Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.a. February 22, 2016 Minutes UTILITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 22, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the regular Utility Commission meeting of the City of Rosemount was called to order on February 22, 2016, at 5:35 p.m. in the Conference Room of the th City Hall, 2875 145 Street West, Rosemount. President Speich called the meeting to order with Commissioners Connolly and McDonald, Rosemount Mayor Droste, Public Works Director Wrase, Project Engineer Hatcher, City Administrator Johnson, Public Works Coordinator Watson, Council Member Demuth, Bills Alms (WSB) and Recording Secretary Kladar attending. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA None AUDIENCE INPUT None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Connolly. Second by McDonald. Motion to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2016 Utility Commission meeting. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. Absent: 0. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.a. 2015 Water Quality Monitoring Program Bill Alms from WSB & Associates was present to present a summary of the MS4 project for 2015 and the scope of services for 2016. The Quality Monitoring Program is tied in with the MS4 permit and meets general program requirements related to inspection, long term operation, and maintenance of infiltration BMP’s. The program also provides the City with data to assist with: guiding upcoming Watershed and City Stormwater Plan updates, potential areas to receive regional volume reduction credit through stormwater reuse applications, validating pond treatment efficiencies from SWAMP, supporting conclusions in the City’s non-degradation study; baseline data for future stormwater trunks; and assess winter pollutant concentration associated with snowmelt runoff. 1 Alms showed the history of the program of the various ponds being monitored. Monitoring activities include basin water level elevations at 10 locations; two continuous rainfall gauges; and water quality samples collected monthly. The scope of the monitoring program is conservative with the goal to keep it relatively small but yet capture data. A final report will be prepared at the end of year 5 which will discuss data analysis, 5 year data trends and recommendations. Monitoring results: rainfall to runoff ratio .2 average; E&I (evaporation and infiltration) average rate is .078; and basin TP concentrations average .19 mg/l. Alms added that the same 10 basins would be monitored in 2016 with the addition of two winter samplings at 6 locations. The monitoring results for Rosemount are typical for basins of the same size in other cities. Regarding the phosphorous level found at location 7, Alms said that one specific sample is not an issue and there is a possibility that the sample wasn’t clean and could have altered results. If the higher rate was seen over a continuous time period, further investigation would be necessary (pre- treatment upstream, etc.). Alms replied there is no TMDL threshold to be met as the basins don’t discharge to regulated receiving waters. Mayor inquired about surrounding agricultural land and whether there was any connection under 42 that would be affecting the levels. Alms will look into how the storm sewer is set. Alms noted that typical phosphorous content for urban runoff of .3 to .4mg/l is average range for untreated storm water. Johnson indicated that according to his recent research, typical maximum allowable total phosphorus concentration would be .04 for deep and .06 mg/l for shallow water bodies. Alms added that in most of locations the infiltration is occurring on the bench above normal water level. Wrase inquired about infiltration rates and whether there was any degradation from year to year and Alms stated that the rates seemed consistent but that is one of the trends that will be included with the 5 year final report and analysis. Demuth inquired about sampling methods including a sample from the bottom during winter months. Alms the cost increases with more samples so they have tried to choose one or two sample locations that give the best representation. While there are most likely higher concentrations at lower depth in winter by sampling all year they can see trends. There was discussion about expanding the chloride monitoring. Alms reported that there are currently 82 chloride samples are proposed for 2016 and he’d like to determine the goal before expanding the sampling further. 2 6.b. Flint Hills Athletic Complex Irrigation Well Hatcher provided a summary pertaining to a potential irrigation well at the Flint Hills Athletic Complex. Flint Hills was completed in 2013 and has 3 irrigated soccer fields. The average water usage for the fields is 3.5MG per year. UMore is a similar park which uses an irrigation well to irrigate 2 softball fields and uses 1.6MG per year. The construction cost of the UMore irrigation well was $116,000. The costs associated with construction an irrigation well and connecting the existing irrigation system is estimated to be $195,000. A cost analysis showed that with the initial improvement cost and annual savings, the break-even point is after the 22nd year of operation. With future fields added, the break-even point could be significantly reduced by approximately 11 years. Johnson added that the upcoming Park & Rec bond referendum may answer questions as to timing of a future phase to Flint Hills. The Mayor noted that even if the referendum doesn’t pass, the fields may still be developed in the future. Mayor noted that Akron will be paved and realigned in the future so that should be considered when deciding where a well could be placed. 6.c. Water Conservation Efforts and Update Wrase gave an update of the City’s water conservation efforts. In 2010 the Met Council developed a Master Water Supply Plan. Current conservation efforts include: lawn sprinkling restrictions, tiered water rates, annual newsletter, website page, informational flyer; elementary school education; water efficiency rebate program starting March 2016; and potential installation of a master irrigation control system. Other possible initiatives include: water re-use at Splash Pad, stormwater or treated effluent re-use for irrigation and other non-potable uses at UMore; educational materials to second meter households and irrigation system permit applications; letters to top 10% of water users; informational insert with bills; enforce sprinkling restrictions; enhance City webpage; credits to businesses who have their irrigation system controlled by master controller. The Mayor expressed concern about policies the City has promoted that may cause residents to use more water such as second meters and larger lots and was not in favor of targeted mailings to high use customers. There was general discussion about the businesses and HOAs having the City control their irrigation system. The details on how this would work will need to be worked out once the system is in place. The Mayor suggested education rather than fines to promote conservation. Hugo has the Badger meter system which has real time data showing water use. Wrase noted that the we get similar data through our Sensus meter system. A utility bill insert that showed the high and low end use for informational purposes could be used. Connolly noted that Night to Unite would be a good opportunity to discuss water conservation with residents. 3 6.e. LCCMR Grant Application (moved ahead of Item 6d for discussion) Wrase provided a summary of the LCCMR Grant Application which is due on March 11. In 2015 WSB submitted a joint grant application to LCCMR on behalf of Rosemount, Lino Lakes and Hugo aimed at reducing stress on the aquifers. The 2015 application was not awarded funding. MCES has indicated that reuse possibilities for the Empire effluent are limited due to high chloride concentration and the cost of treatment. The chloride concentration in the Empire effluent is almost five times more than allowed to be suitable for irrigation. The reverse osmosis rate is $10/1000 gallons (4 times higher than irrigation rate). Connolly noted that this year’s application is a stand-alone as opposed to last year and expressed concern that we would be competing with Hugo and Lino Lakes for the grant money. He noted that last year the majority of the applications dealt with surface water and water quality and doesn’t see the Rosemount application as being very high on the priority list. There was discussion about whether the application was worth the effort from an expense standpoint (cost of WSB submitting the application is $5,700). While the City could be a pioneer in this area, would it be more economical to wait and see what the Met Council comes up with and then seek collaboration. Connolly inquired about the status of the UMore development. Johnson noted that on the commercial industrial side Duke Realty is working on the far northeast corner. UMore decided to do at least another year of research on the rest of the area. Demuth noted at a recent conference she spoke to representative of LCCMR and he encouraged the City to apply again this year. The lowest award is $10,000 and they awarded up to $5,000,000. City would be asking for $250,000. Demuth thinks WSB should do the application for free as if grant is awarded they may be the beneficiary of the work. There was general discussion about the new engineering consulting pool system being developed. Motion by Connolly. Second by Speich. Motion to authorize submittal of a funding application to the LCCMR contingent upon Staff re-negotiation of engineering fees for initial grant application. Ayes: 3. Nays: 0. Absent: 0. Motion carried. 6.d. Second Meter Water Usage Watson provided a summary of the data collected regarding water use and the installation of second meters. Customers with two meters use an average of 131,000 gallons per year and those without second meters use 69,000. The data shows that households with irrigation systems typically quadruple their usage during the summer while average users double their usage. It was noted that 4 the citywide average for annual residential demand is 77,000 gallons per household (76 gallons per person per day) and the Met Council goal is 75 gallons per person per day. Some of the recommendations are similar to those previously mentioned in the water conservation discussion such as providing education to residents with irrigation systems. Another option is to adjust the billing system so all irrigation water is billed at the irrigation rate of $2.60 per thousand gallons. Wrase noted that you can’t necessarily draw the conclusion that the second meter causes more usage, as the Quarter 3 magnitude of water use increase is nearly identical between irrigated for one meter and two meter households. Johnson added that people may get second meters because their bills are high due to watering. Watson took small sample from 2012 for 10 homes where a second meter was installed. While the water use spiked after installation of second meter, there is no way of knowing when the irrigation system was installed. Mayor stated he wants to make sure the City doesn’t have policies that promote more water usage. Discussion ensued about putting a moratorium on second meters and how that would be handled. Second meters would have to be phased out and once the second meter fails it would not be replaced and resident would have to have re-plumbed at their cost. A rebate program has been discussed in the past. Also, would the City institute a different billing system for those without second meters? Wrase noted that using winter water use to determine summer fees results in some residents (i.e., snowbirds) who have low water use getting a much better deal. A wider study is required to determine what the impact on the sewer rates would be. These are topics that require more discussion. The Commissioners affirms their interest in the second meter issue and would like further information in the future. 7. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Speich had nothing to report. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 8.a. City Projects Update The attached project report was reviewed and Hatcher provided a brief summary. The first half of test pumping is completed on Well 16. The Danbury Way bid opening was on February 19 and low bid was $200,000 under engineer’s estimate and will go before Council next week to set the public hearing for assessments. Hatcher noted that several private developments just need wear course paving in summer 2016. Bids were opened on the 1.5MG Ground Storage Tank on February 5 but Staff is awaiting a peer review of the design due to cost increases. Regarding sealing of the old wells, Well 4 has been cleaned and MDH will televise and determine whether it can be used for an observation well or abandoned. 5 8.b. 2016 Well Pumping Report The attached report was reviewed and it was noted that pumping was up as compared to last year. 8c. Set Next Meeting Agenda for March 14, 2016 Vermillion River Watershed Report is scheduled for next month’s agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned by President Speich at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karin Kladar Recording Secretary 6