072584 CC SP Min
e
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1984
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 PM
MINUTES
The special meeting to discuss the water study began at 6:00 PM.
Roll Call
Present: Mayor Rascop; Councilmembers Shaw, Stover, Gagne
and Haugen.
Staff: Administrator Vogt and Engineer Norton.
D. Dean Spatz, a licensed professional chemical and sanitary
engineer, was also present to represent the Concerned Citizens.
Mr. Spatz has written a review of the February 1984 Comprehensive
Water Study for the City of Shorewood as prepared by the City's
Engineering firm.
Mr. Spatz reviewed, discussed and answered questions on his
analysis of the water study.
Engineer Norton was present to discuss the water issue and answer
any questions regarding the Comprehensive Water Study.
A general discussion followed. Each point in Mr. Spatz's review
was discussed by those present. The City Council, City Engineer
and Mr. Spatz exchanged ideas and information with regards to the
water issue.
The City Council was very thankful to Mr. Spatz for his review of
the water study and for discussing information that may be helpful
in the final determination of a water policy for the City of
Shorewood.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.
Respectfully Submitted
p~R~
Julie Story
,
.
"
e
e
'~
l' b
rr9
V. Vean Spat;
2$"235 '[;ocdd.'T eiu(c
&udJiOT. ?1(io(o(('Jot<l 55331
March 23, 1984
Re: Comprehensive Water Study for the City of Shorewood
J
As we discussed, I am sending you a review of the Comprehensive Water
Study for the City of Shore,",ood which you gave to me on 12 Mar 84, This
study is undated and is therefore, open to question on all dollar amounts
stated. I would suggest that you make sure to request from the consultant,
stipulations as to the date that these calculations were made.
I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota,
Registration #10768. My studies and expertise lie in the area of water,
water systems and water treatment. The only reference that appears to be
unique on the document you gave to me was the Commission #3381.
rt
The following are my comments in sequential order follo\<'ling the report:
1. The introduction should be carefully considered. There is an im-
plication that individual wells may not be a good source of water.
In the case of the City of Shorewood, I question this implication.
In a city \'/hich has septic tanks, there is a problem with individual
wells. However, Shorewood has been hooked up to the municipal sewage
system for a numb.er of years and the chance of ,.tell contamination is
extremely low. As a general practice, I feel strongly that a city
must either have a very carefully controlled water system or a very
carefully controlled waste water system. Since Shorewood has a
carefully controlled waste water system, the use of individual wells
is not a problem.
The advantage of fire protection is a difficult one to gauge. I
recommend that your group check into the true insurance savings that
wil I occur with the proposed system and with the present systems.
Based on my experience, there is very little savings in insurance
unless elevated storage tanks are in place and are used. When there
is a volunteer fire department, there is some question as to whether
the insurance rates wil I decrease significantly, even with elevated
ite storage.
f;
~J
cont. . .
.e
e
e
~
~,
..
,
..
v .
.
Page 2
There is an impl ication in the introductory paragraph that individual
wel Is are an unrel iable water source. This is not documented in the
I iterature and when you ~onsider the very smal I size of Shorewood,
there is probably as much documentation as to the unreliableness of
smal I water systems as there is to any possible unreliableness of wells.
2. The consultant used a per capita water usage of over 100 gallons per
day (gpd). I find this somewhat difficult to understand. The con~
sultant does not go into any discussion as to why they chose this
number, Industry standards for water usage in homes is 50-60 gpd per
capita. The use of t"/ice this number is typical in highly industrial ized
cities where there is a substantial portion of the city that has been
industrially and commercially developed. I question the wisdom of
using that number for S~orewood.
3. The introduction should have had some discussion about the reasonable-
ness of setting up a water distribution system within a city which has
one half to one acre zoning. With the very high cost of pipe, the
maintenance of the pipe, and the construction of the piping system,
there is substantial question as to whether any city which al lows
zoning of such large lots can justify the use of a municipal water
system.
Has the City of Shorewood decided to reduce the zoning of the lots?
This could have a major impact on the financial considerations of the
study.
4. I find the very casual reference to "red" water problems to be an
effort on the part of the consultant to downplay what is normally the
biggest problem with ~ery small municipalities having water systems.
The Jordan strata and most of the stratas that are available.to supply
sufficient water for municipalities in Minnesota have a substantial
amount of dissolved iron. When the water is underground the iron is
dissolved and the water is clear. When the water is removed from the
wel I and comes in contact with air and more importantly chlorination,
the iron is oxidized and precipitated, forming a red insoluble material.
This iron hydroxide is the red water alluded to by the consultant.
There is no way that a municipal system wi 11 avoid red water problems
without the addition of an iron removal and filtration system.
The iron in the water stains clothing, porcelain and everything it
comes in contact wJth. To downplay the importance of iron is not a
wise decision,
.
cont...
1
.
e
Page 3
S. In addition to the iron in the water, the Jordan aquifer has sub-
stantially higher hardness than does the aquifer that most of the
individual wel Is are using. This additional hardness wil I require
additional softening capacity in the individual home or the City
\-till be under pressure to add a lime softening system. If you will
drive by Tonka Bay City Hall and view the mounds of waste lime,
this is the result of a municipal softening system. With the in-
creased thrust against landfil Is, it is my opinion that such lime
waste will become more and more difficult to dispose of as time goes
by. There is no estimate for the cost on this type of problem and
the consultants should have done this.
6. The statement t~at it would be years before an iron problem would
develop is, I believe, not substantiated with honest facts. What
they are referring to is the fact that if you do not use much water,
the iron will settle out in the bottom of tanks and in the corners
of pipes. This may be true but it is certainly not the type of
engineering that should be done on a system that is proposed to cost
$12 million. The iron will be in the water unless it is filtered
out. Any time higher flows occur, the iron will break loose and cause
foul ing of people's water softeners and plugging of various devices
4It in -re home, not to mention the staining problem.
7. As a general conment at this point, there appears to be no cost listed
for the chlorination or the maintenance of the chlorination systems
or the maintenance of the pump systems. The consultants appeared to
totally forget about the day-to-day operation and about the chlori-
nation and fluoridation requirements.
8. I certainly cannot comment on the population forecasts other than to
say th~~ much of the cost considerations are based on these forecasts
being accurate.
9. Under the design considerations, the Item #3 is referred to in the
above. If Shorewood plans to be an industrialized city, then I have
nO problem with the 100 gpdper capita but if it is planning to stay
in the presentresideritia.l format, I think that the proposed requi re-
excess.i ve.
ng again to the design considerations, I believe that #4 is
ve based on the present make-up of Shorewood. The piping sizes
torage should be primarily oriented toward fire safety because
this' is the area of potentially largest s.avings. Again, your group
would have to work with the insurance companies todetermine the true
savings avai lable.' .
"
~,
con t . . .
.
e
......J I.n I U"'1
Paqc 4
11. There is some discussion about looping providing better tasting water
or something to that effect. I do not understand this from a techni-
cal standpoint and it appears that the consultant is talking about
running pumps continuously so as to keep water flowing in pipes. I
bel ieve that the city would find that this inefficient use of elec-
tricity would cost substantially more than the potential savings. I
certainly cannot recommend the continuous operation of the large pumps
simply to reduce red water or taste problems, whatever the consultants
seem to be getting at.
12. The Hardy Cross method of analysis for distribution is an old system
which we all learned in school and is probably appropriate for this
evaluation. However, the use of a (-130 friction coefficient should
have been explained. Is the consultant talking about steel pipe,
cement I ined pipe, or some type of plastic pipe? There really is not
much information along these I ines and the decision on pipe can affect
the initial cost, as well as the maintenance cost substantially.
13. On Page 7, the first paragraph refers to the amount of consumed water.
I question the validity of this number based on previous comments.
e
14. Again on Page 7, there is some reference to fire protection and insur-
ance savings, please remember that elevated tanks are most likely
required to see any savings.
15. Referring to the specific existing system,
have a few comments:
15..1 The Badger Field \-vell is said to be in the Jordan sandstone
aquifer. I am not sure I can accept this since the wel I termi-
nates at 372 feet and the generally accepted level of the Jordan
aquifer is in excess of 500 feet. This is at an elevation of
915 feet above sea level which is probably close to the elevation
of the Badger Field location.
I also bel ieve that making the assumption that the pumping
capacity can be increased from 450 gpm to 700 gpm requires more
evidence. We have found that many times people make this
assumption only to find out that the wel I point, the aquifer or
some other part of the well wi I I not al.low a larger pump to pump
that capacity. I should also recommend that you assure yourselves
that these additional larger pumps were included in the cost
estimates.
15.2 Amesbury appears to be in the Jordan aquifer and again I would
suggest that you get evidence that the pump can actually produce
more flow. I make the same comments on the Woodhaven well.
e
. 15.3 In reviewing the Boulder Bridge Farm paragraph, I am not fami liar
with the Ironton-GaJesville formation. By that, I mean that I do
not know the hardness and the iron level. In many cases, deeper
cont. . .
.
PClSJC 5
aquifers in Minnesota have much higher iron content than the
shallOl.,er aquifers. Since, I presume this water enters near
Ironton, Minnesota, based on its name, I vlonder how much iron
is in the water. This could have a very important effect in
the cost to handle this water.
15.4 While discussing l'/ater treatment, I should point out that you
would have to treat the water at each wel I unless you figure
out some vlay to get all of the water to a central treatment
point. This becomes extremely expensive and has nothing but
headaches as far as operator control is concerned. Even
chlorination can be nothing but an operator control problem
when you have an excessive number of wel Is.
Based on some evaluation of the history of the Boulder Bridge
Farm subdivision, I question the last sentence in this para-
graph. It would appear that the development of these wells vias
strictly for the Boulder Bridge Association and that there was
no approval at the time of the publ ic hearings and subsequently
that these wells were intended for total ci ty use. I would
suggest that you check back into this matter as there does
appear to be a fairly substantial discrepancy.
e
16. Under General Comments, there is quite a bit of double talk which
basically says that even though the pressure used with a pressurized
hydro-pneumatic tank is the same as the pressure required with an
elevated tank, there may be some additional costs for pumping because
the pumps may not work under the elevated system. Certainly some
additional information is required in this area to have a true assess-
ment of the costs.
17. On Page 13 there is a cost of $12 million given. Unfortunately, the
consultants fai I to state the date on which that number was calculated.
The consultants should have been aware of the Engineers Index or the
Producers Price Index which allows one to estimate future construction
costs based on a reasonable estimate on a specific date. I do not
understand why there is no date on this particular cost estimate.
18. In evaluating costs, I suggest that you have your group consider some
of the foJ lowing:
18. I Can the people of this community save sufficiently on insurance
to cover the added cost for the water system?
18.2 Does Shorewood wish to become an industrial and commercial, as
well as residential City? This is a very important stratetic
decision on the Dart of the City and should be considered very
closely as to how it affects water requirements.
e
con t. ..
, H
;
.
e
e
- ~ ,.....'
Page 6
18.3 \.Jhat other redeeming values does a city water system have for
the citizens? At this time I would suspect that the private
wells are doing a better job of supplying water to t:,e citizens
than are the city \'Jells. This is because very small public
systems are normally very inefficient and not cost effective.
18.4 I would suggest that your group consider the possibi 1 i ty of
taking the smaller systems out of service and providing low
interest loans, using the City's borrowing pOvJer, to help the
individual affected put in their own wells. You should look
at the total cost of doing this com9ared to the cost of putting
in the water system and then compare the maintenance costs of
the water system against the maintenance cost of the individual
well. I bel ieve that you wi II find that on an average, \oJhich
is the way that you really need to look at this, the cost of
maintaining an individual well is quite 10\" and in the order
of $100 per year. The problem with individual wells is that
periodically the well point or the pump must be serviced and
this is a lump sum cost.
19. Looking at the assessment question, it is important to note that if a
water system is put in and charges are based on acreage, you wi] I be
forcing almost al I of the land in the city to be subdivided. If this
is the intent of the City, then there is nothing wrong with that but
the City should determine whether this is their intent.
20. Oversizing water mains and doing some of the additional items outlined
on Page 16 are a benefit to the community as a whole only if the
community has made the decision that it wants industrial development
and that the fire insurance savings are sufficient to pay for these
costs.
21. Under Typical User Cost, there does not appear to be any consideration
given for interest or maintenance costs. There is also no evidence
of consideration given to the cost to the individual to run the water
pipe from the property 1 ine to thei r home and to connect it. It would
seem to me that this type of information is absolutely required for
the citizens to make a reasonable evaluation of this proposal.
22. In practically all water systems, there is a long period of time
between the es tab I i shmen t of the sys tem and the time tha t a I] res i dences
are hooked up to the water. There appears to be no interest cost or
operating cost I isted under the costs to show that there wi 1 I be a long
period of time in which this system will not be running at anywhere
near capacity and will therefore be running in a less than efficient
manner.
con t. . .
, ,
~ >
-
e
It
.... J .........
P ag e 7
I hope that this summary has helped you and the City Counci I of Shorewood
to better evaluate the report which you gave to me on 12 Mar 84. If you
have further questions, I would be pleased to entertain them.
s1?~ A~ ---
D. Dean Spatz P.E.
Registration #10768
DDS/dh