Consider Water Treatment Plant Site Selection Recommendation

Purpose:
The purpose of this case is to consider providing a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) site selection recommendation to the City Council.

Background:
The source water for the City of Ramsey’s water supply system is groundwater obtained from the Tunnel City-Wonewoc (TCW) aquifer through eight municipal water supply wells. In 2019, concentrations of manganese ranged from 0.02 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.37 mg/L. In 2019 the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) had a Health Based Value (HBV) for manganese of 0.100 mg/L for bottle feeding infants, and 0.300 mg/L for anyone over 1-year old. Four of Ramsey’s eight water supply wells exceeded the MDH HBV for manganese in 2019 so MDH recommended that the City develop plans to reduce manganese concentrations in the water supply system.

In addition to the potential health concerns with manganese, Ramsey’s drinking water also exceeds the Secondary Standards for iron and manganese. Water with concentrations of iron and manganese above the Secondary Standard causes aesthetic problems including red and black staining of plumbing fixtures, laundry, sidewalks, buildings, etc., as well as taste complaints.

The most cost effective process for removing manganese and iron from drinking water is chemical oxidation followed by sand filtration. Incorporating these processes will require construction of a water treatment plant. The City therefore hired an engineering consultant to prepare a Feasibility Report to ensure our groundwater aquifer has enough capacity to support our future needs, to prepare a water system model, to explore preliminary design options and estimated costs for a WTP, and to evaluate 4 optional sites.
 
Based upon an analysis of Ramsey’s projected 2040 water demand, the capacity of the proposed water treatment plant is 10 million gallons per day (MGD), with an ultimate expansion capacity of 20 MGD. This generally requires a minimum site area of 3.5 acres.

The following four potential water treatment plant sites were identified and evaluated.

• Fire Station Site - 3.2 acres undeveloped private property immediately south of Fire Station #1.
• Public Works Site - 3.5 acres City-owned undeveloped property immediately north of the new Public Works facility, which is currently under construction.
• Water Shop Site - 3.5 acres City-owned property immediately west of Jasper Street where the current Public Works Utilities Shop is located.
• Vacant City Property Site - 4.1 acres City-owned undeveloped property immediately east of Ramsey Boulevard and north of the BNSF rail line.

The locations of all four potential WTP sites are shown in relation to each other in attached Figure 1. Each site is shown in more detail in attached Figures 4 – 7.

The preliminary estimated project cost for constructing the WTP as proposed within the Feasibility Report is $31,890,000. Project costs include the capital cost plus contingency, administration, and engineering costs.

The table below identifies additional preliminary estimated project costs needed to prepare each of the four potential WTP sites in advance of constructing a WTP on site, which includes costs to extend raw and finished watermain lines to the site, acquire property (if needed), and construct garage space. Also tabulated are notable pros and cons associated with each site.
 

Potential WTP Site	Added Estimated Project Cost	Pros	Cons
Fire Station Site	$3,253,000	Shared access and parking with Fire Station #1	Private property acquisition required Near residential parcels Requires trip to site Requires garage
Public Works Site	$3,058,000	City owns property Shared access and parking with PW facility Shared security facilities Shared generator Garage not required	City has received multiple inquiries to purchase this site for private development Last large "City owned" parcel zoned for industrial development City paid for Shovel Ready certification for private development and marketing of this site
Water Shop Site	$3,583,000	City owns property Garage not required Could be considered for replacement of redevelopment/economic development	Requires trip to site Requires demo of existing building
Vacant City Property Site	$4,738,000	City owns property	Requires trip to site Requires garage Property impacted by Ramsey Gateway Highway 10 Improvements

In all scenarios, the properties remain or become tax exempt. There would be some degree of opportunity lost by not facilitating private development, either industrial or residential. The current Public Works parcels provide opportunities for economic development. For historical perspective, the former Bury and Carlson Site (the Public Works Site) was purchased exclusively for Public Works purposes. Several years ago, prior to construction of the Bunker Lake Industrial Park, approximately 10 acres of the Public Works Site was examined for economic development purposes. Much has changed since then in terms of the need for economic development opportunities, as well as the new manganese concerns.
 
From an operational efficiency and cost savings standpoint, the Public Works Site presents the best option for the Water Treatment Plant and is more in line with the original intent of the purchase. About 3.5 acres of remnant land will be available on the Public Works Site after construction, and the opportunity will still exist to redevelop the Water Shop Site and Vacant City Site. And as shown in figure 5, the WTP will only require about half of the available 7 acres on the Public Works Site. The plant is shown on the east side of the site as this allows the City to maintain control over the cemetery access road, and it allows for the most cost-effective sharing of site security infrastructure, an emergency generator, and garage space. In addition, the west half of the site is assumed to be more marketable for economic development due to better visibility and greater flexibility for access to and development of the site.   

Staff anticipates 25 minutes will be required to present and discuss this case.  

Alternative #1 – Motion recommending City Council approval of the _________ site for the proposed Water Treatment Plant.

Alternative #2 – Motion of other.

Municipal water system users have been paying into the Water Fund for around 20 years to fund a Water Treatment Plant. This fund has a balance is approximately $23,000,000. Staff is exploring available external funding sources to pay for remaining costs. Water enterprise funds can pay for the remainder of the required funds if external funds are not obtained.  

Engineering and Public Works Staff recommend locating the proposed WTP on the Public Works Site due to;

1. the lowest estimated construction cost,
2. the ability to maintain control over the cemetery access road,
3. the ability to most cost-effectively share security infrastructure, an emergency generator, and garage space, and
4. significant operational efficiencies and cost savings over the life of the WTP.

 
Staff also recommends proceeding with the proposed WTP construction in as timely a manner as possible to ensure the City is able to continue to provide water in compliance with the MDH HBV for manganese. The City has been running only two to four of its municipal wells to supply water to the City since the summer of 2019, meaning these wells are constantly in operation and are not able to be rested or taken off-line for routine maintenance. If the City elects to move forward with constructing a WTP in a timely manner, it could be operational by spring of 2023.   

On January 7th, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of the Public Works Site for the proposed Water Treatment Plant.  

On January 14th, the Economic Development Authority unanimously recommended City Council approval of the Public Works Site for the proposed Water Treatment Plant.  

Motion recommending City Council approval of the _________ site for the proposed Water Treatment Plant.