CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 17, 2014 at 5 ...
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 17, 2014 at 5:00pm Water Treatment Discussion 1) Call to Order Fischer called the meeting to order at 5:02pm. In attendance: Council members - Mayor Cheryl Fischer, Mark Vanderlinde, Anne Hunt, Arlene Donahue and Bob Christians; Staff - City Administrator Mike Funk, Finance Director Brian Grimm, Assistant City Administrator Mike Barone, Director of Public Safety Paul Falls and City Clerk Terri Haarstad; and Consultants – City Engineer Mark Erichson (WSB) and City Attorney Ron Batty (Kennedy and Graven) 2) Water Treatment a) Opening remarks, Mike Funk, City Administrator Funk outlined the agenda, provided the Council with a timeline of the water treatment issue and an anticipated timeline for further action on this issue in order to meet the timelines set forth in the Strategic Plan. He also informed the City Council that WSB submitted a formal letter to the City indicating their intent to withdraw from the Water Treatment Plant project.
b) Presentation from WSB, Mark Erichson and Bret Weiss Erichson distributed a memo highlighting portions of the value engineering study that they believe should be evaluated in more detail. Of note: Inconsistencies in cost estimates Interconnect costs for a central facility Timing of the proposed water treatment plant Savings on water softener use if the City selects a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system RO operating and maintenance costs c) Presentation from Bolton & Menk, Bob Brown Seth Peterson (Bolton and Menk) and Chris Swanson (Bolton and Menk) presented the Value Engineering Study found in the Special Meeting packet dated March 17, 2014 and reminded the Council that it was their choice whether to accept, reject or modify the recommendations. They acknowledged that as they only had a few days to examine this project, numbers presented are rough estimates and recommended that costs be examined in more detail during the design process. Of note: Water sources (recommended looking at the Mount Simon Aquifer although they did not look at costs of updating wells connected to this aquifer or the likelihood of obtaining permission from the DNR to make a new connection) System Configurations (central facility, multiple facilities, piping raw water from rural areas to households in suburban areas of the City or a combination of them.) Using reserve water from St. Bonifacius Decoupling the water towers to improve pressure Alternate treatment processes Existing treatment plant ideas
Design capacity Pure RO water is not being proposed due to corrosion issues. An 80/20 blend is recommended.
Peterson clarified that the Value Engineering Study was intended to generate conversation and new ideas. All recommendations presented in the Value Engineering Study need to be examined in more detail to determine whether or not they are feasible or cost-effective. Discussion included: Water draw limitations for the Mount Simon aquifer The possibility of additional water draw limitations for other aquifers and areas of the state DNR ban of new well connections to the Mound Simon aquifer Costs associated with bringing water to a central facility and pumping back to homes Sizing of the proposed piping Costs of land acquisition Concrete vs Steel Possible locations of a central water treatment plant Cost projections until 2030 Whether or not input should be solicited from municipal water users What type of water treatment nearby cities (Mound, St. Bonifacius and Waconia) use
d) Review of financial projections/utility Fees, Brian Grimm, Finance Director Grimm presented the staff report found in the Special Meeting packet dated March 17, 2014. Discussion included: Whether or not the projected estimates in the report are accurate An admonition to local media that these projections not be published or, should they be published, it is with a disclaimer that these are rough estimates and are not exact figures How Minnetrista’s water rates compare to rates of other cities (as of fall of 2013, Minnetrista was comparable to the median water rates; however, some cities subsidize water rates with their tax levy.) Savings for residents from reduced or eliminated water softening and filtering Funk reminded the Council that the City has fairly accurate costs related to a Gravity Filtration water treatment plant because a Feasibility Study has been completed. He informed them that if they would like better estimates for some of the other options they are exploring, another feasibility study should be done to examine these costs. As WSB has withdrawn from the project, Funk suggested the City Council direct staff to draft an RFP to hire an engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study. Chris Swanson (Bolton and Menk) suggested the Council issue a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) which looks at qualifications of engineering firms interested in the project without a specific scope of project or hard costs of a project in order to speed up the process and facilitate the process Discussion included: Whether or not an RFP can just be issued for a design-build and by-pass another feasibility study How to determine the scope of the project without hard costs and only rough estimates
Whether or not a Statement of Qualifications, which looks at qualifications of engineering firms interested in the project without a specific scope of project or hard costs of a project, would be speed up the process and facilitate the process Whether or not spending additional money on engineering costs for a feasibility report was wise Whether or not to survey residents on the water system by sending a letter requesting feedback and the timing of such a survey
Bret Weiss (WSB) acknowledged that a design-build process could be used but pointed out that generally 30% of the plans need to be completed ahead of time to give engineering firms some idea of where the Council wishes to go. He recommended that the Council first issue an RFP for a Feasibility Study to look at two systems and one system with and without RO in order to lock in costs before committing. He stated that sufficient work has already been completed that the process should be straightforward and able to be completed fairly quickly. Motion by Hunt Second by Donahue to direct staff to draft an RFP for a feasibility study comparing total costs through 2030 without phasing for one central plant with gravity filtration, one central plant with reverse osmosis, for two plants with gravity filtration and for two plants with reverse osmosis. Motion carried 5 – 0. A clarification was made that after the feasibility study is complete and the City has accurate numbers for all choices, residents on the City water system will be surveyed to allow them to have input on the choice made before an advertisement for bids on a design-build process is issued. None of the Council members opposed this clarification.
e) Land By unanimous consent the Council tabled this item. 3) Adjourn By unanimous consent, Fischer adjourned the meeting at 6:46pm. Respectfully submitted,
Terri Haarstad City Clerk
b) Presentation from WSB, Mark Erichson and Bret Weiss Erichson distributed a memo highlighting portions of the value engineering study that they believe should be evaluated in more detail. Of note: Inconsistencies in cost estimates Interconnect costs for a central facility Timing of the proposed water treatment plant Savings on water softener use if the City selects a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system RO operating and maintenance costs c) Presentation from Bolton & Menk, Bob Brown Seth Peterson (Bolton and Menk) and Chris Swanson (Bolton and Menk) presented the Value Engineering Study found in the Special Meeting packet dated March 17, 2014 and reminded the Council that it was their choice whether to accept, reject or modify the recommendations. They acknowledged that as they only had a few days to examine this project, numbers presented are rough estimates and recommended that costs be examined in more detail during the design process. Of note: Water sources (recommended looking at the Mount Simon Aquifer although they did not look at costs of updating wells connected to this aquifer or the likelihood of obtaining permission from the DNR to make a new connection) System Configurations (central facility, multiple facilities, piping raw water from rural areas to households in suburban areas of the City or a combination of them.) Using reserve water from St. Bonifacius Decoupling the water towers to improve pressure Alternate treatment processes Existing treatment plant ideas
Design capacity Pure RO water is not being proposed due to corrosion issues. An 80/20 blend is recommended.
Peterson clarified that the Value Engineering Study was intended to generate conversation and new ideas. All recommendations presented in the Value Engineering Study need to be examined in more detail to determine whether or not they are feasible or cost-effective. Discussion included: Water draw limitations for the Mount Simon aquifer The possibility of additional water draw limitations for other aquifers and areas of the state DNR ban of new well connections to the Mound Simon aquifer Costs associated with bringing water to a central facility and pumping back to homes Sizing of the proposed piping Costs of land acquisition Concrete vs Steel Possible locations of a central water treatment plant Cost projections until 2030 Whether or not input should be solicited from municipal water users What type of water treatment nearby cities (Mound, St. Bonifacius and Waconia) use
d) Review of financial projections/utility Fees, Brian Grimm, Finance Director Grimm presented the staff report found in the Special Meeting packet dated March 17, 2014. Discussion included: Whether or not the projected estimates in the report are accurate An admonition to local media that these projections not be published or, should they be published, it is with a disclaimer that these are rough estimates and are not exact figures How Minnetrista’s water rates compare to rates of other cities (as of fall of 2013, Minnetrista was comparable to the median water rates; however, some cities subsidize water rates with their tax levy.) Savings for residents from reduced or eliminated water softening and filtering Funk reminded the Council that the City has fairly accurate costs related to a Gravity Filtration water treatment plant because a Feasibility Study has been completed. He informed them that if they would like better estimates for some of the other options they are exploring, another feasibility study should be done to examine these costs. As WSB has withdrawn from the project, Funk suggested the City Council direct staff to draft an RFP to hire an engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study. Chris Swanson (Bolton and Menk) suggested the Council issue a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) which looks at qualifications of engineering firms interested in the project without a specific scope of project or hard costs of a project in order to speed up the process and facilitate the process Discussion included: Whether or not an RFP can just be issued for a design-build and by-pass another feasibility study How to determine the scope of the project without hard costs and only rough estimates
Whether or not a Statement of Qualifications, which looks at qualifications of engineering firms interested in the project without a specific scope of project or hard costs of a project, would be speed up the process and facilitate the process Whether or not spending additional money on engineering costs for a feasibility report was wise Whether or not to survey residents on the water system by sending a letter requesting feedback and the timing of such a survey
Bret Weiss (WSB) acknowledged that a design-build process could be used but pointed out that generally 30% of the plans need to be completed ahead of time to give engineering firms some idea of where the Council wishes to go. He recommended that the Council first issue an RFP for a Feasibility Study to look at two systems and one system with and without RO in order to lock in costs before committing. He stated that sufficient work has already been completed that the process should be straightforward and able to be completed fairly quickly. Motion by Hunt Second by Donahue to direct staff to draft an RFP for a feasibility study comparing total costs through 2030 without phasing for one central plant with gravity filtration, one central plant with reverse osmosis, for two plants with gravity filtration and for two plants with reverse osmosis. Motion carried 5 – 0. A clarification was made that after the feasibility study is complete and the City has accurate numbers for all choices, residents on the City water system will be surveyed to allow them to have input on the choice made before an advertisement for bids on a design-build process is issued. None of the Council members opposed this clarification.
e) Land By unanimous consent the Council tabled this item. 3) Adjourn By unanimous consent, Fischer adjourned the meeting at 6:46pm. Respectfully submitted,
Terri Haarstad City Clerk
