failure
• Power failure
• Major reservoir failure
* Short term supply
interruptions
• Long term 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
• Droalght(30's, 85, 07)
* I looding (65, 6% 11)
* Tornad0(65, n)
* Loss of 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)
4
5/3/2012
Demand Reduction Measures
* Stage t: Voluntary Reduction Measures
* Stage z: Mandatory Reduction Measures
* Stage 3: Mandatory Water Allocation Restrictions
based on priority uses
Priority Uses
* MN Statutes: 103G.26t Water allocation priorities
1. Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and
commercial uses of municipal water supply, and use for
power production that meets the contingency planning
provisions
2. a use of water that involves consumption of less than
to,000 gallons of water per day
3. agricultural irrigation, and processing of agricultural
products involving consumption in excess of to,000
gallons per day (JWC has no 3rd priority water users)
5/3/2012
4. power production in excess of the use provided for
in the contingency plan (JWC has no 4th priority
water users)
5. uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of
agricultural products, and power production,
involving consumption in excess of io,000 gallons
per day (List of 5th priority water users on next slide)
6. nonessential uses, lawn sprinkling, car washing etc
5th Priority
Water Users
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
R
5/3/2012
Concept Under Cons
* Finish preparing New Hope Well for emergency use
* Drill three new wells
* One near the Crystal Reservoir
* One near the Golden Valley Reservoir
* One —1/4 mile from one of the reservoirs
* Total supply-5.5 to 6.8 MGD
Work Since Last Year
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
InteractionWhy 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 Ho's F)
pH8to8.3
pH 6.7 to 7.5
7
5/3/2012
Water Interaction Study
* 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
�p ,r --'
J
o j
Sample
Locations L. ' .4
for Lab Work
Groundwater Sample
N.
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
x pH adjustment not likely needed for emergency
Lab Setup
5/3/2012
Approximate Cost to 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
* 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 887,880,000 617,139,892 637,204,200 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
10
5/3/2012
Rate Impacts to You
$4.2 M over i year
« Adds $r.9oliom gallons (43%increase)
» Average per connection increase -$tt to $i5hnonth for one year
$4.2 M over 6 years:
« Adds 5o.321+000 gall— (7%increase}
» Average per connection increase-$2 to$2.5o/month for 6 years
$4.2 M over to years:
Adds $o.i91— gallons (4.3% increase).
« Average per connecmnincrease -$t.to to$+.5o(month for io years
Summary
* Interruption of water supply is a risk to JWC & Mpls
* 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
is]
11
* Interruption of water supply is a risk to JWC & Mpls
* 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
is]
11
5/3/2012
Authorize feasibility study to site and drill new wells
that includes coordination with Minneapolis Water
Works
Wait on Minneapolis study
12
5/3/2012
• 1970's — significant
flooding around
DeCola Ponds E & F
• 1984 — settlement;
property owners
control and operate w` '
the DeCola Pond F ;
outlet
• 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
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, De Cob PonEF
Golden Valley, New Hope
watershedME
Medicine Lake Road and DeCola Ponds BARR
A. r
Decola
Ponds
watershed
5/3/2012
FloodPhase I mitigation
• 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
Recommended Alternative B=R
3
5/3/2012
• 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 Frooanreer re,.e une, o.�.a, Haw rroa•
Il
W
5/3/2012
• 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
µFbodi
flooding issue and the causes,
17 a Linda Drive,
New Hope 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
F
D.—P—D
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
altarnativac
5
5/3/2012
Each city enter into a
cooperative agreement for
Phase II study
Adopt strategies for resolution
of flooding issues
• Implement!
r p;
Hqh wef—DeGola P—A, Golden-1,
Y
DeGola PondA