2-6-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1995
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CONFERENCE ROOM
6221 PORTLAND AVENUE
Enter Portland Avenue (front) door
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. 7:00-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF WATER PLANT
RENOVATION
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 1
E
II. 8:00-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED STATE STATUTE
ENTITLED MINNESOTA EMERGING
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 2
III. 8:15-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED
ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 3
IV. 8:30-9:00 P.M. REVIEW OF DRAFT CITY OF RICHFIELD SURFACE
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 4
9:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
Panor) -?x1? i rls
0 i-V YrVC
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 4
Agenda February 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Review of draft City of Richfield Surface Water Management Plan.
Background:
HISTORY
In 1982, the Minnesota legislature adopted Chapter 509, the Metropolitan Surface
Water Management Act. This Act requires that all areas within the Metropolitan area
be included in Watershed Management Organizations (WMO). The Act also identifies
requirements for such organizations. Richfield is part of the three WMO's identified on
Figure #5 in the attached plan:
? Richfield Bloomington WMO
? Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
? Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
The Act also required that cities adopt a second layer of surface water management
plans under the WMO plans. In most circumstances, cities are implementers of the
• WMO plans. Both the WMO and City plans are expected to follow the stated purpose
of the Act:
"(a) reduce to the greatest practical extent the public capital expenditures necessary to
control excessive volumes and rates of runoff,
(b) improve water quality,
(c) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows,
(d) promote ground water recharge,
(e) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities, and
(f) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface
water."
The Richfield Bloomington WMO Plan was completed and approved in 1991. The
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Plan was approved in June 1993. The Nine Mile
Creek Plan has been submitted for agency review and comment. Board of Water and
Soil Resources (BWSR) approval is expected in mid-1995.
FEATURES OF THE PLAN
The plan is valuable because it pulls together existing City surface water policies and
practices as well as gives direction for improving flood protection and water quality.
Section I provides an introduction and purpose.
Section 11 is the executive summary.
Section III is the land water resource inventory.
Section IV - Some examples of existing but to date unstated policies identified in this
section in the plan include:
? A policy requiring streets to be swept two times a year.
? A policy that encourages construction of outlets for land locked ponds and lakes,
such as Wood Lake, Richfield lake and Augsburg Pond.
? A policy that requires that treatment of stormwater runoff to Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) Standards in areas that are redeveloped.
? Typical new policies that will provide direction include:
? A policy requiring us to classify wetlands into the following categories:
1. Fishable/swimmable,
2. runoff management,
3. special purpose.
These classifications help determine water quality requirements.
• ? A policy requiring the adoption of a formal stormwater system maintenance plan that
will address sump catch basin cleaning as well as maintenance of storm water
ponds.. Sump catch basins are special manholes that collect sediment. These
sumps have been required on some recent development (such as CSM).
Section V - Typical specific problem areas identified in this section in the plan include:
? Sediment deposition at Wood Lake
? Flooding problems identified in.the recent studies 6900 block of Penn and Russell
Avenues
? Richfield Lake area
? Lack of formal agreements that address the quality and quantity of storm water that
is discharged across municipal boundaries.
Section VI discusses the financial ramification of the plan. The bottom line is that the
plan will be implemented using the Storm Drainage Utility with some support from
private development.
Section VII outlines implementation priorities at the studies' programs and capital
improvement identified in the plan.
Section VIII covers plan amendment procedures. Pete Willenbring, OSM, will be
available at the meeting to present the plan and answer questions.
Recommended Motion:
The meeting is a Study Session so no formal recommendation will be made by the City
Council. The plan will be revised to reflect any comments from City Council Members
prior to submittal to the WMO's for review.
Basis of Recommendation:
Does not apply.
Alternative Recommendation:
Does not apply.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Our surface Water Management Plan need not be completed until two years after
BWSR approval of the WMO plans. BWSR approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District Plan is not expected until mid 1995. However, approval of the plan gives clear
direction on surface water issues and allows review by our three WMO's.
RVspe
Ily submitted,
JProsser
C
ger
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 3
Agenda February 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
Phase II of the acquisition is beginning. 66 homes are scheduled for acquisition during
this phase. Another 22 have already been approved as hardship acquisitions. As of
January 19, 126 homes acquired in Phase I have been vacated.
MAC and W.D. Schock have scheduled the next auction of homes for Friday, February
24. The auction will once again be at the American Legion Hall on Portland Avenue,
beginning at 1:30 p.m., and will include about 50 homes. This may be the final auction.
MAC is having some difficulty with buyers and movers. Schock and MAC will
investigate the cost effectiveness of going right to demolition rather than spending
around $50,000 per month for property management, as they are now.
Associated with demolition plans was a feasibility study conducted by Affordable
Suburban Housing (ASH) to determine whether Project for Pride and Living (PPL) could
perform material recovery and recycling in homes before they were destroyed. The
study concluded that it was not cost effective for the non-profit organization to perform
this task, mostly because of PPL's high workers' compensation costs. ASH is
continuing to investigate other possibilities.
• 4-22 Extension
There has been little movement on this issue in the past month or two. The
Environmental Impact Statement is in the hands of the Federal Aviation Administration
for their review. FAA's Record of Decision approving the project is expected to be
released in February or March. Some discussions have occurred recently among the
concerned parties to resolve the contentions surrounding the proposed project, but no
substantial agreement has been achieved.
At the January meeting of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
(MASAC), Minneapolis representative John Richter proposed a resolution offering
MASAC's support for the runway. extension. Bloomington's John Nelson immediately
moved to table the resolution until a later date, when the environmental review has
been completed and after MASAC has had an in-depth briefing on the project. The
motion to table passed.
MASAC
A new chair was elected for the first time since January 1990. Bob Johnson,
representing the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association, is the new chair. Outgoing
chair Scott Bunin, representing St. Paul, was elected Vice-Chair. It is believed to be the
first time since MASAC's inception that an industry representative, rather than a person
from the surrounding communities, has chaired the council.
• Dual Track Plannina Process
A recommendation from MAC. to the Legislature regarding the Dual Track is only a year
away. At the Airport Commission's regular meeting in February, MAC is expected to
approve Alternative Six as the preferred alternative for redevelopment at the existing
airport. Alternative Six features a north-south runway, parallel to Cedar Avenue, and a
new west side terminal. A preliminary cost estimate was prepared for the MSP
development alternatives in January. Airfield, terminal, roadway and facility costs for
the preferred alternative, plus design and contingency projections, total approximately
$2.2 billion.
The new airport alternative is expected to be selected in April. Following selection of
the two alternatives to be considered, MAC and Met Council will begin the state and
federal EIS process. There may be a wrench in the schedule, however. MAC's
Legislative and Labor Relations Director, David Dombrowski, reported that
Representative Dee Long is preparing to submit a bill that would amend the Dual Track
legislation, enacted in 1989, to include analysis of the Remote Runway Concept. This
concept would construct runways at the Hastings site, connected to the existing
terminal at MSP by a high speed light-rail system. The new site would also have a
small terminal for hubbing activity. Runways at MSP would most likely be restricted for
maintenance purposes. It is still unclear whether Rep. Long's bill would provide
additional funding for planning or extend the timeline for the Dual Track. More time and
money are almost certainly necessary to do an adequate job reviewing the concept and
to make the analytical comparisons to the other alternatives.
• Congressional Update
The new Republican controlled Congress has promised sweeping changes in the way
the federal government does business. Funding mechanisms for airport related matters
is certain to be among the changes. Various proposals have called for abolishing or
limiting the Department of Transportation, releasing air traffic controllers from the
federal payrolls, and turning funding control over to individual states. Specifics have
not surfaced, but funding for programs such as the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
and New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition could be in jeopardy.
The City of Richfield sent a letter to the U.S. House and Senate delegation from
Minnesota urging them to consider our funding needs for both airport issues and the
77th Street Project. MAC, meanwhile, is considering a resolution that would voice their
• support for maintaining the aviation trust fund and funding for airports as it is currently.
e MAC Commissioner Appointments
Governor Arne Carlson has appointed Minneapolis attorney Wayne Popham as the
new chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Popham replaces Richard Braun.
Braun requested not to be reappointed after serving as chair since summer 1993.
Popham is a former IR state senator from Minneapolis, now residing in Medina.
The Governor also reappointed five commissioners whose terms had expired: Alton
"Joe" Gasper, Darcy Hitesman, Tommy Merickel, Louis Miller and Paul Rehkamp.
e Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
Richfield's allocation for 1995 provides funding to sound proof about 170 homes.
Based on the City's recommendation, insulation is scheduled only for the north portion
of the City within the 65 Ldn contour. The first group of about one hundred Richfield
homeowners attended an informational session last week.
Resident feedback regarding the sound insulation program and other airport related
issues is very important to staff. For this reason, a new tracking method is attached to
this letter and will be included every month if the Council feels it is useful information.
Recommended Motion:
• Discuss current airport policy issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on airport policy.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of February 6, 1995.
Respectful) submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachment
is
Resident Contact:
Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns
0
•
This month's key background issue:
The January Your City newsletter ran an airport article informing readers that all 171 homes allocated in the 1995
Part 150 Sound Insulation Program to the City of Richfield would be sound proofed in the eligible zone of north
Richfield. The reason for this is the undetermined fate of the Runway 4-22 extension project. Construction of the
project means mitigation funding independent of Part 150 funds for south Richfield, to be completed by 1997.
Revision of the current proposal to an alternative that does not include the noise redistribution objective will require
a new Noise Exposure Map to be developed reflecting actual noise impacts, rather than projections for 1996 that
assume the extension and its accompanying noise impact. It is possible that continued mitigation, using Part 150
funds, in south Richfield could exceed eligible boundaries following a revised contour.
•?'?.y? p,yy,'•?{y
:: ::''•:::7'iR./Lt7Gt::fJ S'.\"';'J.'fk :: :::j:•,.: ?{y?{y (. ?y,.y??p
jj:::: 7t?:i?"1q:Zt: f?3i?1G!::::::::: ,y
::jj::jjjjj::::•::A 1J.. ::j'y(i `:: ?y,.?{.?.?p}?p.?{.,?i }
F:::::?+:::: T?lisixl'i Rt7:i:C $:?:•,:•::Y:::: :. •IK: ::•: ::iC{{{:;'it::
:::i:2:::::::$y: i./:?.
L'::::::rrx::4"':y;'••yyy:iiApiti?iyiti{4:tititi41i1:L:•:
:::::::'r'rrrr:?i7G??F:SI.:::'.•::::'.•::::j :::::::::::
41:tititi4:4:+.:•1:.1:•1:•11:41:4:41:•1}}}}}:{{4:41:4:41:ti
::i:'.•::::'.•::::}:•:::::•>i:•:•:•:•:L•i'f.:"•i:•:4•:•::::•$::::?::::::::'.•:::::
::::ti:ti::::::•1::L:•1:ti:ti:tititi4iiiiiiii:4i:•ii:•:•:•:•:•:•
:::'.•::::'.•::::r::::'.•::::'.•::::'.•:•::::'.•::::'.•::::'.•::::'.•:'•'.:::'.•::'.•::'.•::'.•:::•:::•:•i:•i
i:4:•:•:•i:•ii1:': •'•1:•:'4'4':
S:?:•::;:;:;:;:$:$?::?i:?
i:•i:•$jYi$:: '•'::iRdf+.71•]K?:•:•::::i:::i::::•:: ............
i:•:•'•"•'::ti:?:•i:?:•i:•i:•:+}•:? ::::{:•:•i:•:h {r:•i:•i
:::::• ., ; ..: ;..ii.,??..:.??.(;yy.., ...: ; :. .. ,}n.?..yy..yy.:??.yy.:..•.•.
How to participate in Ca er satis ie with
Tues., Jan. 10 - No name given. 6700 block of 16th. soundproofing response that she
Your City article. program? was outside the
eligible zone. - JV
Wed., Jan. 11 -
Told to call back in
Resident
6300 block of Are they included in
1995 schedule for No 0 ow-u
requested.uestion
January, 1995. Bloomin on. sound roofin ?
- answered.
Wed., Jan. 11 - WHat is time line or None requested.
Working with Rich Realtor Burnet Realty. Rich Acres to be Question answered.
Acres resident. acquired?
When is is area None requested.
Wed., Jan. 11 -
C No name given. 7600 block of 15th. going to be sound
f
d? Wh
Your
ity. proo
e
o
makes decision?
What is the sown None requeste .
Wed., Jan. 18- Resident 6300 block of 13th. proofin program, Question answered.
New resident. and is she included?
Status o sour None requested.
Thur., Jan. 19 Resident 6400 block of 17th. proof program?
When will she be
included?
When will they be None requested.
Fri., Jan. 20 No name given. 7300 block of 17th. insulated? Houses Staff asked her to
across street have call back after 4-22
been done. decision made.
Where is the None requested.
Tues., Jan. 24 Resident 6300 block of 1st. boundary for the
noise contour?
T ur., Jan. 26 - y are houses Discusse wit CEE.
CEE letter sent to Resident 1400 block of East south and west of Oversight in
neighbors inviting
h
i
i 62nd St. her being insulated
f
b
h
i
? prioritizing blocks.
R
id
l
t
em to part
c
ate e
ore t
e
rs es
etter
ent sent a
in sound roolin . to participate.
T ur., an. 26 - Same as the previous Same as above. A
CEE letter sent to Resident 1400 block of East caller. residents on block
neighbors. 62nd St. sent the letter.
h
26
i
N
N
id Consider g uying
h
h
65
d None requested.
l
k
li
ibl
T
ur., Jan. ven.
o name g on-res
ent. a
ome on
t
an B
oc
not e
g
e
Bloomington. What for sound proofing
about airport noise? at this time.
y are ouses a None requeste .
Thur., Jan. 26 No name given. 1400 block of East around them being Informed that letter
62nd St. sound proofed, and was being sent
the aren't? today.
C?
JDV:ttf
0
*Note: There were about 30 phone calls immediately following the release of the newsletter, prior to the creation of
this tracking method. Names of residents have been deleted for this report. Council Members wishing to respond
directly to a resident's comment or question may do so by contacting the Media Assistant/Airport Issues at ext. 716.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 2
Agenda February 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Discussion of a proposed State Statute entitled Minnesota Emerging Communications
Act of 1995.
Background:
Currently Minnesota State Statutes Section 237 provides for regulation of "plain old
telephone service" and Section 238 regulates cable companies. and "plain old cable
service." However, as new services and emerging technologies are rapidly developing,
the traditional providers of telephone or cable service now have the ability to offer
services of the other. Telephone and cable providers are now offering services which
are neither "plain old telephone" or "plain old cable" service.
In response to this technological change, new legislation is needed. The new services
which are referred to as Emerging Communications Services provided by cable
operators, telephone companies and other companies are not covered under the
current statutes. When telephone service and cable service were both new to
Minnesota, appropriate legislation was enacted to regulate each of those services.
Now that we have an Emerging Communications Service, a new statute is needed to
regulate the new service to ensure the continued regulation of current service and
protect the investment already made by the public in current communication services.
The proposed Minnesota Emerging Communications Act of 1995 and its accompanying
executive summary are attached to this Study Session Letter. This legislation will
address all providers of emerging communication services who utilize public property
and public rights of way to construct, operate and maintain, offer or deliver such
services.
It is staffs recommendation that the City Council review this legislation and become
familiar with it in, as much as it has some very direct implications for cities such as
Richfield. Moreover, the implications of not having or not creating a new Emerging
Communications Services Act may have even greater impact upon cities like Richfield
and our ability to continue to provide public access television.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the attached information concerning the Emerging Communications Act of
1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The current Statute Sections 237 and 238 which regulate traditional telephone and
cable services do not address the emerging communication services available in the
State of Minnesota by combinations of telephone and cable service.
2. The Southwest Cable Commission has been considering this issue for the past
several months. It is the conclusion of the Southwest Cable Commission as well as
the League of Minnesota Cities and other cable commissions in the metro area that a
new type of legislation is necessary to address this emerging communications
service.
3. Adopting a statute which covers all emerging communications services including
telephone and cable companies, provides an even playing field for any company
providing such services throughout the State of Minnesota.
4. This proposed legislation would protect the City's public access television services as
well as insure a continued franchise or permit fee for use of public rights of way.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to discuss this proposed statute.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council is supportive of this statute amendment, it is critical that some action
be taken in the very near future showing City support for this proposal.
Respectf submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
SUMMARY OF THE
• MINNESOTA EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995
1. WHY WE NEED NEW COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION
• Minnesota communications policy has evolved over this century in direct
response to rapidly changing advances in the communications industry.
Current Minnesota statutes which govern communications services have
traditionally been associated with providers, as well as services. Statute
section 237 is associated with telephone companies and "plain old telephone
service" ("POTS") and section 238 is associated with cable companies and
"plain old cable service" ("POCS"). As new services and technologies have
rapidly developed, traditional providers of either telephone or cable service
now have the ability to offer the services of the other. Moreover, telephone
and cable providers are now offering services which are not POTS or POCS.
• New legislation is needed because of the new services which we refer to as
"emerging communications services" provided by cable operators, telephone
companies and other companies. When telephone service and cable service
were new to Minnesota, appropriate legislation was enacted to regulate each of
those services. Now that we have emerging communications services, we
. need a new statute section to encourage the development of emerging
communications services throughout the state, to assure the continued
regulation of current services and to protect the investment already made by
the public in current communications services.
• New legislation will address all providers of emerging communications
services who utilize public property and public rights-of-way to construct,
operate, maintain, offer or deliver such services.
H. WHAT THE LEGISLATION SAYS
A. OVERVIEW
• Creates a new statute section, 237A, which will regulate emerging
communications services.
• Applies only to services which are not currently regulated as "POTS"
or "POCS" under Minnesota Statutes sections 237 and 238. The
services governed by the new statute section are called "emerging
communications services."
1 375539 - 1 -
• Requires Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") to
promulgate uniform statewide standards and regulations to accomplish
the intent and policy of the Act.
• Allows municipalities, which are referred to as "local authorities," to
obtain permits from providers of emerging communications services
requiring them to comply with statewide minimum standards.
• Grants a local authority the right to require a provider of emerging
communications services to serve the entire municipality and prohibit
"redlining" and/or "cherry picking."
• Permits local authorities to obtain compensation for the use of public
property or public rights-of-way.
• Allows local authorities to require the reservation of space on
emerging communications services for public use.
B. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO PROVIDE
EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
1. Permitting authority.
• Allows local authorities to obtain a permit from all persons
using public property or public rights-of-way for the purpose of
constructing, operating, maintaining, offering or delivering any
emerging communications services.
• Allows a local authority to act pursuant to its own authority or
with other political subdivisions.
• Grants a local authority the right to collect reasonable permit
fees to recoup the costs of regulation including expenses
associated with monitoring of permit compliance, costs
associated with enforcement of PUC regulations and any
diminution of value of public property or public rights-of-way
which result from permitting.
2. Compensation for use of public property and public rights-of-way.
• Permits a local authority to request compensation of up to 5
percent of the gross revenues derived directly or indirectly from
the delivery of emerging communications services to subscribers
in the local authority's area.
0 375539 -2-
3. Public Space.
• Allows a local authority to require the reservation of up to 10
percent of the emerging communications services as public space
for public use.
• States that the reserved public space must be equivalent to the
highest technical quality of the remaining capacity of the
affected communications network.
4. PUC responsibilities.
• Requires that the PUC promulgate uniform state-wide standards
to:
standardize the permitting procedure used by local
authorities and ensure uniformity throughout the State of
Minnesota;
attain universality and interconnection between providers
of emerging communications services;
provide uniform construction and safety standards;
- provide uniform minimum technical standards and
customer service standards;
require providers of emerging communications services
to have the capability to deliver services to identified
discrete communities within local authorities, school
districts and county boundaries;
prohibit "redlining" or "cherry picking" and failure to
provide service to certain subscribers; and
- require providers to file written documentation (e.g.
location maps) with the PUC regarding the location of
wires, conduits or other equipment necessary for
constructing, operating, maintaining, offering or
delivering emerging communications services.
• Allows the PUC to collect .5% of the gross revenues derived
directly or indirectly from the delivery of emerging
communications services to subscribers in a local authority's
area to offset the cost of providing regulation.
0 375539 - 3 -
DRAFT 5
E
1 A bill for an act
2 relating to Persons who provide Emerging Communications Services;
3 encouraging the development and proliferation of Emerging Communications
4 Services in the State of Minnesota; empowering Local Authorities to control
5 the use of public property and public rights-of-way by communications
6 providers; proposing coding for new law as Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 237A.
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
8 Section 1. [237A.01] [SHORT TITLE.]
9 Sections 1 - 8 may be cited as the "Minnesota Emerging Communications Services
10 Act of 1995. "
11 Section 2. [237A.02] [OVERVIEW.]
0 Minnesota communications law and policy have developed in response to advances in
13 the communications industry. Major policy goals include fostering_ development of the
14 industry, universality of service and regulation of actual or near monopolies. In pursuit of
15 these goals use of public property and public rights-of-way has been granted to private
16 interests for the purpose of furthering the development of such business.
17 Section 3. [237A.03] [LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; POLICY.]
18 Subdivision 1. Findings The Legislature of the State of Minnesota finds and
19 declares the following.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 1
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson &. Byron and Bernick and Lifson
C7
1
w
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!a1 Public property and public rights-of-way are valuable public assets and
Local Authorities are entitled to ensure that the public is benefitted by
the use thereof for private purposes.
j2l All similarly situated Persons providing Emerging Communications
Services which utilize public property and public rights-of-way to
provide those services should be treated similarly by the state
government and Local Authorities.
Uc In Minnesota Statutes Chapter 237. the Legislature has established a
plan for the occupancy and use of public property and public rights-of-
way with regard to Plain Old Telephone Service ("POTS") and yet at
the same time established uniform policies that will bring bout
development and interconnection of POTS subject to reasonable state
oversight.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 2
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
I f?j In the Minnesota Cable Communications Act. Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 238, the Legislature has established a plan for the occupancy
3 and use of public property and public rights-of-way and declared that it
4 is in the public interest to protect and to preserve the interests of
5 communities with regard to Plain Old Cable Service ("POCS") and vet
6 at the same time established uniform policies that will bring a bout
7 development and the availability of POCS subject to reasonable state
8 and municipal oversight.
9 The Legislature recognizes that the services offered by the
10 communications industry and the number of Persons providing those
11 services are rapidly growing and changing . A need exists to develop a
12 comprehensive state communications policy.
It has long been the intent of the Legislature to assure that Emerging
14 Communications Services are fully accessible to every state resident.
15 business and public institution.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 3
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
I W The cable television industry. telephone industry, and computer and
related industries are now able to. provide new services in addition to
3 traditional POCS and POTS Thu s, within the communications
4 -industry, there is a wide range of Persons seeking to deliver video.
5 voice and data services bi-directionally through, hrough the use of public
6 property and public rights-of-way.
7 Emerging Communications Services have created an unaddressed
8 competitive environment in Minnesota public property and public
9 rights-of-way. Existing state statutes do not adequately address these
10 Emerging Communications Services.
11 Q Local Authorities are well equipped to analyze and implement the needs
12 and interests of the local citizen/consumer. Local government
S utilization of communication services will support business expansion.
14 create jobs spur economic growth and improve the overall quality of
15
16
17
18
19
20
life Local Authorities participation will protect and return taxpayers'
investment in public property and public rights-of-way.
fD State government and Local Authorities in Minnesota have expended
considerable sums of public money in the implementation of existing
communications law. These interests require legislative protection in
regard to Emerging Communications Services.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 4
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
1 kL1 Local Authorities are responsible for the development and maintenance
of public property and public rights-of-way. Public property anpublic
3 rights-of-way are valuable assets for which it is appropriate for Local
4 Authorities to receive reasonable compensation for the use thereof by
5 Persons for profit.
6 j In light of Local Authorities' compelling and legitimate interests in
7 ensuring broad and diverse access to communications services in
8 exchange for the occupancy and use of public property and public
9 rights-of-way by private communications providers, it is appropriate to
10 require communications providers to reserve capacity for public use.
11 m) The Public Utilities Commission as a state agency, is well equipped to
12 develop uniform statewide policy in the convergence of
communications services Local Authorities are well equipped to
14 implement and enforce such statewide policies.
15 Subdivision 2. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota makes the following Mlicy
16 statements:
17 Local Authorities must have the authority to require Emerging
18 Communication Services utilizing public property and public rights-of-
19 way to:
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 5
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and. Bernick and Lifson
0
I L1Z obtain Permits and comply with existing local standards for the
41 use of public rights-of-way and public proMM (within uniform
3 state mandated parameters) in the construction and operation of
4 facilities to distribute services within municipal boundaries:
5 prohibit redlining and uphold nondiscrimination standards in the
6 provision of Emerging Communications Services:
7 support community access to Emerging Communications
8 Services:
9 design the local communications infrastructure to meet
10 community communications/information needs within state and
11 federal uniform standards of universality and interconnectivity
12 so that a portion of the public capacity can be delivered on a
city and school district specific basis as determined by the Local
14 Authority or Local Authorities:
15 allow Local Authorities to receive compensation for the use of
16 public rights-of-way and public property:
17 Current local franchising authority over POCS and PUC permitting
18 authority over POTS does not adequately address Emerging
19 Communications Services and must be supplemented with local
20 permitting authority which:
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 6
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
•
1 W ensures enforcement of and compliance with state and federal
technical and connectivity standards:
3 enforces financial. technical. and legal Qualifications of
i
4 Emerging Communications Services providers:
5 authorizes local collection of fees.aftuate to reimburse Local
6 Authorities for the use and diminution of value and useful life of
7 public rights-of-way and public proper y in addition to
8 reimbursement for expenses associated with permitting:
9 f4? protects local interest in the management of public rights-of-way
10 and public property;
11 !?5 assures discrete delivery of certain communications services to
12 relevant constituencies within Local Authorities, local school
districts, and county boundaries:
14 Section 4. [237A.04] [DEFINITIONS.]
15 Subdivision 1. [APPLICATION.] The definitions in this section apply to this statute
16 237A.
17 Subdivision 2. [EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE OR SERVICES.]
18 "Emerging Communications Service or Services" means any communications service
19 other than POTS or POCS delivered to a Subscriber through the utilization of public
20 proWrty or public rights-of-way.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 7
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
I Subdivision 3. [LOCAL AUTHORITY OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES.] "Local
Authority or Local Authorities" means Minnesota political subdivisions whether acting
pursuant to their own authority or in conjunction with other political subdivisions
4 Subdivision 4. [PERMIT.] "Permit" means the authority granted by Local
5 Authorities to the provider of an Emerging Communications Service or Services
6 allowing the occupancy of public property or public rights-of-way for the delivery of
7 such service or services.
8. Subdivision 5. [PERSON.] "Person" means any individual. corporation, partnership.
9 or other entity qualified to conduct business in th e State of Minnesota.
10 Subdivision 6. [PLAIN OLD CABLE SERVICE, "POCS".] "Plain Old Cable
11 Service" means video transmission delivered pursuant to authority_ granted by Federal
12 llaw Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, and local cable communications franchises.
3 Subdivision 7. [PLAIN OLD TELEPHONE SERVICE, "POTS".] "Plain Old
14 Telephone Service" means bi-directional voice transmission delivered pursuant to
15 authority granted by Federal law and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 237.
16 Subdivision 8. [PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, "PUC".] "Public Utilities
17 . Commission" means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
18 Subdivision 9. [SUBSCRIBER.] "Subscriber" means a consumer or user of a
19 communications service delivered through the utilization of public property or public
20 Lights-of-way,
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 8
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0 -
1 Section 5. [AUTHORITY FOR USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-
OF-WAY TO PROVIDE EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.]
3 Subdivision 1. A Person cannot offer Emerging Communications Services unless a
4 Permit is obtained from the Local Authority.
5\ Application This Act applies, to every Person using public pLQgga or.
6 public rights-of-way for the purpose of constructing. operating.
7 maintaining, offering or delivering any Emerging Communications
8 Services.
9 ebb A Local Authority acting. pursuant to its own authority or in
10 conjunction with other political subdivisions shall require a Permit of
11 any Person subject to this Act.
12 Subdivision 2.
40 W The PUC shall promulgate uniform statewide standards and regulations
14 to ensure that the intent and policy of this Act will be accomplished.
15 bL1 Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the PUC shall
16 prescribe and periodically thereafter revise regulations to cam out its
17 obligations under paragraph (a) above.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 9
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
1 In prescribing regulations. the PUC shall seek to reduce the
administrative burdens on Subscribers Local Authorities and any
3 Person required to have a Permit and standardize the permitting
4 procedure to ensure uniformity throughout the State of Minnesota so
5 that the process will not be unduly burdensome or unduly hinder the
6 proliferation of Emerging Communications Services in the State of
7 Minnesota.
8 Regulations developed by the PUC shall include at a minimum the
9 followine which shall be enforced at the Local Authority level:
10 LII Statewide minimum standards of universality and
11 interconnectivity which wherever possible, shall provide for the
12 delivery of Emerging Communications Services beyond the
boundaries of Local Authorities, to ensure public convenience is
14 met.
15 Q A description of the Permit procedures and requirements.
16 M A process for determining local needs and evaluating
17 performance.
18 Interconnection requirements to attain interconnection between
19 Persons providing Emerging Communications Services. where
20 possible, within the jurisdictions of Local Authorities.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 10
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson &. Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
1 Regulations to ensure that all providers of similar Emerging
e
2 Communications Services shall be subject to the sam
0
3 requirements pursuant to this Act.
4 U Requirements that all existing commitments to municipal.
5 educational and other public/community services shall be
6 maintained.
7 Requirements that providers of Emerging Communications
8 Services shall provide services to identified discrete communities
9 within Local Authorities school district, and county boundaries.
10 08,E Requirements which ensure open access to all communications
11 architecture through the development of a "seamless web" of
12 Emerging Communications Services delivery systems.
a Uniform construction and safety standards ensuring that Local
14 Authorities retain control over the use of and equipment and
15 facilities located on or in public property and public rights-of-
16
0
wav.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 11
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
1 (? Uniform standards which will reduce duplication of equipment
and facilities located on public prrgrty or in public rights-of-
3 way which are necessary for the purpose of constructing
4 operating maintaining offering or delivering any Emerging
5 Communications Services.
6 JUI Uniform minimum technical standards.
7 LU2 Uniform customer service standards.
8 Procedures for the expeditious resolution of diaputes between
9 permittee's and Local Authorities with appeal to the PUC:
10 LU4 Standards and procedures to Prevent unreasonable charges to
11 Subscribers: and
.12 (15) Prohibition against discrimination of services to ensure the
availability of services to the broadest range of Subscribers
14 without regard to income or location.
15 JU6 Requirements for filing written documentation (e.g. location
16 maps) with the PUC and Local Authorities by every Person
17 providing Emerging Communications Services which identifies
18 all wires conduits or other equipment necessary for the purpose
19 of constructing operating maintaining. offering or delivering
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 12
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
the Emerging Communications Services which are placed under
above or on public property or public rights-of-way.
3 Section 6. [237A.06] [COMPENSATION FOR USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.]
4 Subdivision 1. The Local Authority may charge a nd collect rea sonable Permit fees
5 sufficient to rec oup the costs of regul ation Such fee may inclu de not only the actual
6 costs of permitting but all exl&nses associated with the monitoring of Permit
7 compliance costs associated with enforcement of PUC regulations and any diminution
8 of value of public property or public rights-of-way as a result of the installation Mn
9 or continued occupancy of public property or public rights-of-way.
10 Subdivision 2. In recognition of the use of public property or public rights-of-way by
11 any Person for the purpose of receiving compensation and to avoid further
12 subsidization of private entities through the free use of public properly and public
rights-of-way. a Local Authority may charge up to 5 percent of the gross revenues
14 derived directly or indirectly from the delivery of Emerging Communications Services
15 to Subscribers in the Local Authority.
16 Subdivision 3. The PUC shall collect .5% of the gross revenues derived directly or
17 indirectly from the delivery of Emerging Communications Services to Subscribers in
18 the Local Authority for administrative expenses relating to the implementation of the
19 statute.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 13
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
I Section 7. [237A.07] [PUBLIC SPACE.]
Subdivision 1. The Local Authority mayor .quire the reservation of not to exceed ten
3 pgrcent (10%) of the Emerging Communications Services for use as public ace. It
4 is the intent of the public space requirement that the 10 percent reservation not only
5 apply to spectrum or channel capacity, but also to the actual service or technology
6 delivered in such s=trum or channel capacity exclusive of actual content The total
7 reservation of public space shall not exceed 10 percent.
8 Subdivision 2. RRquirement for reserved public space Within 180 days after the
9 date of enactment of this section the PUC shall promul ag to regulations to implement
10 Subdivision 1 of this Section 7.
11 Subdivision 3. The reserved public space shall be made available free of charge and
12 identified at the time a Permit is issued.
Subdivision 4. The reserved p ublic space shall be considered public property, and the
14 providers of an y such Emergin g Communications Services shall have no control over.
15 and no liability for the content of such reserved public space.
16 Subdivision 5. Regulations promulgated pursuant to this Section 7 shall provide that
17 if the Local Authority determines that any Iortion of reserved public space will go
18 unused the reserved amount may be reduced by such unused portion.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 14
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
Subdivision 6. The technical quality of reserved public space shall be equivalent to
2 the highest technical quality of the remaining capacity of the affected communications
3 network in all respects.
4 Subdivision 7. Eligible Entities The following entities are eligible for access to
5 public space reserved under this section which shall be allocated and used in the
6 discretion of the Local Authority.
7 La) state and tribal governments, and Local Authorities and their agencies:
8 M accredited educational institutions =n to enrollment by the public:
9 W public and nonprofit libraries: and
10 M nonprofit organizations described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
11 Revenue Code of 1986 that are formed for the purpose of providing
nondiscriminatory public access to noncommercial educational.
13 informational, cultural. civic, or charitable services.
14 Subdivision 8. Terms and conditions of access. Such eligible entities shall have
15 access to such public space at no charge (for installation or service if using such
16 public space only for the provision of educational, informational, cultural, civic. or
17 charitable services directly to the public without charge for such services.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 15
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
Subdivision 9. The regulations of the PUC shall provide for reasonable funding of
the equipment a nd fa cilities necessary for us e of res erved pu blic spac e and it sha ll
w
3 allocate all su ch costs amon g all Mrmittees. existin g or new.
4 Section 8. [237A.08] [VIOLATION.]
5 Any Person violating this Act shall be guilty'of a gross misdemeanor Any term of
6 imprisonment imposed for any violation by a corporation shall be served by the senior
7 resident officer of the corporation.
375832 - January 24, 1995 - Page 16
Prepared jointly by the law firms of Fredrikson & Byron and Bernick and Lifson
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 1
Agenda February 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Status of Water Plant renovation
Background:
City staff has completed a report, Update Richfield Water System. This report
describes:
• the history of the water system,
• the renovation of the softening unit,
• adjustments to the chlorine feed system,
• future capital projects in the water system, and
• recent analysis from Camp Dresser & McKee, water consultants.
Gerry Allen of Serco Laboratories, representative from OSM Consulting Engineers and
City staff will be available at the meeting. A tour of the renovated plant will also be
available.
• Recommended Motion:
This item is provided for information purposes; no formal action is expected.
Basis of Recommendation:
Does not apply.
Alternative Recommendation:
Does not apply.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., February 6, 1995, at the Water Plant, 6221
Portland Avenue.
Respectfu submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachment
r?
•
Update
Richfield
Water System
February 1995
0-
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction .................................................................................... 2
2. History of the Water System ................................................. I 3-4
3. The Softening Unit Renovation Project ......................................... 4-5
4. Project Challenges .......................................................................... 5-6
0 5. Future of the Water Plant ............................................................... 7
6. Letter from Camp Dresser & McKee
page 1
1. Introduction
The renovation of the softening unit of the Richfield water plant last year has focused a great deal of
attention on the City's water system. This report has been compiled for City Council members to
provide them with more background information about the system and to update them on work that
has taken place in recent months. The report traces the water system's development, focuses on the
renovation and challenges encountered with it, and outlines future water system projects.
0
page 2
2. History
Richfield Developed with Private Wells
The City of Richfield developed rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s as a post-war boom town which
offered a suburban alternative to living in Minneapolis. For the sake of speed and cost of
development, the public services of streets, sewer and water were initially held to a minimum. The
streets were made of gravel and oil and each lot was responsible for its own well and septic system.
When tests of residential wells began to show contamination from the septic system, City officials
ordered the construction of a sanitary sewer system. When it was completed in the late 1950s, the
City turned its attention to a centralized water system.
State-of-the-Art Water System Built in 1961
Richfield officials and residents could have chosen to hook up to the City of Minneapolis' water
system, but instead decided the City should have its own water system. Rather than developing a
surface (river) water system as Minneapolis has, Richfield developed a deep well system with
centralized water softening.
Residents approved a referendum to pay for the more expensive system and have been reaping the
benefits ever since. Utilizing deep wells and a centralized softening system have given the City
water quality that has been the envy of many other communities. See Table 1 on the following page
• for a comparison between well and surface water systems and between systems with central
softening and home softening. The state-of -the-art system was completed in 1961.
System Updates, Renovations, 1980s-.1990s
When the bonds for the original construction were retired in 1985, City officials applied the capital
revenue stream to tackle another water issue. It was the inefficient, expensive, environmentally
questionable, land intensive method of handling the lime sludge produced in the water softening
process.
The spent lime was pumped out to three two-acre lime sludge pits which were lined up along the
Crosstown highway. The City replaced this process by constructing a dewatering building in 1987.
Under the new process in effect today, the dewatering building receives the watery lime slurry that
used to go into the pits and the water is removed with the help of hydraulic presses. The remaining
lime is in the form of a relatively dry cake which is hauled away at dramatically reduced trucking
costs.
The new dewatering process freed up the land occupied by the sludge pits. What had been the site
of the unsightly white-green pits is now part of Legion Lake and Veterans Memorial Park of
Richfield. The lime cake is hauled to farm fields to neutralize acidic soils.
is In 1989 and 1990, two of the wells experienced trouble producing sand-free water and had to be
further developed. The caverns at the bottoms of a well at Nicollet park and one next to the Water
Plant were enlarged. This enlarging is accomplished by alternatively pressurizing and
page 3
Table 1-- WATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
•
0
•
Type:
Examples
Metro Area:
Purity:
Quality:
Reliability of
Source:
Effluent.
Type.
Examples
Statewide:
Costs to residents:
Management:
Water Quality:
Sodium Level:
Iron Level.
Plumbing Impact.
Environmental
Impact:
Water Source
Deep Well. vs
Richfield
Pure, little treatment
required.
Consistent.
Stable Source.
Majority of water. returned
to the river.
River.
Minneapolis, St. Paul
Contaminated, much
treatement required.
Variable -supply,
taste/odor, and
treatment.
Source loss in dry
years (late 1980s).
Majority of water returned
to the river.
Water Softening
Centrally Softened. vs.
Richfield is one of less
than a dozen cities statewide
that softens water for residents.
Costs less.
Centrally.
Consistent.
Low sodium,
no salt needed.
Removes iron.
Gentle on City and
house plumbing.
Spent lime used in
farmers fields.
Little or no lead and copper.
Home Softened.
Eagan, Edina, Chanhassen
Costs more.
Managed at each house.
Variable.
High sodium,
residents must add salt.
Doesn't necessarily remove
iron.
Hard on piping system,
corrodes or coats.
Salt to sewer systems.
Potentially high lead/copper
de-pressurizing the well with compressed air. The rapid pressure changes cause the sides of the
bottom of the well to cave in. The loose sand from the sides of the well is then vacuumed from the
bottom of the well. Developed wells are capable of producing more sand-free water than before.
In 1991, the filter beds at the water plant were renovated and an air/water backwash installed in
place of the water backwash. This new backwash system is more effective and efficient, saving
eight million gallons of water or $8,000 per year.
3. The Softening Unit Renovation Project
Painting Project Demonstrates Softening Unit Need
In 1987 the softening unit was in need of paint and repair. For the first time since the construction
of the plant, a maintenance operation had a widespread effect on consumers. In order to paint the
unit, the entire softening operation was by-passed. Despite notice to the public, the City received
many complaints about hard water and concerns about rusty water.
The iron in the water which is normally removed in the softening process was able to enter the
piping system during the shutdown of the softening unit. Because the water in the piping system
slows. down in some areas, the iron has a chance to settle out and lay on the bottom of the pipe. A
sudden flow of water can stir up the iron sediment and deliver rusty water to residents, and that is
exactly what happened.
i
When the painting was completed, the softening unit was put back in operation and water quality
returned to normal. However the experience underscored a vulnerability in the water system -- the
one element which had no backup was the water softening unit. City officials also were sensitized to
residents' reaction when the City temporarily changed the water to which they were accustomed.
These concerns, coupled with the age of the moving parts of the water softening unit and the
difficulty in obtaining spare parts, pointed to the need for tackling the toughest piece of ongoing
renovations to the water system.
City Considers Water Softening Renovation Options
In December 1992, the City Council was presented with alternatives for the renovation of the
softening unit. The three alternatives presented at the time were as follows:
Rebuild the single softening unit with updated standardized
equipment. Cost: $1.8 million.
2. Replace the single softening unit with two softening units.
Cost: $ 3.0 million.
3. Build a backup softening unit in an addition to the existing
building. Cost: $5.46 million.
page 4
The City Council agreed with the recommendations of staff and outside experts and selected
Alternative 2. This alternative provided a second softening unit missing in Alternative 1 without
incurring the extra $2.46 million cost of an addition to the plant in Alternative 3. The disadvantage
of Alternative 2 was that the softening unit had to be taken out of service and hard water provided
during construction. The plan did allow for the removal of iron during the shutdown. The City
voted at the December 1992 meeting to select alternative 2 and work began in 1993 on the
renovation.
4. Project Challenges
Project Start-up and Chlorine Issues
The two new softening units were installed in February and in May. Softened water was available
immediately. However adjustments with the new equipment and the buildup of lime carry over in
pipes during the shutdown resulted in initial variations in clarity, taste and odor. The City received
many telephone calls and complaints from residents concerned about the water.
City staff, working in cooperation with consulting water experts, followed through a deliberative
step-by-step process to pin-point concerns and fine-tune the system and its resulting chlorine level.
At the same time, staff responded to individual residents, visiting their homes when invited to check
their water and answer questions and concerns. What follows is a chronology of major steps taken
by the City to diagnose and fix the problem.
• • Collected data and samples at wells, plant and residences. (Aug.-Sept.)
• Flushed selected areas of the water distribution system. (Sept.)
• Increased chlorine level in treated pumped water to satisfy the chlorine
demand in the system and ensure a chlorine residual of at least 0.2 to 0.5
milligrams per liter in the system. (Sept.)
• Established and reached target free chlorine level in the treated pumped water
of 0.7 milligrams per liter, enabling maintenance of free chlorine residual of
0.2 to 0.5 milligrams per liter in the entire system. (Oct.-Dec.)
• Responded to problem with aging chlorine analyzer and chlorine feed
equipment caused by scale build-up and plugged valve from period October
1993 to August 1994. (Nov.)
• Fine-tuning computer program used to manage the chlorine monitoring and
feed equipment. (Sept.-Jan.)
• Conducted laboratory studies to fine-tune desired chlorine feed level. (Early
• Dec.)
page 5
Established routine maintenance contract covering chlorine feed and
monitoring equipment. (Dec.)
0 _ • Purchased and installed new upgrade chlorine feed controller. (Jan.)
Current Status of the Water System
The softening unit replacement project has been successful on most counts. The new equipment has
enabled the City to produce the clearest water residents have had since the water system was
completed in 1961. The new softening equipment is also much more efficient and able to process
much larger volumes of water more quickly. The City has been able to avoid the costly, long-term
problems it would have experienced if its single softening unit had broken down.
Richfield has also won two awards for the new water softening system. They are the Seven
Wonders of Engineering Award from the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers, and the
Award of Engineering Excellence from the Consulting Engineers Council of Minnesota.
There continues to be lingering periodic complaints of a chlorine taste/smell in the water. The City
is in the midst of attempting to use an updated version of the same basic chlorine feed system that
dates back to 1961. This same chlorine feed system is used throughout the water industry.
Water experts from Serco laboratories, OSM Engineering and CDM engineering have all analyzed
the status of the chlorine level. They attribute the lingering complaints about a chlorine smell and
. taste to three factors:
• The clearer than ever water produced by the new softener allows the chlorine
to be noticeable outside a very narrow band of concentrations.
• The Richfield water consumer has become very sophisticated. Chlorine levels
which are acceptable elsewhere are not acceptable here.
• The chlorine feed/control system which was left in place during the softening
unit replacement is not as responsive as state-of-the-art chlorine feed/control
systems.
The City plans to continue to work through steps to lead to tight control of the chlorine feed system
which should overcome the challenges of the now chlorine-sensitive clear water and sensitive
Richfield water consumer. Steps that are currently being taken include:
Modifying the plant clear-well to improve water flow pattern to provide for a
more complete mixing of the chlorine with the water.
• Installation of state-of-the-art chlorine monitoring and feed equipment.
• • Change location of the chlorine feed point to minimize fluctuations.
page 6
5. Future of the Water Plant
As is clear from this review of the last 34 years of Richfield's water system, there will continue to
r be ongoing necessary upgrades and fixes in the system in the future. What is listed below is the list
of projects in the Water Division Capital Improvements Program.
The water tower painting projects will be highly visible and will likely generate comments from
residents. Staff will provide a special communications effort in anticipation of interest in this
project. The by-pass and interconnect projects are relatively isolated in impact. They require
digging up about a block of street in each case.
The other projects on the list are accomplished within the water plant or at the well heads. Most of
the general public is unlikely to be aware of the work in those projects.
1995 Budget
Well Redevelopment $ 40,000
Paint Logan Tower $ 410,000
Capital Improvement Program
1996 -- Paint Penn Tower $ 527,000
1997 -- Water Main Bypass $290,000
Well Redevelopment 41,000
1998 -- Water Interconnect $150,000
1999 -- Well Redevelopment $441,000
2000+ --Well Redevelopment $168,000
Other Projects Being Considered
2000-- Carbon Dioxide Tank $ 65,000
2001 -- Chlorine Scrubber $125,000
•
page 7
rq illy-,
Lq 9 iL
0
environmental angineere, solentists,
pienners, & management consultants
February 3, 1993
Mr. Donald A. Fondrick
Director of Community Services
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, California 94306
610 933.2910, Fax; 510 933.4174
Subject: Richfield WTP Taste and Odor Control Efforts
Dear Mr, Fondrick:
On February 1, 1995, Michael Zafer and Dr. Mel Suffet had the opportunity to visit
the Richfield Water Treatment Plant (WTP), The purpose of the visit was to discuss
taste and odor issues with key members of your staff as well as representatives from
SERCO Laboratories and Orr Schelen Mayeron & Associates, inc. Engineers,
Upon review of water quality and operational records, we (CDM and Dr. Suffet) agree
on the following points:
0 Variations in water quality during the start-up of the new plant, although
• reasonable and expected, brought some dissatisfaction from the Richfield
consumers with their Water Department.
¦ Since the start-up problems were eliminated and distribution system flushing
completed, water quality has been outstanding. Pathogens and contaminants
(natural and induced) are notably absent; turbidity, disinfectant (chlorine), and
disinfection by-product (THM) levels are well below current and more
stringent anticipated regulatory limits; and the levels of unregulated aesthetic
characteristics such as hardness, iron, etc., are well below limits recommended
in the EPA's Secondary Standards.
¦ Under typical operating conditions, the small amount of naturally occurring
ammonia (about 0.3 mg/1) in the groundwater is oxidized by the free chlorine
added at the WTP. As a result, free chlorine predominates in the system (0.5
to 09), while combined chlorine is limited to about 0.1 mg/1. This ratio is
desirable to minimize the potential for forming odorous chlorine-ammonia
species such as dichloramine (NHC12).
¦ Consumer complaints result primarily from fluctuating levels of chlorine in the
distribution system. These fluctuations are typically less than one-half of one-
part-per-million (less than 0.5 mg/1).
For most systems, chlorine fluctuations of this magnitude may go unnoticed because
other tastes and odors may mask the chlorine. However, with the purity of the
•
Z • d Ab, onnoyoWpa wA33d0 inwuM W9Z) WdLb : 20 b61 LZ D3Q
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Mr. Donald A. Fondrick
February 2, 1995
• Page z
Richfield water, there are no other tastes and odors to interfere. It is our opinion that
although the water produced at the Richfield WTP is of extremely high quality, these
small changes in final chlorine residual are prompting those consumers who are
extremely sensitive to tastes and odors to complain.
Although the sources of chlorine instability at the Richfield WTP are presently
unknown, we suspect that the current practice of shutting down the plant every night
and starting it up again every morning may be a factor. Another possible source of
chlorine demand instability is the wastewater return stream. Although chlorine is fed
into this 2,000 gpm flow, the washwater may impart a significantly higher (or lower)
chlorine demand than the raw water.
In an effort to produce a more consistent product, we suggest that the City of
Richfield systematically evaluate the treatment process to develop an operating
strategy which minimizes fluctuations in chlorine residual leaving the plant.
The first tier of activities for developing this strategy would include;
1. Identify the sources of chlorine demand instability through the process.
2. Develop, test, and implement minor operational modifications to mitigate
• fluctuating chlorine demands under the current intermittent mode of
operation.
3. Develop and implement modifications to facilities, if necessary, to improve
residual stability.
The goal of these initial activities is to mitigate the fluctuating chlorine residual
problem with low-cost, low-impact operational changes, or minor modifications to the
existing facilities. Possible operational improvements may be as simple as
chlorinating the raw water during daily start-up or varying chlorine doses during
wastewater recycle. Facilities improvements could include improving mixing in the
2.5 million gallon clearwell or changing chlorine addition or monitoring points.
If inconsistent residuals persist after all the minor operational alternatives have been
exhausted, the next step would be:
4. Evaluate the impacts of operating the plant continuously versus intermittently.
Operating the plant 24-hours a day presents a number of questions for the City
regarding staffing, economics, maintenance and other issues which must be
thoroughly investigated.
If continuous operation does not solve the fluctuating chlorine residual problem, the
City could investigate alternative chlorination methods. However, major process or
n
U
E ' d Panted on muted paper 7MdZ) inwium wao WdLb : c'o b6. Lz 03Q
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Mr. Donald A. Fondrick
February 2, 1995
Page 3
chemical changes in the water will have far-reaching implications for the City and its
customers.
These issues as well as a number of other items will be presented in a more detailed
outline of our recommended strategy for the City of Richfield to address their taste
and odor issues.
Thank you and your staff for your insight and assistance in this project. Please
contact Michael Zafer at (510) 933-2900 or me at (612) 293-1313 with any questions
you may have.
Very truly yours,
CAW DRESSER & McKEE INC.
T_
Randy R ers, P.E.
Vice President
0
cc: Dr. Mel Suffet, MH- Corp.
Michael Eastling, City of Richfield
John Thom, City of Richfield
Gerald Allen, SERCO Laboratories
Jon Peterson, OSM
File: 8165-001-RT-4, 01
Michael A. Zafer,
Project Engineer
WOB/MZ.001
0
b 'd Pimiod on myeiao paper mmd:) inwiuM waD Wdev : Eo b6, a oar