Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-12-10 City Council Work Session Meeting Packet
Agenda City Council Work Session City of Edina, Minnesota Edina City Hall Mayors Conference Room Monday, December 10, 2018 6:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Water Treatment Plant No. 5: Dublin Amendment to Preliminary Design Report IV.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli&cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: December 10, 2018 Agenda Item #: III. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Reports / Recommendation From:Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:Water Treatment Plant No. 5: Dublin Amendment to Preliminary Design Report Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: See staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Water Treatment Plant No. 5 Feasibility Study for the Dublin Reservoir Site Technical Memorandum - WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost Water Supply Plan Figure 8-1: Proposed Water System Improvements Staff Presentation December 10, 2018 Mayor and City Council Chad A. Millner PE, Director of Engineering, Water Treatment Plant 5: Dublin Amendment to Preliminary Design Report Executive Summary: Staff recommends locating a 4,000 gallon per minute (gpm) water treatment plant at the Dublin Reservoir Site to take advantage of overlapping infrastructure needs such as improving water age, improving the E-W distribution system, better utilization of the Dublin site, and allow the Southdale site to remain available for future development. If council agrees with staff recommendation at the Dublin site, staff would develop a public participation plan and a request for purchase for professional services for consideration at a future city council meeting. Information / Background: The Comprehensive Plan update and specifically the Water Supply Plan informed staff that there may be an alternative site for a water treatment plant. The location is at the Dublin reservoir. While the Southdale site was the preferred site based on the Water Distribution System Analysis (August 2002) and the initial feasibility study for WTP #5, the previously unevaluated Dublin site has shown to have overlapping infrastructure needs. Either site is feasible with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Treatment plants serve to remove contaminants from groundwater by a variety of physical and chemical processes. Unfiltered water results in water clarity complaints. A primary treatment goal of this plant is the reduction of iron and manganese to improve water taste, clarity, and reduce staining and sediment. When complete WTP 5 will; Increase filtered capacity of the City of Edina water system to be able to provide filtered water during nearly all typical summer demands, add flexibility and resilience to the filtered supply, and end the seasonal unfiltered water pulse that affects water clarity in southeast Edina. Water Supply Plan: The Water Supply Plan is a new document that updates and replaces the Water Distribution System Analysis (August 2002), and Water Emergency and Conservation Plans (2007/8), and meets the requirements from the Minnesota DNR and Metropolitan Council for 2016-2018 Minnesota Water Supply STAFF REPORT Page 2 Planning. Along with Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer plans, the Water Supply Plan serves as a basis for the water resources chapter of the 2018 City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. The Water Supply Plan is used as a tool to identify, plan for, and address utility trends and issues in water supply, treatment, distribution, and growth that affect the utility over a planning period extending to the year 2040. Edina’s water system supply, treatment, storage, and distribution is in good condition and provides its core services reasonably well for its age and era of construction, while minimizing cost and risk. Key findings and future needs include; • System has capacity to serve growth contemplated in Comprehensive Plan drafts. • Average water demand is stable with counter trends of conservation and growth. • Indoor water demand shows a strong passive conservation trend. • Outdoor and peak day demand varies widely with climate. o Current system can meet 2040 peak demands for a variety of growth scenarios. • System modernization needs include: o Trunk capacity improvements in northeast quadrant and Grandview district o Trunk capacity improvements to east-west flow capacity o Tapping available storage at Dublin reservoir to support water age and emergency supply o Water age improvements in western portions of northwest and southwest quadrants o Additional 0.5 million gallons of storage Water Distribution Strategy: The system modernization needs listed above provided an opportunity to think about how water is distributed in the system. The initial strategy for WTP #5 was focused on addressing water clarity complaints at the Southdale location that was primarily served by wells 5 and 18. An alternative strategy was realized based on water age concerns in the western portion of Edina, the need for east-west transmission improvements, and under-utilized storage at Dublin. The alternative strategy is to filter and pump the water in the west and transmit it to the Southdale area where it is needed. This improves water age in the western portion of Edina while addressing other infrastructure needs listed. In the appendix is a series of three graphics depicting the water age during three operational scenarios of the Dublin Reservoir labeled “Water Treatment Plant No. 5: Water Age Scenario Graphics”. SCENARIO EX-ON depicts water age with existing operations on at the Dublin Reservoir. Notice the amount of red dots that show an average water age greater than 6 days. SCENARIO EX-OFF depicts water age with the existing Dublin Reservoir out of service. Again, notice the number of red dots. SCENARIO 5A depicts water age with a water treatment plant on the Dublin Reservoir site. Notice the large reduction in water age greater than 6 days. Also attached and labeled “Water Supply Plan Figure 8-1: Proposed Water System Improvements” shows suggested improvements to the water distribution system by 2040 with or without a water treatment plant at the Dublin Reservoir site. Notice Trunk D and Trunk G improvements in the SW quadrant. These improvements provide better E-W transmission of water. As part of the water model update, we confirmed what our operators already understood about the Dublin Reservoir. It has 4 million gallons of capacity but it effectively has 2.8 million gallons of service. The limiting STAFF REPORT Page 3 factor is the ability to fill the storage. If it is filled too fast, pressure drops so low to surrounding customers that water is not available for use. The network surrounding the reservoir creates a situation where entire storage capacity cannot be fully utilized. This water treatment plant would repurpose a portion of reservoir as a clear well to support water treatment operations. The Water Supply Plan identified a need for 0.5 million gallons of additional storage by 2040. By repurposing a portion of the Dublin reservoir, the storage needs of the system may increase to 1.5 million gallons. True storage needs will be based on future use and growth. Staff tried to understand where this storage may occur. One idea is to increase the amount of storage or size of the water tower at the Community Center site when that piece of infrastructure is due for replacement. Process to Date: Recall 95% bidding documents were completed and solicitation of bids was close. Please recall previous City Council, Planning Commission and staff actions on this topic: • Professional Services: On March 7, 2017 Council approved professional services for a preliminary report and pilot study of chemical treatment options for Water Treatment Plant 5 (WTP 5) and on September 6 Council approved change order #1 for evaluation of an additional site and to extend the pilot study. • Preliminary Report: On October 3, 2017 Council reviewed preliminary design report and architectural concepts, discussed scope, schedule and budget and authorized design and construction services for the selected site. • 95% Design: On February 14, 2018 Planning Commission approved a Front Yard Setback Variance • 95% Design: On February 21, 2018 Council reviewed 95% design architectural, directed preparation of an enhanced architectural option and approved a setback variance. • March 2018: Reviewed enhanced architectural option, not approved. • April 2018: Hired Snow Kreilich to develop an enhanced architectural concept. • October 2018: Approved professional services with AE2S to complete study of Dublin site. An enhanced architectural option was created by Snow Kreilich Architects based on feedback from individual council members, members of the Southdale Area Working Group, AE2S and City Staff. Snow Kreilich considered 3 options to develop their concept; 1. Re-Skinning – using the 95% design pieces and changing the aesthetics. 2. Shifting – keeping the general locations of the 95% design but shifting elements to meet stakeholder’s goals 3. Flipping – total move of structural and operational elements They selected Option 2 to shift program elements to meet stakeholder goals. Shifting included a reduced main level footprint, office / lab & electrical room on second level, added elevator, transparency to France Avenue, and ramp incorporated into building mass. The concept did not address emergency egress access doors along France Avenue based on the building code, HVAC equipment on the roof, maintenance of the architectural glass and other concerns listed in the Southdale WTP – Enhanced Architectural Concepts Technical Memorandum. It also made tradeoffs that raise the burden to operators for maintenance and workability. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Options: The WTP 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost Technical Memorandum lists 13 options for this facility. Staff is of the opinion 4 of those should be considered and discussed. 1. Option 1C – Southdale Site - 95% Plan: Continue with the architectural concept shown. 2. Option 1E - Southdale Site - Snow Kreilich Concept: Develop Bid Documents for architectural concept shown. 3. Option 5A – Dublin Site at 3,000 gpm: Develop Architectural Engagement Proposal and Create Bid Documents 4. Option 5C – Dublin Site at 4,000 gpm: Develop Architectural Engagement Proposal and Create Bid Documents STAFF REPORT Page 5 Option Analysis: Option Advantages Disadvantages Option 1C – Southdale Site - 95% Plan 1. Raw WM available 2. Distribution system available 3. Lowest Cost 1. One additional well needed 2. Architectural cost premium 3. Constructability Option 1E - Southdale Site - Snow Kreilich Concept 1. Raw WM available 2. Distribution system available 3. Largest Architectural Impact 1. One additional well needed 2. Architectural cost premium 3. Future maintenance and operations 4. Constructability 5. Highest Cost Option 5A – Dublin Site 3000 gpm And Option 5C – Dublin Site 4000 gpm 1. Three wells immediately available 2. Distribution system available 3. Overlapping infrastructure needs a. Addresses water age issue b. Better utilization of storage volume c. Improves E-W distribution 4. Lesser architectural premium 5. Simpler chemical process 6. Coordinate piping needs with 2020 street reconstruction 1. Raw WM required 2. Located in residential area 3. Water storage need increases from 0.5 MG to 1.5 MG by 2040 STAFF REPORT Page 6 Professional Services to Date: Item Date Fees AE2S Preliminary Engineering Services March 7, 2017 $75,000 AE2S Change Order #1 – Additional Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Fred Richards Site September 6, 2017 $10,500 AE2S Design and Bidding Phase Services October 3, 2017 $911,000 Total AE2S Approved Services to Date $996,500 Snow Kreilich Approved Services to Date April 17, 2018 $19,600 AE2S Additional Professional Services - Dublin Reservoir Site Evaluation - Option 1E: Snow Kreilich Concept Cost Estimate October 16, 2018 $27,200 Total Professional Services to Date $1,043,300 STAFF REPORT Page 7 Total Estimated Project Costs: Cost Item Option 1C – Southdale Site - 95% Plan Option 1E - Southdale Site - Snow Kreilich Concept Option 5A – Dublin Site – 3,000 gpm Option 5C – Dublin Site – 4,000 gpm Facility Capital Costs $9,467,000 $11,276,000 $8,407,000 $9,103,000 Raw Watermain Piping to Date $400,000 $400,000 Minimum Raw Watermain Piping – Majority of Alignment on Edina School District Property $2,350,000 $2,350,000 Additional Raw Watermain Piping – Premium for Alignment Entirely on City ROW $450,000 $450,000 Facility Integration $400,000 $400,000 $335,000 $335,000 Contingency $247,000 $2,335,000 $1,731,000 $1,836,000 Future 3rd Well $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $0 Professional Services to Date $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 Additional Design Professional Services $50,000 $1,401,000 $1,327,000 $1,407,000 Construction Professional Services $506,000 $701,000 $664,000 $704,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $13,813,300 $19,256,300 $15,857,300 - $16,307,300 $16,778,300 - $17,228,300 Future Infrastructure Needs Future 4th Well or Use Well #8 NA NA NA $1,200,000 Water Storage Estimate $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 STAFF REPORT Page 8 Funding Sources: The 2019 – 2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has two projects related to this water treatment plant. At the time of the CIP, the water treatment plant and an additional well with related raw watermain piping was estimated at $15.7 million. To fund the potential difference between the CIP and estimated project costs, staff will review other watermain related projects to determine if they can be moved to a later year and we will value engineer the plant during design. Schedule The following schedule is approximate. December 2018 Review WTP#5 Options and Select Location Summer/Fall 2019 Bid Opening / Award Fall/Winter 2019/2020 Construction Start Fall/Winter 2021/2022 Construction Complete Attachments / References: Water Treatment Plant No. 5 Feasibility Study for the Dublin Reservoir Site Technical Memorandum - WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost Water Supply Plan Figure 8-1: Proposed Water System Improvements October 3, 2017 Council Packet: Water Treatment Plant 5 Preliminary Design Report and Appendices https://edina.novusagenda.com/agendaintranet/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=3629&MeetingID=464 WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Professional Certification November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page i PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 5 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE FOR THE CITY OF EDINA NOVEMBER 2018 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Grant L. Meyer, PE Date: 11/30/18 Registration Number: 43013 Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Aaron Vollmer, PE Date: 11/30/18 Registration Number: 51398 Prepared By: Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. Water Tower Place Business Center 6901 East Fish Lake Road, Suite 184 Maple Grove, MN 55369 WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Introduction November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Edina is committed to advancing plans for design and construction of Water Treatment Plant No. 5 (WTP No. 5) to increase the supply of treated water available to system customers, meet the needs of the growing community, and produce more filtered water to reduce aesthetic concerns throughout the distribution system. The Project team worked through 2017 on the review of four (4) potential sites for WTP No. 5 including the Southdale Site, Yorktown Site, Median Site, and Fred Richards Site. A preliminary design report (PDR) comparing the site alternatives was prepared and published in September of 2017. Based on the findings and recommendations presented in this report, the Southdale Site was initially determined to be the preferred site. A combination of aesthetic integration challenges at the Southdale Site and the opportunity to improve system performance by considering an alternate location led Edina City staff to request that AE2S review one additional site for the potential WTP. The alternate location (Site No. 5) will be the site of the existing Dublin Reservoir, referred to herein as the Dublin Site, located on Dublin Rd. between Dublin Circle and Kerry Rd. The planned WTP at the Dublin Site will be designed to treat the City’s existing raw water source in the area, which is comprised of existing Wells 16, 19, and 20. Analysis within this feasibility study will include consideration of raw water quality, treatment technologies, equipment alternatives, structural integration of the existing Dublin Reservoir and Pumping Station, architectural consideration for the residential neighborhood, mechanical and electrical support systems, evaluation of the raw and finished water piping alternatives, evaluation of non-financial considerations, and financial evaluation of the primary alternatives. As the City looks to redevelop the Southdale District into higher density and mixed-use development over the next few decades, increased water demand will accompany this change and growth. This southeastern area is primarily served by Wells 5 and 18, which were the wells originally planned to be treated by WTP No. 5. Due to the relatively far proximity of these wells to the Dublin Site, it was determined that treating Wells 16, 19, and 20 at this site and looking at distribution system improvements to distribute finished water to the Southdale District would outweigh the benefits of bringing Wells 5 and 18 to the Dublin Site. Wells 16, 19, and 20 will increase the treated capacity of the system from 13.8 MGD to 18.1 MGD. The study approach will follow the process consistent with the Water Treatment Plant No. 5 - Preliminary Design Report (September 2017), and will be integrated as an addendum to the original report. Chapter and section headings, where applicable, will follow the same numbering format as the original PDR with the intention that the Dublin Site analysis fits in consecutively as the fifth site alternative. Sections with headings not including numbering are provided to briefly describe the purpose of each numbered section to allow reading this study as a standalone document. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 2 SOURCE WATER EVALUATION The following sections review the wells to service WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site, provide general raw water characteristics of these wells, summarize the breakpoint chlorination testing results, and review well performance considerations. A2.1.4 Wells to Service WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site Wells 16, 19, and 20 will provide raw water to the future WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. The following sections summarize detailed information regarding conditions and water quality of the three existing wells. Note that some water quality concentrations provided herein may vary from the summary table provided in the original report after additional sampling data was reviewed for these wells as part of this study. The range of concentrations for each contaminant ensures treatment sizing considers the highest historical concentration. The existing well houses include systems to dose fluoride for public wellness, chlorine for disinfection, and polyphosphates for pipe corrosion inhibition. The wells are currently only used during peak summer demand and emergencies. WTP No. 5 will include treatment technologies to oxidize and filter out the iron in the raw water and radium removal equipment to reduce combined radium and gross alpha from the three blended sources. A2.1.4.1 Well No. 16 Well No. 16 is located at 6301 Gleason Road, just south of Crosstown Highway 62 on the east side of Gleason Road within Creek Valley Park. The Gleason elevated storage tower also sits within this property. The well shares a building with the park ice rink warming house. Original drilling of the well occurred in 1967 and was last re-built in 2004. The water level during pumping is approximately 112 feet below the surface at a pumping rate of 1,100 gpm. The test pumping completed in 2009 indicated that the well has a specific capacity of approximately 183 gpm/ft. The existing pump is a 150 horsepower (Hp) vertical turbine pump designed to pump 1,100 gpm at an estimated total dynamic head (TDH) of 343 feet. The TDH value was taken from the 2009 test pumping data sheet. The City typically operates this pump at 1,000 gpm. Use of this well is limited as a seasonal well due to noisy operation, likely caused by electrical frequency, which can be heard even with the building doors closed. This issue is important when considering this well for treatment at WTP No. 5 as the well would operate year-round, when citizens utilize the attached warming house during winter months. The well characteristics for Well No. 16 are provided in Table A2.1. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 3 Table A2.1 Well No. 16 Characteristics Well Characteristic Well No. 16 Unique Well No. 203101 Date Reconstructed 2004 Formation Prairie du Chien - Jordan Pump Hp 150 Depth (ft.) 381 Open Hole Depth (ft.) 116 Pumping Rate (gpm) 1,100 Static Level (ft.) 106 Pumping Level @ Rate (ft.) 112 Specific Capacity (gpm/ft.) 183 Table A2.2 summarizes the raw water quality available for this well. Well No. 16 has elevated concentrations of iron. Onsite testing by AE2S indicated manganese levels approximately two times the 0.05 mg/L secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL), however, previous laboratory certified results have indicated historical manganese of less than 0.05 mg/L. The well also has combined radium at approximately 70% of the EPA regulated MCL of 5 pCi/L. Table A2.2 Well No. 16 Water Quality Analyte Concentration Range Ammonia (mg/L) 0.39 – 0.42 Iron (mg/L) 0.50 – 0.67 Manganese (mg/L) < 0.05 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.05 pH 7.8 Sulfate (mg/L) 13.3 Sodium (mg/L) 12.0 Radium-226 + Radium-228 (pCi/L) 2 – 3.6 Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 4.9 – 6.5 WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 4 A2.1.4.2 Well No. 19 Well No. 19 is located at 6054 Valleyview Rd, just south of Crosstown Highway 62 and north of Valley View Road within the Valley View Middle School and Edina High School complex. Original drilling of the well occurred in 1989. After installation, during test pumping, water level was approximately 202 feet below the surface at a pumping rate of 1,200 gpm. The test pumping completed as part of the well construction indicated that the well has a specific capacity of approximately 31 gpm/ft. The existing pump is a 150 horsepower (Hp) vertical turbine pump designed to pump 1,200 gpm at an estimated TDH of 344 feet. The TDH value was taken from the original well record data sheets. The City typically operates this pump at 1,000 gpm. The well characteristics for Well No. 19 are provided in Table A2.3. Table A2.3 Well No. 19 Characteristics Well Characteristic Well No. 19 Unique Well No. 505626 Date Constructed 10/26/1989 Formation Jordan Pump Hp 150 Depth (ft.) 520 Open Hole Depth (ft.) 80 Pumping Rate (gpm) 1,200 Static Level (ft.) 163 Pumping Level @ Rate (ft.) 202 Specific Capacity (gpm/ft.) 31 Table A2.4 summarizes the raw water quality available for this well. Well No. 19 has elevated concentrations of iron. Onsite testing by AE2S indicated manganese levels slightly above the 0.05 mg/L SMCL, however, previous laboratory certified results have indicated historical manganese of less than 0.05 mg/L. The well also has combined Radium-226 and Radium-228 just below the EPA regulated MCL of 5 pCi/L and Gross Alpha approximately 73% of the 15 pCi/L MCL. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 5 Table A2.4 Well No. 19 Water Quality Analyte Concentration Range Ammonia (mg/L) 0.39 – 0.44 Iron (mg/L) 0.51 – 0.58 Manganese (mg/L) < 0.05 – 0.076 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.05 pH 7.8 Sulfate (mg/L) 10.2 – 10.4 Sodium (mg/L) 6.8 – 7.1 Radium-226 + Radium-228 (pCi/L) 3 – 4.9 Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 8.9 – 10.9 A2.1.4.3 Well No. 20 Well No. 20 is located just north of Crosstown Highway 62 on the east side of Gleason Road in the southwest corner of Bredesen Park. The well was constructed in 2008. During test pumping, water level was approximately 105 feet below the surface at a pumping rate of 1,200 gpm. The test pumping completed as part of the well construction indicated that the well has a specific capacity of approximately 80 gpm/ft. The existing pump is a 150 horsepower (Hp) vertical turbine pump designed to pump 1,200 gpm at an estimated TDH of 355 feet. The TDH value was taken from the original well record data sheets. The City typically operates this pump at 1,000 gpm. The well characteristics for Well No. 20 are provided in Table A2.5. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 6 Table A2.5 Well No. 20 Characteristics Well Characteristic Well No. 20 Unique Well No. 686286 Date Constructed 6/30/2008 Formation Prairie du Chien - Jordan Pump Hp 150 Depth (ft.) 467 Open Hole Depth (ft.) 80 Pumping Rate (gpm) 1,200 Static Level (ft.) 90 Pumping Level @ Rate (ft.) 105 Specific Capacity (gpm/ft.) 80 Table A2.6 summarizes the raw water quality available for this well. Well No. 20 has elevated concentrations of iron. Onsite testing by AE2S indicated manganese levels slightly above the 0.05 mg/L SMCL, however, previous laboratory certified results have indicated historical manganese of less than 0.05 mg/L. The well has relatively low combined radium and Gross Alpha compared to the other wells being investigated. Table A2.6 Well No. 20 Water Quality Analyte Concentration Range Ammonia (mg/L) 0.23 – 0.26 Iron (mg/L) 0.35 – 0.42 Manganese (mg/L) < 0.05 – 0.063 pH 7.8 Sulfate (mg/L) 11.1 – 14.6 Sodium (mg/L) 6 – 17.1 Radium-226 + Radium-228 (pCi/L) < 2.5 Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 4.4 – 5.7 A6.1.8 General Raw Water Characteristics of Dublin Site Wells Raw water characterization of the investigated wells included analysis of iron, manganese, ammonia, and confirmation of hydrogen sulfide presence by a rotten egg odor. Table A6.1 provides a summary of the data collected for Wells 16, 19, and 20. Iron and manganese concentrations in all wells exceed the SMCLs of 0.3 and 0.05, respectively. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 7 Table A6.1 Well No. 16, 19 and 20 Raw Water Characteristics Well No. 16 Well No. 19 Well No. 20 Iron, mg/L 0.67 0.55 0.35 Manganese, mg/L 0.114 0.076 0.063 Ammonia, mg/L as N 0.42 0.39 0.23 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor? Yes Yes Yes, Faint The raw water ammonia will exert an additional chlorine demand beyond that required for oxidation of iron, hydrogen sulfide, and manganese. Ammonia reacts with chlorine to form monochloramine, exerting a chlorine demand. The ammonia concentrations in all wells are favorable for chloramination disinfection but may require the addition of supplemental ammonia to provide a satisfactory monochloramine residual in the distribution system that matches or boosts the monochloramine residuals from other Edina water treatment facilities and inhibits microbiological growth. All laboratory certified manganese data from the wells has indicated concentrations below the SMCL, therefore, limitations of field testing accuracy may be a factor in the manganese levels experienced during sampling. At the relatively low levels of manganese present within the source wells, oxidation with chlorine or permanganate may not be effective. It may be difficult to feed permanganate at levels low enough to oxidize the manganese concentrations present, leading to unintentional water discoloration from overfeeding permanganate. For these reasons, it is recommended to include provisions to install permanganate feed systems in the future for the case where water quality changes over time or additional wells with higher manganese concentrations are brought into the facility. AE2S observed a hydrogen sulfide odor while collecting the water samples at all wells during the breakpoint chlorination sampling. Hydrogen sulfide will consume oxidant chemicals and could cause odor and corrosion issues in the WTP facility if not considered in the WTP design. A6.1.9 Breakpoint Chlorination Curve Development of Dublin Site Wells AE2S conducted experiments to create breakpoint chlorination curves for the wells that would supply raw water to WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site on October 23, 2018. The goal was to observe the oxidant demand of the source water and gather water quality information to develop the recommended preliminary treatment train. AE2S created customized breakpoint chlorination curves for Wells 16, 19, and 20. For this test, jars were filled with 1L of water and dosed with chlorine over a range of 0.3 to 6.6 mg/L. After dosing each jar, a mixing apparatus gently stirred the water for approximately 30 minutes to allow reactions to take place. After the 30-minute reaction time, samples were collected from each jar and analyzed for free chlorine, total chlorine, free ammonia and monochloramine. The results are representative of the water quality from each well on that day. The curve could be slightly different for other well combinations or different days. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 8 A6.1.9.1 Well No. 16 Results Table A6.2 summarizes the data collected from the jar test experiment and Figure A6.1 depicts the water quality trends for Well No. 16. As indicated by the concentration trends, Well No. 16 should achieve peak chloramination with a dosage of approximately 2.4 mg/l of chlorine and reach breakpoint chlorination with a chlorine dose of approximately 4.4 mg/L. A dose of 6.4 mg/L is estimated to provide a 2.0 mg/L total chlorine residual. Table A6.2 Well No. 16 Breakpoint Chlorination Results Jar Cl2 Dose (mg/L) Total Cl2 (mg/L) Free Cl2 (mg/L) Free NH3 (mg/L as N) Mono- chloramine (mg/L) 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.04 1 0.7 0.50 0.00 0.35 0.50 2 1.4 1.18 0.00 0.19 1.12 3 2.1 1.79 0.00 0.02 1.69 4 2.4 1.99 0.00 0.00 1.82 5 2.8 1.78 0.00 0.00 1.60 6 3.6 1.23 0.16 0.00 0.86 7 4.4 0.55 0.35 - 0.19 8 5.4 1.24 1.03 - 0.07 9 6.6 2.16 1.88 - 0.07 Theoretical (stoichiometric) ratios (mg/L chlorine per mg/L ammonia (as N)) to reach peak chloramination are 5:1 chlorine to ammonia, and the oxidant demands of iron and manganese are 0.63 mg/L chlorine per 1 mg/L iron, and 1.3 mg/L chlorine to 1 mg/L manganese. These ratios assume the reactions reach equilibrium. Based on the raw water on the day of testing, the stoichiometric peak chloramination chlorine dose is 2.7 mg/L. This is 0.3 mg/L higher than the experimental results. The difference between theoretical chlorine demand and the experimental demand indicate that the reactions might not have reached equilibrium, and that chlorine was not a strong enough oxidant to oxidize all the parameters that exert chlorine demand in the raw water. Another explanation may be that involuntary aeration caused oxidation of iron during sampling or transportation of the sample for testing, which would reduce the chlorine demand of iron. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 9 Breakpoint chlorination (indicated by the valley in the total chlorine residual curve) theoretically requires a 7.6:1 ratio of chlorine to ammonia. The 0.42 mg/L ammonia concentration of Well No. 5, would require 3.2 mg/L of chlorine to reach breakpoint. Well No. 16 required 4.4 mg/L of chlorine to reach breakpoint. This additional 1.2 mg/L chlorine demand above the ammonia demand is due to other constituents such as iron, a portion of manganese, or unquantified parameters such as organics or hydrogen sulfide. A6.1.9.2 Well No. 19 Results Table A6.3 summarizes the experimental data and Figure A6.2 depicts the concentration trends for Well No. 19. As shown by the plotted chlorine residuals, Well No. 19 should achieve peak chloramination with a chlorine dose of approximately 2.6 mg/l of chlorine and should reach breakpoint chlorination at a chlorine dose of approximately 4.0 mg/L. Stoichiometric calculations indicate a peak chloramination dose of 2.4 mg/L, which shows that experimental results are consistent with theoretical results. The slight difference is within the accuracy range of the experimental procedures. For breakpoint chlorination, theoretically Well No. 19 requires 3.0 mg/L to consume the raw water ammonia. Other constituents in the water contribute to the remaining chlorine demand between experimental and theoretical results. Figure A6.1 Well No. 16 Breakpoint Chlorination Curve 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Residual Concentration, mg/LChlorine Dosage, mg/L Total Chlorine Free Chlorine Free Ammonia Monochloramine FREE CHLORINE MONO-CHLORAMINE WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 10 Table A6.3 Well No. 19 Breakpoint Chlorination Results Jar Cl2 Dose (mg/L) Total Cl2 (mg/L) Free Cl2 (mg/L) Free NH3 (mg/L as N) Mono- chloramine (mg/L) 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.02 1 0.7 0.55 0.00 0.28 0.50 2 1.3 1.16 0.00 0.16 1.02 3 2.0 1.67 0.00 0.03 1.53 4 2.4 1.97 0.00 0.00 1.80 5 2.8 1.96 0.12 0.00 1.55 6 3.6 0.81 0.17 - 0.48 7 4.4 0.72 0.57 - 0.12 8 5.4 1.46 1.36 - 0.08 9 6.6 2.44 2.18 - 0.05 Figure A6.2 Well No. 19 Breakpoint Chlorination Curve 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Residual Concentration, mg/LChlorine Dosage, mg/L Total Chlorine Free Chlorine Free Ammonia Monochloramine FREE CHLORINE MONO-CHLORAMINE WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 11 A6.1.9.3 Well No. 20 Results Table A6.4 summarizes the experimental data and Figure A6.3 depicts the concentration trends for Well No. 20. As shown by the plotted chlorine residuals, Well No. 20 should achieve peak chloramination with a chlorine dose of approximately 1.7 mg/l of chlorine and should reach breakpoint chlorination at a chlorine dose of approximately 2.5 mg/L. Stoichiometric calculations indicate a peak chloramination dose of 1.5 mg/L, which shows that experimental results are consistent with theoretical results. The slight difference is within the accuracy range of the experimental procedures. For breakpoint chlorination, theoretically Well No. 20 requires 1.7 mg/L to consume the raw water ammonia. Other constituents in the water contribute to the remaining chlorine demand between experimental and theoretical results. Table A6.4 Well No. 20 Breakpoint Chlorination Results Jar Cl2 Dose (mg/L) Total Cl2 (mg/L) Free Cl2 (mg/L) Free NH3 (mg/L as N) Mono-chloramine (mg/L) 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.07 1 0.3 0.28 0.00 0.21 0.26 2 0.7 0.58 0.00 0.13 0.57 3 1.0 0.89 0.00 0.04 0.88 4 1.3 1.17 0.03 0.00 1.18 5 1.5 1.32 0.06 0.00 1.24 6 1.6 1.43 0.07 0.00 1.30 7 2.0 1.21 0.10 0.00 0.91 8 2.3 0.64 0.13 0.00 0.41 9 2.6 0.55 0.28 - 0.16 10 3.3 0.90 0.76 - 0.05 11 4.1 1.56 1.39 - - WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 12 A6.1.10 Well Performance Considerations As stated in the PDR, performance of each well is a function of many separate variables that can have varying effects. Physical characteristics, proximity to other wells, and general maintenance are all important considerations of optimizing the production of each ground water source. The decentralized layout of the City’s water supply and treatment systems provide for maximum distances between the wells and therefore mitigate any adverse effects of well interference. The three wells planned to supply WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site are all within a 1.2-mile radius of the Dublin Site. The presence of multiple wells at each WTP provides both redundancy and reliability, as well as operational flexibility. Original installation of wells was at separation distances adequate to reduce interference, but the City should monitor well performance and drawdown over time to ensure continued performance of the wells. The City’s updated Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) provides vulnerability assessments for each City well and source water aquifer within the drinking water supply management area (DWSMA). These vulnerability assessments are another important factor to consider when assessing WTP source redundancy and reliability. Vulnerability is determined based on multiple factors. One factor includes the analysis of tritium, a naturally occurring radioactive isotope present in rainwater and aquifer system surface recharge, to estimate the time since recharge to the groundwater system occurred. Another factor is the absence or presence of a confining layer, which presence of one tends to decrease 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5Residual Concentration, mg/LChlorine Dosage, mg/L Total Chlorine Free Chlorine Free Ammonia Monochloramine FREE CHLORINE MONO-CHLORAMINE Figure A6.3 Well No. 20 Breakpoint Chlorination Curve WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Source Water Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 13 vulnerability. According to Part I of Edina’s updated Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP), Wells 16 and 19 have a very low vulnerability rating due to the presence of a confining layer. These wells have a vulnerable classification based on tritium presence in nearby wells. Well No. 20 is considered vulnerable due to a high DNR geologic sensitivity rating. The amount of groundwater an individual production well can pump is dependent upon the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer, the recharge rate of the aquifer, and the well construction itself. Characteristics of the aquifer may not be conducive to providing the desired well capacity objectives. In these situations, the supplier can develop individual wells at reduced capacities or operate the well system on a rotating cycle. Under these scenarios, additional wells may be necessary to meet the water supply objectives. The efficiency of the well can also limit the yield from a well. The efficiency of the well is largely dependent upon the design and construction of the well. A better-designed and constructed well provides greater well efficiency, or ease of the flow of groundwater from the aquifer into the well. Specific capacity is the basic measure of the performance of a well, with higher values signifying a greater yield capability. Test pumping data from available well records were used to calculate the individual well specific capacities, which are summarized in Table A6.5. The specific capacity can be monitored over time to help track well performance and be used to prioritize maintenance efforts. Table A6.5 Well No. 16, 19 and 20 Specific Capacity Summary Well No. 16 Well No. 19 Well No. 20 Test Pumping Date 5/18/2009 10/26/1989 6/30/2008 Pumping Rate (gpm) 1,100 1,200 1,200 Drawdown (ft) 6 39 15 Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) 183 31 80 As stated previously, Well No. 16 has unpleasant noise while operating, requiring personal protective equipment in some cases even while standing outside the building. This will not be acceptable during the winter months when the wellhouse shares use as a hockey rink warming house, requiring that upgrades to the well be completed as part of the WTP No. 5 project. Upgrades to the well could result in improved performance and efficiency. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 14 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT TRAIN RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections revise the treatment target goals of WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site with the change in source water wells, develop the recommended preliminary treatment train of the facility, and review the treatment processes applicable to the WTP. A4.4 Dublin Site Treatment Target Goals Beyond continued compliance with all primary drinking water regulations as identified in the original PDR, the City of Edina, together with AE2S, established additional treatment target goals for the future WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. The treatment target goals implement treatment for iron removal, promote compliance with D/DBP regulations, and enhance the stability of the residual disinfectant in the finished water supply. A treatment target goal for manganese was not established due to the low manganese levels in the three existing wells planned to supply WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. Laboratory data indicates that all wells have manganese concentrations below the SMCL. Provisions to install a permanganate feed system to oxidize manganese in the future will be provided to address manganese concentration or water source changes over time. Other future options include, but are not limited to, The Project Team determined the following treatment target goals to be primary goals for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. In addition to identifying the treatment target goals, the Project Team also developed recommended measurement criteria for each goal. A4.4.1 Iron Removal Mitigation of the aesthetic effects of iron from the finished water supply is one of the primary objectives of additional water treatment. Recommended Measurement Criteria: · Consistently achieve iron concentrations less than half of the established 0.3 mg/L SMCL. This sets a treatment goal of < 0.15 mg/L. A4.4.2 Radium Removal Mitigation of adverse health effects associated with exposure of water system customers to radionuclides is another primary objective for WTP No. 5. The Dublin Site supply wells have never exceeded the MCL for either contaminant but have had results just below in some reported results. A radium removal system will be included in the preliminary treatment train as a conservative measure, accounting for trends of increasing radionuclide concentrations over time with increased pumping. Recommended Measurement Criteria: · Consistently achieve combined radium (Radium-226 and Radium-228) and gross alpha emitters concentrations less than half of the established MCL. This sets a treatment goal of < 2.5 pCi/L for Combined Radium and < 7.5 pCi/L for Gross Alpha Emitters. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 15 A4.4.3 Finished Water Stability - Disinfection To provide a disinfection strategy consistent with the other WTPs, WTP No. 5 will require the addition of chlorine to create chloramines. Currently the system uses a chloramination disinfection strategy. Wells 16, 19, and 20 have favorable raw water ammonia concentrations for creating high concentrations of monochloramine. Raw water ammonia concentrations vary from 0.23 to 0.44 mg/L, with breakpoint chlorination results indicating average total chlorine at peak chloramination of 2.2 mg/L. To address changes in raw ammonia, well source, and other constituents impacting chlorine demand, a supplemental ammonia feed system is recommended to maintain total chlorine residuals leaving the facility. Boosting total chlorine leaving this facility may help increase total chlorine residual in the distribution system when treated water from WTP No. 5 mixes with other finished water. Maintaining this disinfection strategy and ensuring a biologically stable distribution system water quality is another primary objective for the proposed facility. Recommended Measurement Criteria: · Consistently provide a total chlorine residual of 2.0 to 2.5 mg/L in the finished water; · Consistently meet the established chloramine MRDL of 4.0 mg/L; · Consistently provide stable total chlorine residuals in the City’s distribution system; and · No nitrification in the City’s distribution system. A4.4.4 Radon Although radon is not a regulated contaminant, high radon levels in the City’s existing WTPs prompted conversation to mitigate radon in the proposed facility. The facility will include enhanced ventilation and radon monitors to ensure the safety of the operational staff. Recommended Measurement Criteria: · Consistently monitor the air quality of the facility and alert the proper City staff if radon levels are above 2.0 pCi/L. If the radon is above the recommended criteria, the City can install additional radon mitigation measures. A5.7 Dublin Site Treatment Process Technology Alternatives The original PDR went into greater detail reviewing the various treatment technology alternatives available to meet the treatment targets set for WTP No. 5. The following sections summarize the treatment technologies applicable to the developed Dublin Site alternatives. Based on the review of raw water quality and desired treated water quality, the City will accomplish the following treatment objectives in the water treatment process: · Iron removal · Hydrogen sulfide removal WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 16 · Radium removal · Radon removal (optional) · Ammonia removal and reaction with chlorine to form chloramines · Fluoridation · Disinfection and maintaining a disinfectant residual in the distribution system AE2S evaluated several alternative technologies to accomplish these treatment objectives for the proposed Water Treatment Plant No. 5. A5.7.1 Pre-Oxidation Processes Removal of dissolved iron from the raw water will be achieved by oxidizing the soluble forms by chemical addition of chlorine followed by filtration. The proposed facility alternatives include ten minutes of reaction time in a detention tank after oxidation and prior to filtration. The detention tank also provides additional reaction time to promote adherence of radium to hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) particles. Due to low levels of manganese in the Dublin Site source wells, use of permanganate for pre-oxidation processes is not recommended because it may not be effective. It may be difficult to feed permanganate at levels low enough to oxidize the manganese concentrations present, leading to unintentional water discoloration from overfeeding permanganate. For these reasons, it is recommended to include provisions to install permanganate feed systems in the future for the case where water quality changes over time or additional wells with higher manganese concentrations are brought into the facility. Aeration was not considered for this site due to the relatively high capital costs of aeration equipment and the additional need for chlorine as a disinfectant. Wells 5 and 18 studied in the original PDR have similar water quality to the quality of Wells 16, 19, and 20. Based on the similar water quality and breakpoint chlorination results indicating minimal chlorine demand by raw water iron for all wells, chlorine for pre-oxidation is recommended over aeration. Similar to the other sites explored for WTP No. 5, the design of the facility at the Dublin Site will consider and control the impacts of natural draft aeration, which can negatively affect the treatment facility. Negative impacts include, the release of hydrogen sulfide and/or chlorine vapors which can cause significant odor and major equipment damage inside a water treatment facility if not closely managed. Another pre-oxidation alternative includes using an oxidizing filter media, such as manganese greensand. Manganese coated filter media is a filter media coated with a layer of oxidized manganese. The media oxidizes the iron and manganese in the water passing through and the oxidized iron and manganese precipitates. Either the media catches the precipitate, or it adsorbs to the media. The oxidizing capability of the media diminishes over time, and must be regenerated with another oxidant, typically potassium or sodium permanganate. Chlorine regenerates and maintains the oxidizing nature of the media in certain applications when the filter maintains a free chlorine residual. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 17 A5.7.2 Filtration Processes The two filtration processes included as alternatives for the Dublin Site WTP No. 5 are gravity and pressure filtration with conventional sand and anthracite media. The filters will capture oxidized iron and HMO particles from the raw water. Water treatment facilities typically use filtration as a polishing step for the removal of suspended solids and particles from water. Based on industry trends, treatment facility footprint considerations, and operator convenience, the Project Team deemed gravity filters and pressure filters most appropriate in the treatment concepts developed for this report. The gravity filters will be sized to operate at 3.0 gpm/ft2 under normal operating conditions in accordance with Ten States Standards. Design of the filters will follow Ten States Standards and industry standards in terms of filter structure depth, overflows, underdrains, backwash troughs, and media depth. Appurtenances to measure pressure, flow, and headloss will be provided to monitor filter performance and optimize operation. Filter systems will include the equipment and components necessary for both air and water backwash. The pressure filters will again be sized to operate at 3.0 gpm/ft2 under normal operating conditions and be designed to meet all Ten States Standards requirements and recommendations. Conventional sand and anthracite media is recommended for this facility, with depths following Ten States Standards recommendations of not less than 24 inches and not more than 30 inches. This media selection lends itself to requiring a backwash system capable of producing 3-5 cfm/ft2 of air wash and up to 15 gpm/ft2 (and down to 3 gpm/ft2) of water wash. The backwash shall last at least 15 minutes per filter at the design backwash rate. The larger-sized anthracite settles on top of the smaller-sized sand following backwash. The anthracite traps larger particles and the sand traps smaller particles, enabling filtration throughout the entire filter bed. Dual media filtration has the advantage of higher filtration rates and longer runs between backwash. Water treatment facilities commonly use dual media to remove oxidized iron and manganese following oxidation and detention processes. As stated previously, manganese greensand media is another media commonly used in iron and manganese removal facilities. If greensand media use is something the City would like to explore more, a media regeneration method must also be provided. This is typically with permanganate or a free chlorine residual. With the current disinfection strategy of chloramination used in Edina, creating a free chlorine residual upstream of the filters is counter-intuitive as the raw water free ammonia would be consumed, requiring additional ammonia feed downstream of the filters. Another consideration of this media is that the HMO used for radium removal is the same chemical as the coating on manganese greensand. This creates the potential for adsorption of radium to the filter media, and as a result, may create a radioactive filter media. The presence of radium in the raw water feeding the proposed facility in Edina makes manganese greensand media an undesirable filter media. Each filter will be sized to operate at 1,000 gpm. Preliminary filter layouts include three filters, providing 3,000 gpm of filtration capacity (2,000 gpm firm capacity with one filter offline). The preliminary facility layout may be optimized to allow the addition of filters if the City would like to bring more raw water wells into the facility in the future. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 18 A5.7.3 Disinfection Processes Two common methods of disinfection for municipal water treatment plants include chloramination and breakpoint chlorination. Ammonia in the water reacts with chlorine to form chloramines. As chlorine reactions occur with increased chlorine addition, the free ammonia residual decreases. The type of chlorine residual formed changes with increased ratios of chlorine to ammonia. Once raw water ammonia is fully consumed by chlorine, the breakpoint is reached, and free chlorine exists. Detailed explanation of the applicable disinfection strategies for Edina were provided in the original PDR. The raw water ammonia present throughout most of the wells in Edina have resulted in the selection of chloramination as the City’s disinfection strategy. The three wells feeding WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site have favorable amounts of raw ammonia, requiring minimal artificial ammonia addition prior to sending finished water into the distribution system. An ammonia feed system is planned for this facility to allow boosting of total chlorine residual and to provide the means for makeup monochloramine if raw water ammonia concentrations change over time. A5.7.3.1 Chlorine Feed System Three options for chlorine addition include gaseous chlorination, bulk delivery of sodium hypochlorite, and onsite sodium hypochlorite generation. The original PDR compares the advantages, disadvantages, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs (O&M) of these three alternatives. Based on the source water characteristics of Wells No. 16, 19, and 20 being comparable to the original PDR Wells No. 5 and 18, gaseous chlorine is still the recommended chlorine alternative for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. The City currently receives gas chlorine in 150-lb cylinders at all existing facilities. To obtain a preliminary sense for if 150-lb cylinders will be adequate for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site, the Project Team used the results of the breakpoint chlorination testing to estimate chlorine feed requirements for the facility. Results of the breakpoint chlorination chlorine demands are summarized in Table A5.1. Table A5.1 Well No. 16, 19 and 20 Chlorine Demand Summary Raw Peak Chloramination (mg/L TCR)* Required Chlorine to Raw Peak (mg/L) Non-Ammonia Chlorine Demand (mg/L) Well No. 16 2.0 2.4 0.4 Well No. 19 2.0 2.6 0.6 Well No. 20 1.4 1.7 0.3 Average 1.8 2.2 0.4 * This is the peak chloramination TCR achieved during jar testing using raw water ammonia for chloramine formation. With the three wells blended, it is estimated that the raw water ammonia would provide 1.8 mg/L TCR in the finished water with a chlorine dose of 2.2 mg/L, indicating a chlorine demand from other raw water constituents of 0.4 mg/L. The Dublin Site treatment target goals stated that the disinfection system should provide 2 to 2.5 mg/L TCR leaving the facility. To reach a 2.5 mg/L TCR, an estimated 2.9 to 3.0 mg/L chlorine dose is required. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 19 At 3,000 gpm, a 3.0 mg/L chlorine dose amounts to approximately 108 pounds per day (PPD) of gaseous chlorine consumption. Manifolding four, 150-lb cylinders together would provide approximately 5.5 days of chlorine feed assuming the facility operates at 3,000 gpm, 24 hours a day. If the City would like less chlorine delivery frequency or treatment capacity above the planned 3,000 gpm at the Dublin Site, 1-ton chlorine cylinders should be considered. A5.7.3.2 Ammonia Feed System As stated previously, the TCR goal for treated water leaving WTP No. 5 is 2.0 to 2.5 mg/L. The three wells serving the facility at the Dublin Site have relatively high raw ammonia concentrations, indicating that artificial ammonia feed will be minimal. To ensure that the facility meets this goal, an ammonia feed system is recommended. This system will provide small amounts of make-up ammonia with concentrations based on flow-paced chemical feed and real-time finished water quality monitoring. This system will account for any fluctuations in raw water quality with the increased pumping of the three wells. In the original PDR, the Project Team evaluated three options for ammonia addition including gaseous anhydrous ammonia, aqua ammonia, and ammonium sulfate in dry/solid or liquid form. Again, based on similar water quality between all wells evaluated for WTP No. 5 and the small amount of ammonia required to meet treatment goals, liquid ammonium sulfate is still the recommended alternative for the Dublin Site ammonia feed system. The ammonia feed concentration is estimated at approximately 0.1 mg/L to boost TCR to 2.5 mg/L for the finished water. At 3,000 gpm and 24 hour operation, the ammonium sulfate consumption is estimated to be 5 gallons per day (GPD). A5.7.4 Corrosion Control Like the recommended approach in the original PDR, corrosion control for the Dublin Site would be a 50/50 blend of orthophosphate and polyphosphate to keep consistency between all existing facilities and finished water characteristics in the distribution system. The intent of this ortho/poly blend system is to inhibit corrosion of iron pipe and other metals in the distribution system and sequester iron and manganese. A5.7.5 Radium Removal To again maintain consistency with other existing treatment facilities in Edina, the recommended radium removal technology for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site remains HMO addition. The three wells planned for the Dublin Site do not have concentrations of combined radium or gross alpha above the regulated MCLs, unlike Wells No. 5 and 18 originally planned for the treatment facility. The concentrations, however, have increased over time and could continue to increase in the future with the increased pumping of the wells. Installation of an HMO feed system is recommended for this facility as a conservative measure, providing treatment flexibility and proper tools for meeting regulated treatment requirements into the future. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 20 Many treatment technologies exist that the EPA considers Best Available Technologies (BAT) for removal of radium. These include, but are not limited to, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening, greensand filtration, and addition of preformed hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) followed by filtration. HMO addition is the current method used throughout Edina for wells containing high levels of combined radium or gross alpha. It is important to note that if the use of manganese greensand filtration media is considered further for this facility, the raw water radionuclide particles may be adsorbed by the media. This may result in media classified as radioactive waste, which becomes a disposal problem when the media has reached its usable lifespan. For this reason, manganese greensand media is not a recommended treatment alternative for radium removal at WTP No. 5. A5.7.6 Backwash Recovery / Recycle Processes The backwash water from the gravity of pressure filters can be either routed to the sanitary sewer or a backwash reclaim facility. The City of Edina proactively looks for ways to integrate re-use into their facilities, making backwash reclaim at the WTP a priority, continuing to provide good stewardship of their available water resources. Backwash reclaim alternatives explored in the original PDR include traditional backwash basins that allow settlement of particles over time and above or below grade plate settlers that increase backwash efficiency in a smaller footprint. Based on the greater available footprint for the WTP on the Dublin Site, traditional backwash reclaim with settling tanks and a pumping system is the recommended alternative. The use of plate settlers is recommended when the site footprint is tight and if there are concerns about backwash settling time. Above grade plate settlers require additional height on the facility to provide proper hydraulic grade lines. With the Dublin Site situated within a residential area, the site lends itself to below grade backwash reclaim as a more favorable option aesthetically as well. Plate settlers also introduce additional mechanical components, a polymer feed system, and materials that increase O&M complexity. The backwash reclaim basins will be sized to provide detention volume equaling the amount of water required for a 15-minute backwash at 20 gpm/ft2 for each filter. Reclaim pumping systems will be sized to handle the maximum allowable reclaim rate of 10% of the maximum WTP flow (300 gpm reclaim rate for 3,000 gpm facility). If the treated capacity of WTP No. 5 at the Dublin site increases in the future or backwash settling time requirements lead to inefficient reclaim, the City can consider installation of a backwash coagulant system or retrofitting the traditional backwash tanks with below grade plate settlers. Based on the known water quality of Wells No. 16, 19, and 20, extended backwash settling time is not an anticipated issue for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 21 A6.5 Recommended Dublin Site Preliminary Treatment Train The Project Team developed the preliminary treatment train for WTP No. 5 based on preliminary breakpoint chlorination testing, raw water quality review, and discussions with City of Edina staff. The following recommendations detail the system component for each treatment goal: 1. Iron Removal: use chlorine as a pre-oxidant to oxidize iron and hydrogen sulfide followed by detention time prior to filtration. Manganese removal is not targeted at the Dublin Site due to low raw manganese concentrations in Wells 16, 19, and 20. 2. Radium Removal: use HMO followed by the extended detention time for consistent radionuclide removal to half the regulated MCLs. Provide multiple chemical feed locations to allow optimization during full-scale operation. 3. Detention: provide detention to allow additional time for pre-oxidation reactions to take place and offer treatment flexibility in chemical injection locations. 4. Filtration: a. Size filters to operate at a 3 gpm/ft2 loading rate. b. Load filters with 18” of silica sand (0.45 – 0.55 mm) and a 12” cap of anthracite (0.8 – 1.0 mm). c. Install a sustainable simultaneous air and water backwash system to ensure thorough cleaning of the filter media and reduce backwash waste water. A preliminary backwash sequence includes 10 minutes of simultaneous air and water wash at 3 gpm/ft2 and 3 cfm/ft2, a 2 minute air purge at 3 gpm/ft2 and a 3 minute media restratification at 13 to 15 gpm/ft2. d. Size the backwash reclaim system to provide enough storage for backwashing all filters once and allowing two days of settling before reclaim. 5. Disinfection: provide the chemical feed systems necessary to operate at either peak chloramination or breakpoint chlorination. a. Peak chloramination: requires chlorine and supplemental ammonia at doses that provide a recommended 2 to 2.5 mg/L total chlorine leaving the facility. b. Breakpoint chlorination: requires chlorine at a dose that provides a recommended 1.0 mg/L free chlorine residual leaving the facility. c. Size the chlorine system to feed at least 4.0 mg/L of available chlorine and the ammonia system to feed at least 1.0 mg/L of available ammonia. Actual feed rates will vary based on well operation and chosen disinfection method. 6. Additional chemical feed post-filtration includes fluoride and an ortho/poly blend for corrosion control. Figure 6.14 shows a process flow diagram for the recommended WTP No. 5 treatment train. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Preliminary Treatment Train Recommendations November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 22 Figure A6.4 Preliminary Recommended Treatment Train Diagram for the Dublin Site WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Review of Site Alternatives November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 23 REVIEW OF SITE ALTERNATIVES The original PDR included the evaluation of four site alternatives including the Southdale Site, Median Site, Yorktown Site, and Fred Richards Site. Upon completion of the PDR, the Southdale Site was selected as the preferred WTP No. 5 location based on many factors including facility integration into the existing water system, non-financial site accommodations, and financial considerations. Preliminary and final design of the WTP No. 5 at the Southdale Site was completed throughout 2017, but ultimately design was stopped due to aesthetic integration challenges at this location and the opportunity to improve overall water system performance by placing the facility at the Dublin Site. This system performance advantage was determined by the City’s water system modeler in conjunction with updated water supply plan efforts. Recall that the first four site alternatives assumed raw water supply from Wells No. 5, 18, and a future Well No. 21. Due to the closer proximity of other currently untreated wells the raw water supply at the Dublin Site was assumed to be from Wells No. 16, 19, and 20. The following sections describe the facility layout alternatives considered for the Dublin Site, also referred to herein as Option 5. A8.6 Option 5 – Dublin Site The City identified the Dublin Site as a feasible location for WTP No. 5 after analysis completed by Edina’s water modeling consultant indicated the potential for improved water system performance with addition of a treatment facility at this site. The Dublin Site is located south of Highway 62 and east of Highway 169 in a residential neighborhood near the Edina High School and Valley View Middle School complex. Figure A8.1 provides an overview of the existing water system surrounding the Dublin Site. The proposed facility would be located within the Dublin Reservoir Site with Wells No. 16, 19, and 20 planned for supplying the 3,000 gpm treatment capacity. The firm capacity of the plant is technically 2,000 gpm, or equal to the plant’s capacity with one (1) filter offline or in backwash. This site includes a gravity and pressure filter option. The Dublin Site uniquely has an existing 4 MG below grade reservoir and associated booster pump station present. Conversations with City staff have indicated current operation of the reservoir is to maintain an approximately 10-foot level, utilizing about half of the available storage (18-foot depth to overflow). WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site would eliminate approximately half of the reservoir, with the new facility built on the demolished side of the site. Preliminary layouts have assumed the east half used for the facility, however, optimization of this layout would be completed in future phases of the project as necessary. These options assume the demolition of the existing pump station and replacement with high service pumping within the facility. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Review of Site Alternatives November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 24 A8.6.1 Option 5A Option 5A is the Dublin Site with gravity filters. Appendix A.E provides a preliminary site layout and plan views of the upper and lower levels of the facility. Figure A8.2 depicts the general site requirements for Option 5A. Figure A8.1 – Existing Water System near Dublin Site WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Review of Site Alternatives November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 25 Below grade components include two backwash reclaim tanks each sized to hold a backwash from each of the three gravity filters, a pipe gallery, and a 2 MG clearwell to store finished water prior to pumping into the distribution system. A clearwell bypass from the filters into the high service pumping chamber is provided if the clearwell is taken offline for maintenance or other circumstances. Main level components include chemical feed rooms, high service and backwash supply pumps, office and lab space, a pipe gallery, chemical unloading garage, indoor generator room, and electrical and mechanical equipment rooms. The main level extends upward for extra detention tank depth that provides 10 minutes of detention at the 3,000 gpm plant capacity, which flows by gravity into the three, 1,000 gpm filters. The upper level overlooks the pipe gallery, provides overhead views of the filters, and provides additional mechanical equipment space including the backwash air blower. A8.6.2 Option 5B Option 5B is the Dublin Site with pressure filters. Appendix A.F provides a preliminary site layout and plan views of the upper and lower levels of the facility. Figure A8.3 depicts the general site requirements for Option 5B. Below grade components include two backwash reclaim tanks each sized to hold a backwash from each of the three pressure filters, a pipe gallery to house backwash reclaim system and mechanical equipment, and a 2 MG clearwell to store finished water prior to pumping into the distribution system. A clearwell bypass from the filters into the high service pumping chamber is provided if the clearwell is taken offline for maintenance or other circumstances. Figure 0.1 Option 1A – Southdale Site with Gravity Filters Figure A8.2 Option 5A – Dublin Site with Gravity Filters WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Review of Site Alternatives November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 26 Main level components include chemical feed and storage rooms, a pressurized detention vessel, three, 1,000 gpm pressure filters, office, lab, and lavatory space, an electrical room, a mechanical room, a chemical delivery garage, and an indoor generator room. This option does not require an upper level for any of the currently proposed treatment technologies. A8.6.3 Option 1C Initial discussions included an Option 5C for the Dublin Site with gravity filters and an above ground plate settler backwash reclaim system. After review of the site footprint availability and the residential surroundings of the site, it was determined that a below grade backwash reclaim system is more appropriate for the Dublin Site. The above grade plate settler system would increase the overall height of the facility and add operational and maintenance complexity to the backwash reclaim system. Since there is adequate space available for traditional backwash reclaim technology, further exploration of an above grade plate settler system at the Dublin Site is not recommended. This option can be reviewed in more detail if deemed necessary in the future. A8.6.4 Building Code Review Review of the existing City code was completed to ensure that the preliminary site layouts meet minimum setback and maximum building height requirements based on the lot zoning designation. According to the City’s zoning map, the Dublin Site parcel is classified as a Single Dwelling Unit (R-1). Figure A8.3 Option 5B – Dublin Site with Pressure Filters WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Review of Site Alternatives November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 27 The requirements as set forth in Section 36-438 are summarized and compared to the preliminary layouts for Option 5A and 5B in Table A8.1. Table A8.1 Review of Preliminary Dublin Layouts Compared to City Code Requirement Description Section 36-438 Code Requirement Current Layouts Provide the Following Option 5A Option 5B Minimum Front Street Setback 30’ >60’ >60’ Minimum Side Street Setback 15’ NA NA Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 10’ >20’ >20’ Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25’ >120’ >120’ Maximum Building Height 40’ 32’ + Pitched Roof* 18’ + Pitched Roof* * Required for process equipment operational height, pitched roof height can be adjusted to accommodate code maximum building height. The lot width is approximately 220 ft based on existing as-builts for the Dublin Reservoir. The maximum height to the ridge line is 35 ft, with the maximum height increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet. The maximum height cannot exceed 40 ft. With the 220 ft width, the code limits height to ridge line at 35 ft and maximum height to 40 ft. According to code, the preliminary layouts could be optimized to reduce the front street setback and allow for more of the existing reservoir capacity to remain. This would minimize the impact that the Dublin Site has on overall finished water storage volume for the City. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 28 FACILITY INTEGRATION Integration with the existing infrastructure is a critical part of this preliminary design process. Using the existing infrastructure that is functioning well will help to conserve costs and allow the City of Edina to spend money on infrastructure that brings long term value to its Utility. Currently, the City has three raw water wells that will provide water to WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. In addition to these wells, the new WTP will need to operate seamlessly with the distribution system. The Project Team must consider the impact to adjacent infrastructure such as the Dublin Reservoir, adjacent roads, and adjacent buildings. A9.8 Wells 16, 19, and 20 The proposed WTP will require 1,000 gpm of water from each of the three wells planned to supply the Dublin Site. Currently, Well No. 16, 19, and 20 each produce 1,000 gpm and pump directly into the distribution system. The distribution system pressure at the wellhouses in these areas operates between 80 and 100 psi. Like the calculations for well integration completed for Well No. 5 and 18 in the original PDR, the following tables provide the analysis for Well No. 16, 19, and 20 for Option 5A and 5B to determine if well modifications are necessary. Table A9.1 indicates the ground, pump setting, and pumping water elevations at each well supplying the Dublin Site. Table A9.1 Well Site Elevations Well Site Elevation (ft.) Setting Elevation (ft.) Pumping Water Elevation (ft.) Well No. 16 891 Unknown 779 Well No. 19 948 692 746 Well No. 20 885 694 780 Each WTP configuration will require different pumping requirements from the supply wells. Table A9.2, Table A9.3, and Table A9.4 illustrate these head loss variations for Well No. 16, 19, and 20, respectively. Note that these calculations are only estimates to gauge whether well sizing adjustments must be made as part of the Dublin Site options. The WTP hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation is equal to the assumed detention basin normal water level for the gravity option and the clearwell normal water level for the pressure option. The filtration pressure is estimated at 5 psi for the pressure filter options to push through the detention vessel and filter components before entering the clearwell. The abbreviation TDH stands for total dynamic head, which is the summation of the static head, well pipe and pump losses, filtration pressure converted to feet of water (multiply psi by 2.31 to obtain feet), and pipeline losses. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 29 Table A9.2 Well No. 16 Hydraulic Analysis WTP Site Site Elevation (ft.) WTP HGL Elevation (ft.) Static Head (ft.) Well Pipe and Pump Losses (ft.) Filtration Pressure (ft of water) Pipeline Losses (ft.) TDH Requirements Dublin Gravity Filtration w/ Detention 1006 1019 240 10 0 50 (16”HDPE, 2,000gpm, 4300ft) + (20” HDPE, 3,000 gpm, 3400ft) 302 Dublin Pressure Filtration w/ Detention 1006 1001 222 10 12 50 (16”HDPE, 2,000gpm, 4300ft) + (20” HDPE, 3,000 gpm, 3400ft) 296 Table A9.3 Well No. 19 Hydraulic Analysis WTP Site Site Elevation (ft.) WTP HGL Elevation (ft.) Static Head (ft.) Well Pipe and Pump Losses (ft.) Filtration Pressure (ft of water) Pipeline Losses (ft.) TDH Requirements Dublin Gravity Filtration w/ Detention 1006 1019 273 10 0 18 (20” HDPE, 3,000 gpm, 3400ft) 301 Dublin Pressure Filtration w/ Detention 1006 1001 255 10 12 18 (20” HDPE, 3,000 gpm, 3400ft) 295 Table A9.4 Well No. 20 Hydraulic Analysis WTP Site Site Elevation (ft.) WTP HGL Elevation (ft.) Static Head (ft.) Well Pipe and Pump Losses (ft.) Filtration Pressure (ft of water) Pipeline Losses (ft.) TDH Requirements Dublin Gravity Filtration w/ Detention 1006 1019 239 10 0 59 (12”HDPE, 1,000gpm, 1400ft) + (16”HDPE, 2,000gpm, 4300ft) + (20” HDPE, 3,000 gpm, 3400ft) 309 Dublin Pressure Filtration w/ Detention 1006 1001 221 10 12 59 (12”HDPE, 1,000gpm, 1400ft) + (16”HDPE, 2,000gpm, 4300ft) + (20” HDPE, 3,000 gpm, 3400ft) 303 Based on preliminary calculations, the existing wells, motors, and pumps should have adequate brake horsepower (BHP) to pump to the Dublin Site. Note that each well may experience a decrease in the observed efficiency and flow due to the change in pumping conditions. Table A9.5 examines the current motors installed in each well to verify their operating characteristics under the new pumping conditions should the hydraulic grade line increase or decrease. Typically, calculations for all motors on VFD’s include a 1.15 service factor. The 1.15 service factor provides a 15% factor of safety on the motor size, which helps to protect possible overload of the motor. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 30 Table A9.5 Well Motor Capacity Analysis Based on the results shown above, the motor sizes would only decrease slightly for all wells. The City’s 2017-2021 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) has allocated $120,000 for Well No. 16 rehabilitation in 2019 and $120,000 for Well No. 19 rehabilitation in 2020. These rehabilitation costs would cover a new pump, motor, VFD, and electrical wiring to meet the new, slightly lower design point. Well No. 20 may operate with slightly less efficiency, however, re-building the pump to accommodate the new facility is not required in either facility alternative. When the pump is up for rehabilitation, the City can re-assess the pump efficiency and determine whether reduced motor size is recommendation. Approximate budgetary costs to complete the Well No. 20 modification would be $120,000. A9.9 Dublin Reservoir and Pump Station The addition of WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site will require that half of the existing 4 MG underground storage reservoir be demolished, and the void area be used for the lower level of the facility, including backwash reclaim tanks and systems, a pipe and mechanical equipment area, and a high service pumping chamber. The remaining reservoir would be used as a clearwell for the facility prior to being pumped into the distribution system. To help facilitate proper turnover of the clearwell and reduce impacts of short-circuiting on water age, the Project Team recommends the addition of baffling between the existing reservoir columns to create a serpentine flow path from clearwell influent to effluent. Anticipated costs for adding approximately 550 feet of FRP baffling are $410,000 including materials and installation. Optimization of the FRP baffling arrangement may be completed during future design phases to reduce costs while still providing reduced short-circuiting impacts. The three proposed high service pumps downstream of the clearwell will be sized to provide half the treatment capacity (1,500 gpm). This would provide 3,000 gpm of firm high service pumping capacity. Additional pumping capacity could be included to use the clearwell to meet a maximum hour demand (MHD), which was estimated at 4,800 gpm by the City’s water system model consultant. This would likely require a larger pump in addition to the high service pumps to operate the pumps within the limitations of the pump curves. Additional analysis to determine the most efficient arrangement and selection of Well Current Motor Hp Current Design Point BHP New Design Point BHP Recommended Motor Hp (With 1.15 Service Factor) Well No. 16 150 108 Dublin Gravity 95 125 Dublin Pressure 93 125 Well No. 19 150 109 Dublin Gravity 95 125 Dublin Pressure 93 125 Well No. 20 150 112 Dublin Gravity 97 125 Dublin Pressure 95 125 WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 31 pumps would be conducted in future phases of the design. Costs to provide pumps capable of producing MHD are not included in the financial evaluation for the Dublin Site at this time. Refer to section A9.10 for a structural evaluation of the Dublin Reservoir transformation into a WTP facility and clearwell. Operation of Water Towers and Distribution System At the request of the Project Team, the City’s water distribution system consultant completed an analysis on the impacts of the proposed WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site under multiple scenarios. The analysis determined the impacts of the facility during average day and peak demands and identified concerns related to existing infrastructure size and operation. The following sections briefly describe scenarios analyzed and the major takeaways for each. Appendix A.G provides a copy of the water distribution system analysis report. A9.3.6 Dublin Site The first scenario assumed addition of 3,000 gpm at the Dublin Site entry point into the distribution system. The second scenario assumed 5,000 gpm of total plant capacity, which comes from 5, 1,000 gpm wells including Well No. 16, 19, and 20 plus additional future wells. Analysis included an Extended Period Simulation (EPS) for water tower operation comparison over a three-consecutive day run with average July water demand. This analysis assumed continuous operation of WTP No. 5, other treatment plants operating based on water tower levels, and initial tower levels set to 10-feet below overflow. In addition, the evaluation looked at a maximum day demand simulation to determine the impacts on the distribution system and identify infrastructure improvement needs. A9.3.6.1 Scenario 1 – 3,000 gpm WTP at Dublin Site The first scenario indicates favorable results in terms of the ability to push the 3,000 gpm of treatment capacity into the existing 16-inch water main with limited increases on average day discharge pressure. For the maximum day simulation, results indicate that the Southdale Tower may lag during periods of high demand due to inefficient delivery of water from the Dublin Site to the Southdale Area. In this simulation pressures were limited to current system pressures, which led to a maximum day flow capacity of only 2,800 gpm (not 3,000 gpm as designed) pushed into the system. The tower lag and reduced flow capacity provide evidence that upsizing the east-west water main between the Dublin Site and Southdale Area would alleviate these impacts in the future. Based on these findings, no substantial finished water distribution upgrades were assumed for the 3,000 gpm Dublin Site analysis. A9.3.6.2 Scenario 2 – 5,000 gpm WTP at Dublin Site The second scenario assuming a 5,000 gpm treatment capacity indicated that portions of trunk water main upgrades would be required to get the water out into the system efficiently, with minimized pipe headloss and limited pressure increases. These upgrades include upsizing the facility discharge piping to the Antrim Road and W 70th St intersection to a 24” pipe and the trunk water main from this WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 32 intersection to Metro Boulevard along W 70th St to a 16” pipe. This scenario results in all tanks trending together during the average summer day EPS simulation, aside from some lag in the Southdale Tower. A9.3.6.3 Additional Major Takeaways An interesting takeaway to note for both scenarios is that existing system pressures in the area are relatively low, so increases in discharge pressure from this facility may be considered a benefit. Analysis of the existing Dublin Reservoir has indicated that the filling cycle is the limiting factor in being able to utilize the full 4 MG capacity of the tank. Overall, the addition of a WTP at this location would eliminate the current fill limitations of the existing Dublin Reservoir, ultimately benefiting system wide water age. A9.3.6.4 Water Storage Impacts The water modeling consultant also reported on the impacts of reducing the 4 MG storage reservoir down to the approximate 2 MG capacity with the proposed Dublin Site facility. Previous analysis completed for the City’s updated 2018 Water Supply Plan indicated the usable volume of 2.88 MG for the Dublin Reservoir. Recommendations in this plan also included a 2040 storage shortfall of 0.5 MG. Taking into consideration the reduced volume associated with the WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site, an updated storage recommendation for the City is an additional 1.5 MG of water storage. Site optimization to minimize the reservoir storage volume reduction would be completed in future design phases. Raw Water Transmission A9.4.5 Dublin Site Raw Water Transmission Raw water supply to the Dublin Site requires significant piping installations. To minimize the installation of new piping, the Project Team recommends installation of one common trunk raw water transmission line that increases in size as wells are intersected along the proposed alignment. The assumed alignment for estimating purposes is shown in Figure A9.1. The pipeline would begin as a 12-inch HDPE pipe from Well No. 20 for 1400 ft to Well No. 16, increase to a 16-inch HDPE for 4,300 ft from Well No. 16 to Well No. 19, then increase to a 20-inch HDPE pipe for 3,400 ft from Well No. 19 to the Dublin Site. This is a suggested trunk main based on current projected flows, maintaining velocities in an acceptable range, and limiting head loss across the pipeline. If the City would like to increase diameter to accommodate additional flows in the future, that can be considered in future design phases. The proposed alignment assumes that no substantial utilities or structures will cause significant impacts to the water main construction. The new HDPE pipeline length is approximately 9,100-feet long. Anticipated costs for this pipeline are $2,800,000.Finished Water Transmission WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 33 A9.5.5 Dublin Site Finished Water Transmission The Dublin Reservoir has an existing 16” ductile iron pipe (DIP) that connects into water main at the intersection of Dublin Road (turns into W 70th St) and Antrim Road. At this intersection, there is a 12” main that travels north along Antrim Road, a 12” main traveling east along W 70th St, and a 6” lateral traveling south along Antrim Road. Figure A9.2 depicts the existing water main near the Dublin Site. Figure A9.1 Dublin Site Raw Water Transmission WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 34 The connection of the finished water into the distribution system is a relatively straight forward installation. Site piping required to make this connection will include approximately 150 ft of 16” DIP tied into the existing 16” DIP at the northeast corner of the property. Anticipated costs for this pipeline are $50,000. A9.10 Dublin Site Structural Evaluation The Dublin Site offers a unique opportunity to transform an existing 4 MG reservoir into a combination WTP facility and clearwell that would improve the overall water system performance for the City. The following sections review the existing Dublin Reservoir construction, outline preliminary options for construction integration of the WTP with the existing reservoir, and highlight additional structural construction considerations. A9.10.1 Existing Dublin Reservoir Construction The existing Dublin Reservoir was constructed of conventionally reinforced cast-in-place (CIP) concrete. The cover slab is a two-way concrete slab with dropped panels and column capitals, which is a common method of elevated concrete slab construction. The 18” diameter columns are also CIP and supported by isolated spread footings below the 8” concrete slab that serves as the base or bottom of the reservoir. The exterior walls are 16” reinforced CIP supported by continuous concrete strip footings. Figure A9.2 Dublin Site Finished Water Transmission WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 35 Figure A9.3 details the typical column and footing of the existing reservoir. This detail was taken from the reservoir as-built drawings prepared in October 1958 by Banister Engineering Co. A9.10.1.1 Existing Reservoir Structural Loading The 8” base slab-on-grade for the existing reservoir is designed to support the water depth that is contained within the reservoir. This amounts to a water load of approximately 1,120 pounds per square foot (psf) based on a maximum water depth in the reservoir of 18 feet. It is important to note that removal of the water load does not necessarily increase or allow the repurposing of the load to a new WTP structure because most of this load is supported by the thin slab on grade. This note introduces a limitation of using the existing reservoir to structurally support the new facility. The existing reservoir lid was designed to support 2 feet of soil, or approximately 220 psf. Removal of this soil load makes it available as a new construction dead load, however, this amount of load is much less than that which would be required to support a new WTP. This also introduces a limitation of using the existing reservoir for structural support of the new facility. One other important consideration of the existing reservoir is the age of the structure. Typically, well maintained concrete has a 100-year design life. With this structure already 60 years old, it has already exceeded upwards of 60% of its useful life. Thorough evaluation of the concrete condition should be completed as part of the preliminary design phase. This condition assessment will impose complications because it is buried and filled with water. A9.10.2 Options for New Facility Construction Options for construction of the new WTP facility at the Dublin Site included demolishing half of the existing reservoir to build the facility within the available open half or reinforcing and constructing the facility above the existing reservoir. Both options present unique challenges that must be considered before providing a recommendation for new structural construction. Figure A9.3 Existing Dublin Reservoir Typical Column and Footing Detail Source: Dublin Reservoir As-Builts WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 36 A9.10.2.1 Independent Reservoir and WTP Structure Option The first option includes eliminating half the existing 4 MG reservoir and building the WTP in the open half of the site. Preliminary layouts have depicted the front, east half of the site be used for the WTP and the back, west half for an approximate remaining 2 MG reservoir. Important items to consider when determining the location and extent of demolition include: · Modification, including partial demolition of the existing reservoir, would cause a redistribution of stresses within the concrete cover slab. A complete analysis of the existing slab system would be required during a preliminary design phase to determine if there is any overstressing in the slab. · The cover slab dropped panels are 7’-6” square and the column capitals are 4’-6” in diameter, both centered at each column. These components will limit the extent of demolition and where the remaining reservoir edge is located. For the portion of the existing reservoir remaining, demolition will need to be completed carefully to ensure structural integrity is not impacted. The demolition edge or extent will create a void during construction, which may require additional structural support and bracing. Installation of a new exterior wall within this void will be required and water tightness of the modified reservoir will become an important consideration. Additional slab patching may also be required to complete the reduced reservoir construction. Overall, the reuse of the existing reservoir as a reduced capacity reservoir (or WTP clearwell) is acceptable, keeping in mind these considerations. In this option, the WTP would be built adjacent to, but separate from, the reduced capacity reservoir. Due to the high potential risk for differential settlements between the existing reservoir and new facility construction, there are added design considerations. These include the potential for deep foundations, inclusion of expansion or movement joints, and addition of flexible pipe connections. Pipe connections between the existing and new construction would be limited to two pipes; one into the clearwell from the filters and one from the clearwell into the high service pumping chamber. The high service pumping chamber planned for the WTP eliminates the need for the existing pump station situated at the center of the north side of the existing reservoir. Demolition of the pump station introduces a logical edge of demolition for the reservoir. This edge was used in preliminary site layouts presented previously for the Dublin Site. For the purposes of this feasibility study, structural design assumptions for the WTP assume a concrete foundation slab at a similar depth as the reservoir for the base of the facility, below grade exterior and interior CIP walls supported by continuous concrete strip footings, above grade concrete slabs at various levels, above grade interior walls as either CIP or concrete masonry unit (CMU), and precast concrete wall panels as the building shell. The high roof framing system is assumed to be precast hollowcore plank. A9.10.2.2 Construction of WTP Above Existing Reservoir The second option investigated with this feasibility study is the construction of the WTP above the existing reservoir. Initial review of the reservoir has indicated that this option would not be acceptable due to the following limitations: WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Facility Integration November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 37 · The existing structural system of the reservoir was not designed to support the required dead load of the WTP facility. The additional loading would require increased foundation support capacity, which would be costly to achieve. · The existing framing and methods of construction are not easily modifiable, meaning that shoring and reinforcing would be costly. · Selective demolition to provide a more robust structural system for the existing reservoir would occur at a higher or premium cost compared to complete demolition of a larger area. · Repurposing and modification of the existing reservoir to house below grade WTP components such as the backwash reclaim system, required pipe galleries, and other typical equipment would come at a higher cost than new construction of an optimized layout. For these reasons, this option was deemed unfeasible for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site. Further investigation of this option was not completed by the Project Team. A9.10.3 Additional Cost Considerations A few additional cost considerations were kept in mind when assessing the WTP options for the Dublin Site. These include, but are not limited to, the added noise and access disturbance likely during demolition and construction within the residential neighborhood and the limited area available for construction staging, offices, and parking. The noise disturbance may limit the working hours of the construction crew, requiring elongated periods to complete project tasks. Parking of vehicles or material storage will not be allowed on the top of the remaining reservoir, limiting the amount of space available to the contractor during construction. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 38 SITE ACCOMMODATIONS EVALUATION The original PDR included an analysis to evaluate each site’s ability to accommodate various non- financial criterion related to treatment performance, security and safety, site architecture, constructability, and additional infrastructure considerations. The following sections evaluate the Dublin Site for the same criterion and provide summary tables for all site options for comparison. Explanation of the evaluation criteria and discussion for the other sites was not included in this feasibility study. Refer to the original PDR for these details. The table below summarizes the evaluation symbols and descriptions used throughout this evaluation. Evaluation Description Very Unfavorable Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Very Favorable Evaluation Symbol OO O __ X XX Treatment Performance A10.2.5 Dublin Site Evaluation A10.2.5.1 Performance Objectives The gravity and pressure filter options for the Dublin Site accommodate the required treatment technologies for meeting all MDH standards, primary drinking water regulations, and established treatment goals. This includes chlorine for pre-oxidation and disinfection, HMO for radium adsorption, filters for iron and radium removal, ammonia for supplemental chloramine formation, fluoride for dental hygiene, and an ortho/poly blend for corrosion inhibition. Also included is a clearwell for storing finished water prior to pumping into the system with high service pumps. The Dublin Site alternatives also include redundancy for chemical feed, high service pumping, and backwash reclaim. High service pumps are sized to pump the full 3,000 gpm plant capacity with only two (2) of the three (3) pumps online, allowing cycling of online pumps and a back-up during maintenance or emergencies. The plant maintains a 2,000 gpm firm capacity during filter backwash. The two options proposed for the Dublin Site include a detention basin within the design, but detention time provided is limited. Detention time will aid in pre-oxidation and radium adsorption. Table A10.1 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to meeting performance objectives and treatment target goals. Table A10.1 Performance Objectives Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives XX XX XX O XX X WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 39 A10.2.5.2 Operational Complexity The only new chemical feed technology at the Dublin Site is an ammonium sulfate system. All other systems are used in other facilities throughout the City. Plant operator responsibility will be limited to general maintenance of the system and optimization of chemical feed rates. The facility will include instrumentation and controls for automatic adjustment of chemical dose using flow-paced chemical feed and residual concentration monitoring. The gravity filters are a new technology for the City of Edina, but some staff have operated gravity filters in the past. No other existing facilities have a detention tank, but O&M of the tank is minimal and like traditional backwash reclaim tanks. The Dublin Site also proposes traditional backwash reclaim, eliminating the complexity of an above grade plate settler. Table A10.2 summarizes each sites evaluation related to operational complexity. Table A10.2 Operational Complexity Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives __ __ __ X __ X A10.2.5.3 Operational Flexibility Sizing of chemical feed systems for all site alternatives accommodates operation at a wide range of feed rates with changes in raw water quality. Chlorine in 150-lb cylinders is planned for the Dublin Site. There is potential for requiring 1-ton cylinders in the future with changing water characteristics or if treatment capacity is added to the facility. Selecting 150 lb cylinders will inevitably increase delivery frequency of chlorine compared to storing ton cylinders. Online instrumentation will monitor residual concentrations and adjust chemical feed as required. Wells will operate on a variable frequency drive (VFD) for adjustment of plant production based on system demand. The Dublin Site has the flexibility to expand in the future with either additional treatment technologies or increased treatment capacity. With extensive upgrades to the distribution system, additional wells could be routed to this site. Table A10.3 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to treatment expandability and flexibility. Table A10.3 Operational Flexibility Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives __ O XX OO X XX WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 40 Security and Safety A10.3.4 Dublin Site Evaluation A10.3.4.1 Operator Security and Safety With proper risk management plans established and chemical handling procedures followed, operator safety is not a concern for any of the proposed chemicals or equipment. The Dublin Site will incorporate emergency systems to ensure operator safety. This site also has adequate parking and space onsite for operator and chemical delivery truck access. Table A10.4 summarizes each site evaluation related to operator security and safety. Table A10.4 Operator Security and Safety Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives XX X XX OO XX XX A10.3.4.2 Public Security and Safety Again, none of the proposed site alternatives incorporate equipment or technology that creates an unsafe environment for the public. This evaluation criterion relates to the public’s perception of the safety of the site. The Dublin Site is located within a residential neighborhood, which in some cases may raise concerns about delivery of chemicals to the facility. For this reason, a chemical unloading garage is planned for the site. Pedestrian traffic is minimal at this site. Table A10.5 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to public security and safety. Table A10.5 Public Security and Safety Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives __ O X OO X XX Site Architecture A10.4.6 Dublin Site Evaluation A10.4.6.1 Architectural Value The Dublin Site is located within a residential neighborhood with limited vehicular access. The existing building stock surrounding the site is single-family residential with no plans for future development in the vicinity. The site in existing conditions is an open green space with a below grade storage reservoir. Development of the site would be visible to the neighborhood residents, making architectural concepts that blend the facility into the residential surroundings important. An initial architectural rendering for WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 41 the facility is presented in Appendix A.H that was developed based on the preliminary site layout for Option 5A. There are potential architectural benefits for the Dublin Site dependent on what features are included that would provide beneficial use to the public, such as walking paths or park space in front of the proposed facility. Table A10.6 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to architectural value. Table A10.6 Architectural Value Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives X XX __ O X __ A10.4.6.2 Sustainability / Resiliency There are no known limiting factors preventing the integration of sustainable building features at the Dublin Site. The site has good south exposure for passive or active solar system addition. The level of sustainable building features includes for this site would be determined in future design phases. Table A10.7 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to sustainability / resiliency. Table A10.7 Sustainability/Resiliency Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives __ __ X O X X A10.4.6.3 Shared-Use Benefit The shared-use benefit of the Dublin Site includes the possible addition of park and green space for the neighborhood residents to use, but aside from this, shared-use options are limited. Pedestrian traffic is limited to those in the neighborhood, making addition of public art or a trailhead unfavorable. Table A10.8 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to sustainability / resiliency. Table A10.8 Shared-Use Benefit Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives __ XX __ OO X O A10.4.6.4 Land Use The Future Land Use Plan, developed as part of the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, indicated that the Dublin Site is within the Open Space character category. The City’s zoning map identifies the site as a Single Dwelling Unit (R-1). Placement of the water treatment facility at the Dublin Site changes the parcel to a public/semi-public land use category, but likely maintains the single dwelling unit zoning classification. Table A10.9 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to land use. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 42 Table A10.9 Land Use Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives O X __ __ __ __ Constructability A10.5.5 Dublin Site Evaluation A10.5.5.1 Initial Construction The Dublin Site construction limitations relate to the limited road access to the site in the residential neighborhood. The adjacent street is only a 30’ wide road, with any construction equipment limiting full use of the corridor to residents. Periodic lane closures may be a nuisance but should not limit passage through the neighborhood. Noise constraints are also likely for this site with the residential presence. Space available for stockpiling and equipment or material storage is limited because the existing below grade reservoir restricts construction to foot traffic and minor weight-bearing activities such as rebar tying. Once demolition of the portion of the reservoir being removed is complete, construction footprint will not be as limited. The contractor will need to exercise care in demolition, staging, and storage to minimize impacts on the existing reservoir structural system. Dublin Rd. is scheduled for street reconstruction in 2020. Coordination of the projects should be considered to minimize construction disturbance. Table A10.10 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to initial construction. Table A10.10 Initial Construction Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives O X O OO XX __ A10.5.5.2 Construction Staging / Sequencing The Dublin Site is less favorable in terms of construction staging and sequencing due to the presence of the existing reservoir that limits construction activities in areas above the structure. The area left behind for the facility after demolition will be larger than the proposed 3,000 gpm facility, providing some additional staging area during parts of construction. Table A10.11 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to construction staging and sequencing. Table A10.11 Construction Staging and Sequencing Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives OO X X OO XX __ WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 43 A10.5.5.3 Future Maintenance The Dublin Site provides favorable access to the proposed facility for future maintenance, depending on the final placement of the facility on the site. If the facility is placed on the back, western half of the site with the reservoir remaining at the front half, maintenance activities would not be allowed on top of the reservoir. Access to the site for major equipment maintenance could be interfered with in this scenario. For the purposes of this evaluation, the facility was assumed to be located on the front, east side of the site, which should provide adequate access for future maintenance. Table A10.12 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to future maintenance of the facility. Table A10.12 Future Maintenance Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives O X X OO X X Additional Site Considerations A10.6.5 Dublin Site Evaluation A10.6.5.1 Distribution System Operation The water distribution system analysis indicated that with minimal transmission piping additions and connections, the Dublin Site provides a favorable distribution system operation in terms of water tower balance, handling the planned 3,000 gpm capacity, minimizing increases in system pressure, and reducing impacts of water age that exist with current operation of the reservoir. Some lagging at the Southdale Tower occurs with this alternative, which is expected to be an existing occurrence. With future transmission piping upsizing, additional benefits of more efficiently serving the Southdale Area with the Dublin Site facility may be realized. Table A10.13 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to distribution system operation. Table A10.13 Distribution System Operation Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives XX XX O __ OO X A10.6.5.2 Raw Water Transmission Pipeline The raw water transmission pipeline requirements associated with the Dublin Site are extensive because the piping currently does not exist. The wells are situated nicely in that a single raw water alignment could be installed that would add wells supplying the facility at this site along the way from north to southeast, adjacent to the existing trunk water main. Bringing these wells to the site requires WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 44 approximately 9,300 feet of additional water main installation. With this length of pipe comes maintenance of the pipeline and its associated valves and appurtenances. Table A10.14 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to additional raw water transmission pipeline considerations. Table A10.14 Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives X X XX XX OO OO A10.6.5.3 Finished Water Transmission Pipeline The finished water transmission pipeline requirements associated with the Dublin Site are minimal because the Dublin Reservoir has an adequately sized 16-inch water main connection into the distribution system. The system capacity analysis indicated that this water main is adequate to handle the proposed 3,000 gpm plant capacity. Table A10.15 summarizes the evaluation of each site related to additional finished water transmission pipeline considerations. Table A10.15 Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Evaluation for All Site Alternatives Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Performance Objectives X X O __ OO XX Site Accommodations Evaluation Summary A10.7.1 Dublin Site Evaluation Summary Evaluation of the site accommodations provides a thorough review of non-financial factors considered in the selection of the preferred site alternative for future WTP No. 5. The Dublin site meets the treatment performance objectives, with a slightly less favorable evaluation than other sites due to the limited detention time provided. The treatment goals at this site differ from those of the other four due to the supply source adjustment, so operational complexity lessens without requiring permanganate addition for manganese at this site. This site also provides the opportunity for treatment expandability in the future. Operator and public safety is very favorable for this site as it is not located in a high-profile area like it is for other sites. This site does not offer exceptional architectural value or shared-use benefit but does have room for addition of public use features depending on how the site layout develops over time. The Dublin Site is currently viewed as an open space, so conversion of the site into public infrastructure will require specific architectural components. Initial architectural concepts have unveiled a facility resembling a residential dwelling, allowing better blending of the facility into the existing residential neighborhood. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 45 Construction related criterion pose some challenges for the Dublin Site, especially during early stages when demolition of the existing reservoir would take place. The location of the site may have limited impacts to the public overall, but impacts related to access and noise disturbance must be accounted for. Finally, additional considerations related to distribution system operation and finished water transmission piping are favorable for the Dublin Site. The water system analysis completed for the site indicated that placement of the facility at this site would ultimately benefit the water distribution and promote reduced system water age. The extensive raw water transmission piping required to supply the site is undesirable compared to other sites. Table A10.16 summarizes all criterion evaluated in the site accommodations analysis. Evaluation descriptions and symbols are provided again for reference below Table A10.16. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Site Accommodations Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 46 Table A10.16 Summary of WTP No. 5 Site Accommodations Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Standalone Southdale Integrated Southdale Yorktown Median Fred Richards Dublin Treatment Performance Performance Objectives XX XX XX O XX X Operational Complexity __ __ __ X __ X Operational Flexibility __ O XX OO X XX Security and Safety Operator Security and Safety XX X XX OO XX XX Public Security and Safety __ O X OO X XX Site Architecture Architectural Value X XX __ O X __ Sustainability / Resiliency __ __ X O X X Shared-Use Feasibility __ XX __ OO X O Land Use O X __ __ __ __ Constructability Initial Construction O X O OO XX __ Staging / Sequencing OO X X OO XX __ Future Maintenance O X X OO X X Additional Site Considerations Distribution System Operation XX XX O __ OO X Raw Water Pipeline X X XX XX OO OO Finished Water Pipeline X X O __ OO XX Evaluation Description Very Unfavorable Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Very Favorable Evaluation Symbol OO O __ X XX WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Financial Consideration Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 47 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION EVALUATION This chapter provides a financial evaluation of the estimated total project cost for the Dublin Site that includes the capital cost of constructing WTP No. 5 and integrating the facility into the City of Edina’s existing water distribution system. A11.7 Option 5 – Dublin Site The fifth site evaluated is the Dublin Site with two different base facility options. These include Option 5A and Option 5B previously introduced in section A8.6. A11.7.1 Option 5A – Dublin Site with Gravity Filters Option 5A consists of gravity filtration with a traditional backwash reclamation system. Appendix A.E provides a preliminary site layout and plan views of the upper and lower levels of the facility. The building is approximately 80-feet east to west by 140-feet north to south, with the buried backwash tanks extending the building an additional 30-feet east. Building height will be approximately 32-feet high to accommodate the gravity filters and an upper level process area. Additional building height of approximately 8-10’ is proposed for the false peaked roof provided that would screen the mechanical equipment required at the roof level. The structural and architectural estimate incorporates architectural features to ensure the facility is aesthetically similar to residential buildings adjacent to the site. The gravity filters provide a dual purpose: major process equipment and exterior walls for the building. This filter type requires higher concrete costs but reduced process equipment costs. The existing reservoir presents unique excavation savings for the facility, limiting the amount of stockpiling and haul- off required for the facility. Costs for integrating the facility into the City’s existing distribution system are significant for Option 5A due to the extensive raw water transmission piping upgrades required to tie the three planned wells into the facility and the demolition/repurposing work required on the Dublin Reservoir. This includes approximately 9,100 feet of new HDPE water main piping and careful reservoir demolition to reduce the capacity of the tank approximately in half. Integration costs for well rehabilitation were not included because two wells are up for rehab as part of the City’s CIP and the third is relatively new and could be downsized as part of future rehabilitation if necessary. The higher elevation of the facility compared to the well houses results in similar pump design points as compared to existing operation. The addition of FRP Baffling within the Dublin Reservoir was included as a premium cost. Table A11.1 provides a combined summary of the facility construction and integration costs. This summary also includes 15-percent contingencies and 15-percent for engineering design and construction phase services. Appendix A.I provides a detailed opinion of probable total construction cost for Option 5A. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Financial Consideration Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 48 Table A11.1 Option 5A Construction Cost Summary Facility Construction Cost 1 General Requirements $ 746,000 2 Structural / Architectural $ 3,462,000 3 Mechanical $ 490,000 4 Electrical $ 1,525,000 5 Site Work $ 660,000 6 Process Equipment and Integration $ 1,524,000 Facility Construction Subtotal $ 8,407,000 Facility Integration Cost 1 Raw Water Pipeline – Gleason Road Alignment $ 2,800,000 2 Finished Water Pipeline $ 50,000 3 Dublin Reservoir Reduction $ 285,000 Facility Integration Subtotal $ 3,135,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 11,542,000 Contingencies (15%) $ 1,731,000 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Total Construction Costs $ 13,273,000 Professional Services to Date $ 1,043,300 Engineering Design Phase Services (10%) $ 1,372,000 Construction Phase Services (5%) $ 686,000 Total Project Costs $ 16,307,300 Table A11.2 summarizes the optional premium costs of components feasible for inclusion in Option 5A. Premium costs for this site are limited to FRP Baffling within the remaining Dublin Reservoir to promote a serpentine like flow through the basin to reduce effects of short-circuiting and lessen water age impacts. The costs do not include the contingencies, engineering design phase services, or construction phase service fees. Table A11.2 Optional Premium Costs for Option 5A Facility Construction Cost 1 FRP Baffling in the Dublin Reservoir $ 410,000 A11.7.2 Option 5B – Dublin Site with Pressure Filters Option 5B consists of pressure filtration with a traditional backwash reclamation system. Appendix A.F provides a preliminary site layout and plan views of the upper and lower levels of the facility. The building is approximately 80-feet east to west by 140-feet north to south, with the buried backwash tanks extending the building an additional 30-feet east. Building height will be approximately 18-feet high to accommodate the pressure filters. Additional building height of approximately 8-10’ is proposed for the false peaked roof that would screen the mechanical equipment required at the roof level. The WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Financial Consideration Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 49 structural and architectural estimate incorporates architectural features to ensure the facility is aesthetically similar to residential buildings adjacent to the site. The use of pressure filters allows sliding of the backwash reclaim tanks below the main operating level, reducing concrete costs associated with the cover slab of the reclaim tank. The overall smaller size of the facility also decreases the structural and architectural related costs. This option requires the same excavation costs for below grade components. The pressure filters elevate the process equipment and integration costs compared to gravity filter options. Facility integration costs are the same between Option 5A and 5B. The addition of FRP Baffling within the Dublin Reservoir was included as a premium cost. Table A11.3 provides a combined summary of the facility construction and integration costs. This summary also includes 15-percent contingencies and 15-percent for engineering design and construction phase services. Appendix A.J provides a detailed opinion of probable total construction cost for Option 5B. Table A11.3 Option 5B Construction Cost Summary Facility Construction Cost 1 General Requirements $ 772,000 2 Structural / Architectural $ 2,827,000 3 Mechanical $ 490,000 4 Electrical $ 1,521,000 5 Site Work $ 660,000 6 Process Equipment and Integration $ 2,601,000 Facility Construction Subtotal $ 8,871,000 Facility Integration Cost 1 Raw Water Pipeline – Gleason Road Alignment $ 2,800,000 2 Finished Water Pipeline $ 50,000 3 Dublin Reservoir Reduction $ 285,000 Facility Integration Subtotal $ 3,135,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 12,006,000 Contingencies (15%) $ 1,801,000 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Total Construction Costs $ 13,807,000 Professional Services to Date $ 1,043,300 Engineering Design Phase Services (10%) $ 1,381,000 Construction Phase Services (5%) $ 690,000 Total Project Costs $ 16,921,300 Table A11.4 summarizes the optional premium costs of components feasible for inclusion in Option 5B. Premium costs for this site are limited to FRP Baffling within the remaining Dublin Reservoir to promote a serpentine like flow through the basin to reduce effects of short-circuiting and lessen water age WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Financial Consideration Evaluation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 50 impacts. The costs do not include the contingencies, engineering design phase services, or construction phase service fees. Table A11.4 Optional Premium Costs for Option 5B Facility Construction Cost 1 FRP Baffling in the Dublin Reservoir $ 410,000 A11.8 Dublin Site Capital Cost Evaluation Summary This chapter presented the base facility options for the two Dublin site alternatives for WTP No. 5. Refer to the Technical Memorandum titled WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost for a summary of all alternatives considered for WTP No. 5. This document provides a side-by-side comparison of all twelve alternatives developed to date for WTP No. 5. These two options present conceptual design of base facilities that adequately accomplish the facility treatment goals. Table A11.6 summarizes the total construction costs of each option. Table11.6 Summary of Opinion of Total Construction Costs for WTP No. 5 at Dublin Site Site Option Facility Construction Facility Integration Contingencies Engineering & Construction Phases* Total Construction Cost Dublin Option 5A $ 8,407,000 $ 3,135,000 $ 1,731,000 $ 3,101,300 $ 16,307,300 Option 5B $ 8,871,000 $ 3,135,000 $ 1,801,000 $ 3,114,300 $ 16,921,300 * Engineering & Construction Phases include $1,043,300 for professional services to date for both options. The integration of the facility into the City of Edina’s existing distribution system is the largest differentiator in the alternative selection. The extensive raw water transmission main required and costs associated with Dublin Reservoir capacity reduction make this site less cost effective than the Southdale Site. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 51 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION The following sections summarize the evaluation completed for the Dublin Site to ultimately determine whether it is a feasible location for WTP No. 5. A13.7 Dublin Site Evaluation A13.7.1 Treatment Technology Evaluation The addition of the Dublin Site required re-evaluation of the treatment technology used for WTP No. 5 at that plant because the raw source shifted from Wells No. 5, 18, and future Well No. 21 to treating Wells No. 16, 19, and 20. Breakpoint chlorination testing and review of available raw water quality for these new wells indicated similar water quality to the original wells. Differences in treatment technology between the Dublin Site and other evaluated sites include the elimination of manganese treatment due to low raw manganese concentrations and proceeding with traditional backwash reclaim tanks and systems with the additional available facility footprint. Raw water radionuclide concentrations have not yet exceeded the MCL for these wells, however, results have increased over time. For this reason, and to provide treatment flexibility as water quality changes in the future, a radium removal system is included for the Dublin Site base facilities. Chemical alternatives selected for the Dublin Site include gaseous chlorine, liquid ammonium sulfate, HMO, fluoride and an ortho / poly blend. Life cycle analysis completed as part of the original PDR resulted in selection of gaseous chlorine and liquid ammonium sulfate. With the relatively similar water chemistries present between all evaluated wells, these selections were carried through for the Dublin Site. Artificial ammonia addition may be limited due to higher raw ammonia concentrations; however, the system is proposed to ensure maintenance of a high chloramine residual leaving the facility. A13.7.2 Facility Integration Evaluation Integration with the existing infrastructure is a critical part of the PDR process. The new WTP must operate seamlessly with the existing distribution system and the Project Team must consider the facility’s impacts on existing infrastructure. Rehabilitation of Well No. 16 is necessary due to noise disturbance caused by the unit during operation. Well 16 and 19 have allocated funds in the City’s CIP for rehabilitation, so additional rehab costs were not included as part of this analysis. Well No. 20 may be downsized at a later date with other schedule rehabilitation. With the higher elevation of the Dublin Reservoir compared to the wellhouses, operating points to get the raw water to the plant are only slightly reduced from existing conditions. This is even true for the pressure filter option because both filter types will lead directly into the reduced Dublin Reservoir before being pumped into the system by the high service pumps. The major facility integration components of the Dublin Site include extensive (9,100 ft) raw water transmission piping installation to get the raw water to the facility and select demolition and rehabilitation of the Dublin Reservoir to reduce its capacity and open half of the site for the WTP. WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 52 The City’s water distribution system consultant completed an analysis on the impacts of the proposed WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site under multiple scenarios. The first analysis determined that overall, the Dublin Site at 3,000 gpm capacity would eliminate the current fill issues experienced at the Dublin Reservoir, would have minimal impacts on system pressures, and would not require significant distribution system improvements to function properly. The Southdale Area would benefit from this scenario if the main from Antrim Rd to Metro Blvd were upsized, however, this is not necessary at this time. The second analysis with a 5,000 gpm assumption concluded that to push this much water out into the system, upsizing of both the finished water main from the facility to the Antrim Rd and W 70th St intersection and the water main from Antrim Rd to Metro Blvd is required. This scenario resulted in minimal pressure increases and water tower tanks mostly trending together. The water model analysis also looked at available water storage for the City with the reduction of capacity at the Dublin Site. Previous analysis completed for the City’s updated 2018 Water Supply Plan indicated the usable volume of 2.88 MG for the Dublin Reservoir. Recommendations in this plan also included a 2040 storage shortfall of 0.5 MG. Taking into consideration the reduced volume associated with the WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site, an updated storage recommendation for the City is an additional 1.5 MG of water storage. With all infrastructure integration components considered, the Southdale Site is still the most favorable option for future WTP No. 5. The Dublin Site does provide a unique opportunity to optimize use of the existing reservoir and reduce water age because of these changes. A13.7.3 Site Accommodations Evaluation The Dublin site meets the treatment performance objectives, with a slightly less favorable evaluation than other sites due to the limited detention time provided. The treatment goals at this site differ from those of the other four due to the supply source adjustment, so operational complexity lessens without requiring permanganate addition for manganese at this site. This site also provides the opportunity for treatment expandability in the future. Operator and public safety is very favorable for this site as it is not located in a high-profile area like it is for other sites. This site does not offer exceptional architectural value or shared-use benefit but does have room for addition of public use features depending on how the site layout develops over time. The Dublin Site is currently viewed as an open space, so conversion of the site into public infrastructure will require specific architectural components. Initial architectural concepts have unveiled a facility resembling a residential dwelling, allowing better blending of the facility into the existing residential neighborhood. Construction related criterion pose some challenges for the Dublin Site, especially during early stages when demolition of the reservoir would take place. The location of the site may have limited impacts to the public overall, but impacts related to access and noise disturbance must be accounted for. Finally, additional considerations related to distribution system operation and finished water transmission piping are favorable for the Dublin Site. The water system analysis completed for the site indicated that placement of the facility at this site would ultimately benefit the water distribution and WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 53 promote reduced system water age. The extensive raw water transmission piping required to supply the site is undesirable compared to other sites. A13.7.4 Financial Consideration Evaluation The Project Team estimates a cost between $16.3M and $16.8M (2018 dollars) for WTP No. 5 at the Dublin Site, including facility construction, facility integration into the distribution system, 15-percent contingencies and 15-percent for engineering design and construction phase services. Option 5A with gravity filters would be more cost effective than Option 5B with pressure filters based on these preliminary cost estimates. A13.7.5 Recommended Alternative Option 5A of the Dublin Site meets all desired treatment objectives and goals set by the Project Team for WTP No. 5. Distribution system modeling expects selection of this site produces minimal increases in pressure in the system and helps optimize the water system use of the existing Dublin Reservoir. The slight pressure increases may be a benefit in this location due to the low pressures existing near the site. When comparing the two Dublin Site alternatives, Option 5A provides the lower overall opinion of probable construction cost. The site may present some challenges with constructability due to the need for careful demolition and construction activities near the existing reservoir and the lack of staging or stockpiling area. The site also lacks a substantial shared-use benefit aside from potential park space due to its relatively hidden location within a residential neighborhood. While analysis related to increasing the facility capacity to 5,000 gpm was not conducted as part of this Feasibility Study, the City may have interest in doing so to eliminate the need for an additional facility in the 2040 planning period currently being reviewed. This would require additional infrastructure improvements to get the additional 2,000 gpm of raw water to and from the Dublin Site. A13.8 Dublin Site Evaluation Conclusions The City of Edina should consider the following items for preparing for implementation of the planned WTP No. 5: · The City should carefully consider the remaining alternatives for WTP No. 5 including the Southdale Site with various levels of architectural enhancements and the Dublin Site. · The existing reservoir will need condition assessments completed prior to proceeding with the option to demolish half of the reservoir and build the proposed WTP in the open area. Cost increases may be endured if condition of the reservoir is unfavorable and either full or additional select demolition is required. · The existing water supply wells to supply the Dublin Site will not need improvements in association with the planned WTP project. Rehabilitation of Well No. 16 is recommended to eliminate the noise disturbance present when the well operates. The City’s current CIP includes rehabilitation costs for Well No. 16 in 2019 and Well No. 19 in 2020. Downsizing of pumps and WTP No. 5 – Dublin Reservoir Site Feasibility Study Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Page 54 motors may increase well operating efficiency at the new design point but is not necessary for function. · The preliminary design phase should consider investigation of gaseous chlorine cylinder size optimization. · The base facility currently assumes initial construction of the plant designed at the full 3,000 gpm capacity. The City could consider increasing treatment capacity of the facility to 5,000 gpm. This increase would result in additional costs associated with facility upsizing, raw water transmission, and finished water transmission. The goal of a facility of this size would be to eliminate the need for another treatment facility in the future. · Additional optimization in overall facility implementation could be realized in terms of future planned water main upgrades in the vicinity, scheduled street reconstruction projects, and plans for fiber optic installation to the site. · As identified by the water model analysis, the volume reduction of the reservoir increases the storage recommendations recently identified in the 2018 Water Supply Plan to 1.5 MG of additional storage. This should be considered while planning future water system infrastructure needs. Site optimization in future design phases should be considered to minimize lost storage. This Feasibility Study is provided as an amendment to the original WTP PDR to investigate a fifth site alternative for location of WTP No. 5. Throughout the planning period and project implementation process, Edina should expect uncertainties and changes, which can best be managed through the continuation of the proactive planning process present between City staff and the Project Team. WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.A November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.A Well No. 16 Information TURBINE PUMP (MOTOR, PUMP, PERFORMANCE RECORD) (AS INSTALLED) DATE: May 18, 2009 GENERAL INFO: Customer/Owner: City of Edina Well/Pump 16 Address/Location: 6301 Gleason Road Persons on Job Site: Pete & Steve MOTOR INFO: Horsepower 150 Name Plate Stand Still Volts RPM 1785 460 Running Volt: Varied Manufacturer US Full Load Amps 170 S.F.Amps BOWL DESIGN: G.P.M. 1500 T.D.H. 280' Megger Reading PERFORMANCE TEST: Static Water Level 106' Well Diameter 24" Well Depth 381' Gauge Broke Test #1: HZ 58.5 AMPS 141 G.P.M. 1100 Water Level 112' P.S.I. Est. 100 T.D.H. 343' Test #2: HZ AMPS G.P.M. Water Level P.S.I. T.D.H. Test #3: HZ AMPS G.P.M. Water Level P.S.I. T.D.H. T.D.H. = Pumping Water Level in Feet + (P.S.I. reading x 2.31) +Friction Loss In Column +Fittings Example: Information Given: 1000 G.P.M., 150' Water Level, 50 P.S.L,3.5' Friction Loss Therefore: 150' + (50# x 2.31 or 115.5') + 3.5' = 269' T.G.H. OR The pump is producing 1000 G.P.M. at 269' T.D.H. Does Well Pump Sand? Yes / NO If So, How Much? Test #1 " in Gallon Jar Test #2 " in Gallon Jar Test i/3 " in Gallon Jar Closed Valve Test: P.S.I. Reading Water Level Vibration Record: Vibration in Mils: A 2.2 90* from Discharge B 2.8 In Line with Discharge C 0.7 90* from Discharge D 0.9 In Line with Discharge Tested By: Jiim K, Dave M: Problems/Comments: Groute around base all cracked. Customer/Owner Comment: Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031203101 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hopkins Update Date 03/10/2014 Quad ID 104B Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed EDINA 16 116 21 W 6 ABDCCC 381 ft.381 ft.11/10/1967 Elevation 895 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Cable Tool Drill Fluid Address Use community supply(municipal)Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To 1 ft. Casing Type Step down No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Contact 4801 50TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 Well 1001 GLEASON RD EDINA MN 55439 Geological Material From To (ft.)Color Hardness NO RECORD 0 45 ROCKS, GRAVEL 45 115 ST. PETER 115 175 SHALE 175 184 BLUE SHALE, SAND 184 215 GRAY SHALE 215 255 GRAY ROCK-SHAKOPEE 255 380 JORDAN SANDSTONE 380 381 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 20 265in. To ft.lbs./ft. 30 215in. To ft.lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 30 381in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 265Open Hole From ft.To ft.381 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) M.G.S. NO. 435. Material FromAmount To neat cement ft.ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 203101 HE-01205-15 Printed on 05/11/2017 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.66 Measureland surface 11/10/1967 feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 0 Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No.Name of Driller Layne Well Co.27010 DRECHSEL, B. Remarks St.Peter Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Jordan Sandstone Minnesota Department of Health Prairie Du Chien- 115 GPS Differentially Corrected System X Y469482 4970571 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 07/21/1995 Angled Drill Hole WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.B November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.B Well No. 19 Information Jo 5626 Date at Completion --/nn/e — E 6. DRILLING FLUID Water 7. USE O Heat Pam CI Industry O Commercial q Igo y Of E —in to_s_li —in. to__ft _sn 10_11 24 .10242.751 Weight 94 62 Ms /It IS it. m 440 Jni weir. 70-59 ft'sm M g p m 228 240 288 240 Shale & St. peter Se;'-Peter St. Peter & Shale Lt. Blue Tan Blueish 260 302 97Neat Cement 0 Bentonite 0 Shakopee Dolomite Jordon Sandstone 17. REMARKS. ELEVATION. SOURCE Mapcode 8-309 Elevation u93+10 TQuad 1048 dell #19 WATER WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION This well was drilled under my Jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my knowledge and heliel. F H Renner & Cons_ Inc 71015 bruiser Business Name Lams. No mdroar-4-9i 5O N dapLiS Sr. Elk River, MN 55330 AU-3U-6(.7 Budc Ledbeter Dais lu-25-69 Name at ImIlar g ESU IA UNIQUE WELL NO fee Water Sample WATER WELL RECORD Minxes°la Steamers 156401 .08 County Name Hennepin Township Name. Township Number s 21 4._ Numerical Street Address and City of Well Location or Distance from Road Intersection. (- 0., —\ 6054 Valleyview Rd. Edina exact legation d well in section grid with "IC" N Range Number Proem Stroon No. 4 WELL DEPTH icompleteth lw St4 SW 520 D. 19-26-89 5. DRILLING METHOD A CableTod 0 Reverse 0 Driven 0 Dug 0 HolloveRod 0 Air 0 Bored 1:1 0 Rotary °Jetted 0 Power Auger 28-L 5 Feline Sketch map ol well location. Addition Name Block Number W 0 Domesid 0 Irrigatson O Test Well 0 Monitonng q Public e Municipal 0 Air Conditioning Lot Number 8. CASING HOLE DIAM. HEIGHT'arasd/Below Surface 2 It Drive Shoe? Yes—_XNo___ 2. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Mailing Address if different than property address indicated above. 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Sr Black 0 Threaded qGala. EI Welded q Plastic q 30 in to 30 ft Weight118 •65 City of Edina HARDNESS OF FORMATION FORMAT/ON LOG COLOR FROM TO Co 52 Clay Yellow O den kt An from ••••dift to 520 It 9. SCREEN Make NONE Type dam Slot/Gauze Length FITTINGS: Set between b n 52 70 Clay Blutish 70 182 Clay & Gravel Brown ft and It 10. ST E is WATER LEVEL B. If below 0 above land surface 10126-89 182 195 Tan St. peter Date Measured II. PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) 39 ft after 3 het pumlung 1200 It alter his pumping 207 White 1995 St. peter 2887 Tan .5t. Peter 12. HEAD WELL COMPLETION O Mess adapter manufacturer 1:1 Basement df set fa At least 12" above ground 0 Plastic casing protection 13. WELL GROUTED? lT Yes 0 No 242 toKliff ft cu yds to 440 surf Grout material Neat cement from 260 302 428 Tan 14. NEAREST SOURCES Of POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION feet deed Well disinfected upon completion? *es o No 428 521 White type 15. PUMP Date installed lir Not 'nsialled Manufacturer's name Model number HP Volts Length of drop pipe It Capacity rpm Material of drop pipe Type: 0 Submersible RI LS. Turbine 0 Reciprocating Cljet 0 Centrifugal 0 16. ABANDONED WELLS Unused well on property? 0 Yes Ji2No sealed 0 Permanent 0 Temporary 0 Na sealed Um a second skeet, a OF DATA. etc. n7S '71 r ) C) Or sill 1115-113( Rev. 9/100 5/74 304.4 7/76 30044 7/78 304.4 F. it Renner Sox INCORPORATED WELL DRILLING FOR FOUR GENERATIONS 15680 JARVIS STREET N.W./ELK RIVER, MN 55330/(612)427-6100 '0 • CUSTOMER CITY OF EDINA ADDRESS 'EAST OF VALLEY VIEW JR. HIM scacot DATE GuesT WELL ll 19 MOTOR 150 H.P. 3 PHASE 60 CYCLE 460 VOLTS 1780 RPM MFG us AlcpEi .8 4/9 CPLG MIN BX 1.6875 CD CPLG HGT 42 21/32" FRAME 444TP AMPS 176 TYPE RUE N.R7R. WP-1 47 23/32" #7895-9 KLIXON TEMPERATURE SENSORS* DISCHARGE HEADYrilormmay Closed AT60 DISCHARGE HEAD BY AMERICAN MOTOR BASE DIA. 16.5 H DISCH SIZE 10 " COLUMN SIZE 10 DISCHARGE HGT 8.125 BASE PLATE CAST IRON 24" X 24" x 1 COLUMN & SHAFT 181/4" 8 1/8" ( 2 ) 10 " X 4ft-11% " COLUMN PIPE .365 "wall ( 23) 10 " X 9ft-11N_" COLUMN PIPE .365 "wall ( z )1 11/16' X 5ft c1045 SHAFTING 10 TPI (e12:11 11/161 X 10ft c1045 SHAFTING 10 TPI 1 11/16" DIA. HEADSHAFT "LONG (RH)(LH) 10 TPI 256.1' PUMP 15DRLC OR EQUAL MIN. 4 STAGE 5 STAGE 1211150 BOWL ASSEMBLY, MFG AMERICAN 340 + 1200 USGPM @ 344 FT. T.D.H. "STICKUP SUCTION PIPE: x YES 10NO 10 " DIA FT STRAINER: YES NO TYPE 827 VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP MATERIALS BOWLS C.I. ENAMEL COLUMN PIPE STEEL IMPELLERS BRONZE ENCLSG TUBE N/A BOWL SHAFT STAINLESS BRG RETAINER BRONZE BOWL BRGS BRONZE LINESHAFT BRGS RUBBER 1 15/16 STRAINER NONE LINESHAFT STEEL SLEEVES m0NEL 1 15/16 HEASHAFT STAINLESS PACKING 6RAPHITE BRONZE WEAR RINGS 3/8 " WELL CASING DIA 18 " to 440 ft OPENHOLE 80 FT WELL DEPTH 520 ft SCREEN ft STATIC WATER LEVEL 160 DATE PUMPING LEVEL OF GPM at fffpFX Ft. 20" X 39" SURGE TANK - AIRLINE 2" WELL VENT - PSI CUAGE (FT. READINGS) 0-240' 12-H-150 1760 R.P.M. ' 40 I C 1200 1500 1800 I 0 600 900 300 EllivalF41111 40 111 20111re • 1,11 1.11nallmil sm • m rt NNE'S eami • CAPACITY IN U.S. G.P.M. Impeller • Bronze Bowl Length 1st Stage 30.3 Bowl • Cast Iron/Enamel Bowl Length Additional Stage 10.875 Bowl Bearings - BRONZE Impeller - Weight 15 Bowl Shaft - S.S. Impeller Shaft Diameter 1.687 Thrust Factor 6.9 Impeller End Lateral .750 Bowl Wt. 1st Stage (lbs.) 250 Column Pipe Size 8 Bowl Wt. Additional Stage (lbs.) 110 Suction Pipe Size 8 1.00 sr4 ea. I iop( amigo turbine pump cal Performance Curves J ' I 1 1 r net W gC. ' MIIMEMEM nalgarlig I 7"" .,\WREIMEMINIMMINN "411tELVIIIatlieNNIIN I I ' 111111MMENMEMEN alISNOSIMaINEMErs NNI ME SMINII =MN= ma.M.1=1.1. 7 11011.111.1as,, SIGL &Ohl 80 60 40 —iumuia 20± a: 0 i Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031505626 County Hennepin Entry Date 06/29/1992 Quad Minneapolis Update Date 10/05/2015 Quad ID 104A Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed EDINA 19 116 21 W 5 CBCCBC 521 ft.520 ft.10/26/1989 Elevation 944 ft.Elev. Method Calc from DEM (USGS 7.5 min or equiv.)Drill Method Cable Tool Drill Fluid Address Use community supply(municipal)Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Welded 2 ft. Casing Type Step down No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Contact 4801 50TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 Well 6054 VALLEYVIEW RD EDINA MN 55425 Geological Material From To (ft.)Color Hardness CLAY 0 52 YELLOW CLAY 52 70 BLUE CLAY & GRAVEL 70 182 BROWN ST. PETER 182 195 TAN ST. PETER 195 207 WHITE ST. PETER 207 228 TAN SHALE & ST. PETER 228 240 LT. BLU ST. PETER 240 260 TAN ST. PETER & SHALE 260 302 BLUE SHAKOPEE DOLOMITE 302 428 TAN JORDAN SANDSTONE 428 521 WHITE Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 30 30 118.in. To ft.lbs./ft. 18 440 70.5in. To ft.lbs./ft. 24 243 94.6in. To ft.lbs./ft. Screen?MakeType 440Open Hole From ft.To ft.520 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) M.G.S. NO. 2963. Material FromAmount To neat cement ft.0 440 ft.63 Cubic yards neat cement ft.0 242 ft.6 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 505626 HE-01205-15 Printed on 05/11/2017 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.163 Measureland surface 10/26/1989 ft.202 hrs.3 Pumping at 1200 g.p.m. feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No.Name of Driller Renner E.H. Well 71015 LEDBETER, B. Remarks St.Peter Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Jordan Sandstone Minnesota Department of Health Jordan 182 GPS Differentially Corrected System X Y470092 4969770 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 07/21/1995Information from Angled Drill Hole WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.C November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.C Well No. 20 Information 500 400 , 300 -o a) 200 100 0 40 20 0 160 a. .c 80 0 - US gpm 200 400 Performance Evaluation: Flow US gpm 1440 1200 960 720 480 Speed rpm, Head ft Pump %eff Power hp NPSHr ft 1770 297 81.6 132 20.9 1770 357 . 86 126 16 1770 405 85.7 114 11.6 1770 425 79.8 96.7 10 1770 --- -- 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 180(1 Company: Keys Well Drilling Co Customer: Name: Edina # 20 Date: 08/08/08 Order No: PUMP DATA SHEET Turbine 60 Hz Pump: Size: 12CHC (5 stages) Type: Lineshaft Speed: 1770 rpm Synch speed: 1800 rpm Dia: 8.625 in Curve: E6412CCPC4 Specific Speeds: Ns: 2100 Pump Notes for Standard Sizes: Suction Size-8",10" Discharge Sizes-6",8",10" Vertical Turbine: Bowl size: 11.75 in Max lateral: 1 in Thrust K factor: 7.5 lb/ft Pump Limits for Standard Construction: Temperature: 120 °F Pressure: 340 psi g Sphere size: 0.73 in Search Criteria: Flow: 1200 US gpm Head: 355 ft Fluid: Water Temperature: 60 °F SG: 1 Vapor pressure: 0.2563 psi a Viscosity: 1.105 cP Atm pressure: 14.7 psi a NPSHa: --- ft Motor: Standard: NEMA Size: 150 hp Speed: 1800 Sizing criteria: Max Power on Design Curve ---- Data Point -- Plow: 1200 US gpm .ead: 357 ft Eff: 86% Power: 126 hp NPSHr: 16 ft -- Design Curve -- Shutoff Head: 449 ft Shutoff dP: 194 psi Min Flow: --- US gpm BEP: 86.9% eff @1095 US gpm NOL Pwr: 137 hp @1720 US gpm --Max Curve -- Max Pwr: 139 hp @ 1733 US gpm Turbine Pump Selection 2004e Selected from catalog: Goulds Lineshaft 60HZ Vers: 3.21 Keys Well Drilling Co C X AG CD DH COL SL EMM- DD BL HH AD PL 12CHC 5 DIMENSIONAL OUTLINE DWT-CATM 5 Stage 10x12CHC Pump Data AD: 1.13 AG: 50.06 Size: BD: 16.5 Stages: BL: 189.50 CD: 44.78 BowlShaft: 1.69" CL: N/A COL: 175.00' LineShaft: 1.5" DD: 14.00 LineShaft Type: Open Column: Standard DH: 9.25 Column. 10" Threaded G: 25.00 Bearing Spacing: 10 feet H: 22.75 Section Length: 10 feet HH: 19.00 Head: A:Cast J: 0.75 Flange (Disch.): 10"-125# FF R: 14.60 Inlet: S: 2.38 SL: 120.00 Seal: Packing TPL: 190.8' Strainer: None UG: N/A SubBase: Yes V: 0.75 W: 26.00 X: 23.00 XC: 5.13 Y: 0.88 Z: 18.00 MAX: 11.75 "Y" DIA FOUR PLCS V Z "J" D IA FOUR PLCS 1 EC SP ON "H" BC Hydraulic Data DISC HEAD Miscellaneous SOLE PLATE Motor Data Flow (gpm): 1200 Thrust At Design (lb): 3788 Model: H0150V2SLG Pump Head (11): 224.3 Thrust At Shutoff (lb): 4478 Make: USEM TDH (ft): 357.0 Pumping Level(in): 1560 HP: 150 Speed (rpm): 1770 RPM: 1800 Fluid: Water Weight Type: RUSI Tc erature (F): 60 Pump (lb): 9118 Efficiency: 96.2 Visuosity: 1.105 Motor (ib): 1500 Frame: H444TP Spec.Grav: 1 Total (lb): 10618 Ratchet: NRR Version: .3.92P Customer: Date: 08-08-2008 Keys Well Drilling Co Overall Pump Parameters HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS DWT-CATM 5 Stage 10x12CHC Size and Model: 12CHC Capacity, GPM: 1200 Total Pump Length, In.: 2289.5 Pump Type: Well Pump K-Factor: 7.5 LineShaft-Related Data Shaft Diameter, In.: 1.5 Shaft Material: 416SS LineShaft Length, In.: 2100.00 LineShaft Type: Open Bowl Data Total Bowl Length, In.: 189.50 Bowl Shaft Dia, In.: 1.69 Column Data Column Diameter, In.: 10 Wall Thickness, In: 0.365 sePower Data Shaft Friction Loss, Hp.: 1.94 Bowl HP At Design, Hp.: 126 Other Data Hydraulic Thrust, Lb.: 2677.5 Thrust at Shutoff, Lb.: 4478.4 Available Lateral, hi.: 1.00 Shutoff Lateral, In.: 0.21 Suction Pressure, psi: 0.0 Column Loss, Ft.: 2.45 Head Loss, Ft.: 0.27 Total Loss, Ft.: 2.72 Efficiency Data (Efficiencies estimated not guaranteed) Bowl Efficiency: 86.00 Motor Efficiency: 96.20 Pump Operating Speed, RPM: 1770 Total Dynamic Head, Ft.: 357.0 Impeller Trim, In.: 8.6 Head Type: A:Cast Number of Stages: 5 Pumping Level, 1560.0 Shaft Limit, HP: 255 Matl Correction Fact: 1.18 Shaft Elongation, w/o Adder: 0.11 Impeller Running Clearance: 0.13 Bowl Diameter, In.: 11.75 Bowl Shaft Limit, HP: 376 Bowl Shaft Material: 416SS Column Load, Lb.: 7952.0 Column Elongation, In.: 0.05 Thrust Load Loss, Hp.: 0.50 Motor HorsePower, Hp.: 150 Thrust at Design, Lb.: 3788.0 Actual Head above Grade, Ft.: 224.28 Design Lateral, In.: 0.19 Shutoff Disc Pressure, psi: 138.1 NPSHa, Ft.: 83.15 NPSHr, Ft.: 16.00 NPSH margin, Ft.: 67.15 Pump Efficiency: 83.72 Overall Efficiency: 80.54 KWH/1000 gallons: 1.39 Column Weight,Lbs.: 7525 Can Weight,Lbs.: 0 Total Pump Weight,Lbs.: 10618 Component Weights Bowl Weight, Lbs.: 1053 Head Weight, Lbs.: 540 M r Weight, Lbs.: 1500 Version: 3.92P Customer: Date: 08-08-2008 MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO. 686286 WELL LOCATION Section No. 6 Number, Street Name, City, and Zip Code of Well Location Hwy 62 & Gleaqon Rd MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING RECORD Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 WELL DEPTH (completed) Date Work Completed 6/30/08 DRILLING METHOD X Cable Tool 17 Driven q Auger D Rotary County Name Hennepin 'hip Name Township No. Rangq No 116 21 Fraction NE NW VE v. or Fire Number 0 Dug 0 Jetted Show exact location of well In section grid with 'X". N 2Ci I I Sketch map of well location. Showing property tines, roads and buildings. DRILLING FLUID Bentonite USE 0 Domestic 0 Irrigation q Environ. Bore Hole 0 YES LXN0 ft. 0 Heating/Cooling 0 Industry/Commercial D Remedial HOLE DIAM. O Monitoring x Community PWS q Noncommunity PWS q Dewatering CASING Drive Shoe? Xi Yes 0 No X Steel D Threaded 0 Welded q Plastic q ET WELL HYDROFRACTURED? FROM ft. to WEIGHT lbs./ft. lbs./ft. lbs /ft. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME CASING DIAMETER 3—In.to 1877 ft 24 In 210 ". 18 in. to 265 ft. 10mth187t _241.t0264ft. 180 0467". City of Edina 701,1 Property owner's mailing address if different than well location address indicated above. 4801 W 50th St Edina, MN 55424 SCREEN OPEN HOLE Make from 264 ft to 467 Type Diem. Slot/Gauze Length Set between ft. and ft. FITTINGS: STATIC WATER LEVEL 90 it. X below 0 above land surface Date measured 6/11/08 WELL OWNER'S NAME Well owner's mailing address if different than property owner's address Indicated above. PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) 105 ft. after 24 hrs. pumping 1200 w.p.m. WELL HEAD COMPLETION q PilleSS adapter manufacturer Model pc Casing Protection X 12 in. above grade 0 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS COLOR HARDNESS OF MATERIAL FROM TO Clay, Sand, Grave 1 EN S 0 40 Clay, Sand, Grave 1, Rocks BN S 40 125 Sand & Gravel BN S 125 180 Clay & Sand Grey S 180 200 Sand & Gravel EN S 200 207 Sandstone & Shale Buff 207 248 Limestone Buff H 248 375 Sandstone White 375 460 Shale Use a second sheet 460 467 REMARKS, ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA, etc. GROUTING INFORMATION Well grouted? X Yes 0 No Grout Material X Neat cement 0 Bentonite from 0 to 187 from 0 to 264 tram to q yds. D bags PUMP X Not installed Manufacturers name Date Installed Model number HP Volts ep-m- q ABANDONED WELLS Does property have any not In use and not sealed well(s)? q Yes X No VARIANCE Was a variance granted from the MDR for this well? 0 Yes IXNo TNN WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION This well was drilled under my supervision and In accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. The information contained in this report Is true to the best of my knowledge. 0 Concrete ft. ft. 0 High Solids Bentonite 12 X yds. 0 bags 16 X Yds. 0 bags NEAREST KNOWN SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION 100 feet Well disinfected upon completion? res 0 No direction Sne Length of drop pipe Type: 0 Submersible q L.S. Turbine ft. Capacity 0 Reciprocating LI Jet ill #20 Keys Well Drilling Ca_ Licensee Business Name Lic. or Reg. No. 7/16/08 Authoriz Representative.Sii a furs Date Job #2007141 IMPORTANT - FILE WITH PROPERTY PAPERS WELL OWNER COPY 686286 Mike Galvin Name of Driller 7/16/08 Date ' HE-01205-07 (Rev. 2/99) Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031686286 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/09/2008 Quad Hopkins Update Date 10/06/2015 Quad ID 104B Received Date 07/18/2008 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed EDINA 20 116 21 W 6 ABABCD 467 ft.467 ft.06/30/2008 Elevation 881 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Cable Tool Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use community supply(municipal)Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To Casing Type Step down No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Contact 4801 50TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 Well GLEASON RD EDINA MN 55424 Geological Material From To (ft.)Color Hardness CLAY, SAND , GRAVEL 0 40 SOFTBROWN CLAY, SAND , GRAVEL 40 125 SOFTBROWN SAND & GRAVEL 125 180 SOFTBROWN CLAY & SAND 180 200 SOFTGRAY SAND & GRAVEL 200 207 SOFTBROWN SANDSTONE & SHALE 207 211 MEDIUMTAN SANDSTONE & SHALE 211 247 MEDIUMTAN SANDSTONE & SHALE 247 248 MEDIUMTAN LIMESTONE 248 375 HARDTAN SANDSTONE 375 380 MEDIUMWHITE SANDSTONE 380 460 MEDIUMWHITE SHALE 460 463 MEDIUMGREEN SHALE 463 467 MEDIUMGREEN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 30 187 118.in. To ft.lbs./ft. 18 265 20.5in. To ft.lbs./ft. 24 210 94.6in. To ft.lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 30 187in. To ft. 24 264in. To ft. 18 467in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 264Open Hole From ft.To ft.467 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) GAMMA LOGGED 6-27-2008. M.G.S. NO. 4841. LOGGED BY JIM TRAEN. Material FromAmount To neat cement ft.264 ft.16 Cubic yards neat cement ft.187 ft.12 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 686286 HE-01205-15 Printed on 05/11/2017 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeXX X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.90 Measureland surface 06/11/2008 ft.105 hrs.24 Pumping at 1200 g.p.m. 100 feet West Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes X Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No.Name of Driller Keys Well Drilling Co. 1347 GALVIN, M. Remarks St.Peter Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien- 211 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) System X Y469502 4970896 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 07/09/2008Info/GPS from data Angled Drill Hole WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.D November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.D Breakpoint Chlorination Testing Results Well No. 16 Breakpoint Chlorination CurveVerified Chlorine Concentration 0.82 mg/L1.25 0Current Flow1000gpm1.253.5Raw Water QualityMonochloramine 0.04 mg/LFree Ammonia 0.42 mg/L 2.1Iron 0.67 mg/LManganese 0.114 mg/LRotten Egg Odor? (H2S) Y Y/N Stronger hydrogen sulfide smell, ~0.1 per test kitAdditional CommentsCurrent Chlorine FeedFeed Rate 15 lb/dayFeed Rate 1.25 mg/LJarCl2 Added Cl2 Dose Total Cl2Free Cl2Free NH3MonochloramineCl2/NH3(mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ratio0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.04 0.0Chlorine Doses based on Results (mg/L)Cl2/NH31 0.80 0.7 0.50 0.00 0.35 0.50 1.6 1:29:00 PMPeak Chloramination 2.4 5.72 1.70 1.4 1.18 0.00 0.19 1.12 3.3 1:40:00 PMBreakpoint 4.4 10.53 2.60 2.1 1.79 0.00 0.02 1.69 5.1 1:50:00 PMBreakpoint with 2 mg/L TCR 6.4 15.29 2.90 2.4 1.99 0.00 0.00 1.82 5.7 2:52:00 PM4 3.40 2.8 1.78 0.00 0.00 1.60 6.6 2:00:00 PM5 4.40 3.6 1.23 0.16 0.00 0.86 8.6 2:10:00 PM6 5.40 4.4 0.55 0.35 - 0.19 10.5 2:20:00 PM7 6.60 5.4 1.24 1.03 - 0.07 12.9 2:30:00 PM8 8.00 6.6 2.16 1.88 - 0.07 15.6 2:40:00 PMAnalysis Reaction Time 30 minStoichiometric CalculationsPeak Chloramination 2.7 Assuming reactions reach equilibrium 0.000.501.001.502.002.500.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Residual Concentration, mg/LChlorine Dosage, mg/LTotal ChlorineFree ChlorineFree AmmoniaMonochloramineFREE CHLORINEMONO-CHLORAMINE Well No. 19 Breakpoint Chlorination CurveVerified Chlorine Concentration 0.82 mg/L2.19 0Current Flow950gpm2.193.5Raw Water QualityMonochloramine 0.02 mg/LFree Ammonia 0.39 mg/L 1.95Iron 0.55 mg/LManganese 0.076 mg/LRotten Egg Odor? (H2S) Y Y/N Stronger hydrogen sulfide smell, ~0.1 per test kitAdditional CommentsCurrent Chlorine FeedFeed Rate 25 lb/dayFeed Rate 2.19 mg/LJarCl2 Added Cl2 Dose Total Cl2Free Cl2Free NH3MonochloramineCl2/NH3(mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ratio0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.02 0.0Chlorine Doses based on Results (mg/L)Cl2/NH31 0.80 0.7 0.55 0.00 0.28 0.50 1.7 3:58:00 PMPeak Chloramination 2.6 6.72 1.60 1.3 1.16 0.00 0.16 1.02 3.4 4:08:00 PMBreakpoint 4 10.33 2.40 2.0 1.67 0.00 0.03 1.53 5.0 4:18:00 PMBreakpoint with 2 mg/L TCR 6 15.44 2.90 2.4 1.97 0.00 0.00 1.80 6.1 4:28:00 PM5 3.40 2.8 1.96 0.12 0.00 1.55 7.1 4:38:00 PM6 4.40 3.6 0.81 0.17 - 0.48 9.3 4:48:00 PM7 5.40 4.4 0.72 0.57 - 0.12 11.4 4:58:00 PM8 6.60 5.4 1.46 1.36 - 0.08 13.9 5:08:00 PM9 8.00 6.6 2.44 2.18 - 0.05 16.8 5:13:00 PMAnalysis Reaction Time 30 minStoichiometric CalculationsPeak Chloramination 2.4 Assuming reactions reach equilibrium 0.000.501.001.502.002.500.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Residual Concentration, mg/LChlorine Dosage, mg/LTotal ChlorineFree ChlorineFree AmmoniaMonochloramineFREE CHLORINEMONO-CHLORAMINE Well No. 20 Breakpoint Chlorination CurveVerified Chlorine Concentration 0.82 mg/L1.75 0Current Flow950gpm1.753.5Raw Water QualityMonochloramine 0.07 mg/LFree Ammonia 0.23 mg/L 1.15Iron 0.35 mg/LManganese 0.063 mg/LRotten Egg Odor? (H2S) Y Y/N Faint hydrogen sulfide smell, <0.1 per test kitAdditional CommentsCurrent Chlorine FeedFeed Rate 20 lb/dayFeed Rate 1.75 mg/LJarCl2 Added Cl2 Dose Total Cl2Free Cl2Free NH3MonochloramineCl2/NH3(mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ratio0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.07 0.01 0.40 0.3 0.28 0.00 0.21 0.26 1.4 11:02:00 AMChlorine Doses based on Results (mg/L)Cl2/NH32 0.80 0.7 0.58 0.00 0.13 0.57 2.9 11:11:00 AMPeak Chloramination 1.7 7.43 1.20 1.0 0.89 0.00 0.04 0.88 4.3 11:21:00 AMBreakpoint 2.5 10.94 1.60 1.3 1.17 0.03 0.00 1.18 5.7 11:31:00 AMBreakpoint with 2 mg/L TCR 4.6 20.08 1.80 1.5 1.32 0.06 0.00 1.24 6.4 12:12:00 PM5 2.00 1.6 1.43 0.07 0.00 1.30 7.1 11:41:00 AM6 2.40 2.0 1.21 0.10 0.00 0.91 8.6 11:51:00 AM7 2.80 2.3 0.64 0.13 0.00 0.41 10.0 12:01:00 PM9 3.20 2.6 0.55 0.28 - 0.16 11.4 12:27:00 PM10 4.00 3.3 0.90 0.76 - 0.05 14.3 12:52:00 PM10 5.00 4.1 1.56 1.39 - - 17.8 1:37:00 PMAnalysis Reaction Time 30 minStoichiometric CalculationsPeak Chloramination 1.5 Assuming reactions reach equilibrium 0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.000.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5Residual Concentration, mg/LChlorine Dosage, mg/LTotal ChlorineFree ChlorineFree AmmoniaMonochloramineFREE CHLORINEMONO-CHLORAMINE WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.E November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.E Option 5A – Dublin Site with Gravity Filters Site Layout File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 06.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:07:36 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: LOWER LEVEL PLAN SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA LOWER LEVEL PLAN MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003104P1NHROT1P1LOWER LEVEL PLAN04'20'8'12'16'24'28' File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 06.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:07:36 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: MAIN LEVEL PLAN SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA MAIN LEVEL PLAN MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003204P2NHROT1P2MAIN LEVEL PLAN04'20'8'12'16'24'28' File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 06.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:07:36 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: UPPER LEVEL PLAN SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA UPPER LEVEL PLAN MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003304P3NHROT1P3UPPER LEVEL PLAN04'20'8'12'16'24'28' File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 06.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:07:36 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: ELEVATIONS SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA ELEVATIONS MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003404P42P4ELEVATION04'20'8'12'16'24'28'1P4ELEVATION04'20'8'12'16'24'28' WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.F November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.F Option 5B – Dublin Site with Pressure Filters Site Layout File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 07.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33:57 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: LOWER LEVEL PLAN SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA PRESSURE FILTERS - LOWER LEVEL PLAN MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003104P1NHROT1P1LOWER LEVEL PLAN04'20'8'12'16'24'28' File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 07.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33:57 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: MAIN LEVEL PLAN SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA PRESSURE FILTERS - MAIN LEVEL PLAN MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003204P2NHROT1P2MAIN LEVEL PLAN04'20'8'12'16'24'28' File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 07.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33:57 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: UPPER LEVEL PLAN SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA PRESSURE FILTERS - ROOF LEVEL PLAN MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003304P3NHROT1P3ROOF LEVEL PLAN04'20'8'12'16'24'28' File: W:\E\Edina\05177-2016-000\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP Dublin Site 07.dwgLast Saved: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33:57 PMPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Thursday, November 08, 2018 Layout: ELEVATIONS SHEETPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED / APPROVEDDATEDRAWING TYPEPREPARED BYofDRAWING/Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 4050 Garden View Dr Ste 200 Grand Forks, ND 58201 l (t) 701-746-8087 (f) 701-746-0370 l www.ae2s.comPR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR E LIM I N AR Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA WTP - DUBLIN RESERVOIR SITE CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA PRESSURE FILTERS - ELEVATIONS MILESTONE - 30%PRELIMINARYRCLAMBASVOCT 2018P05177-2018-003404P42P4ELEVATION04'20'8'12'16'24'28'1P4ELEVATION04'20'8'12'16'24'28' WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.G November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.G SEH Dublin Site Water System Analysis Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Aaron Vollmer, PE FROM: Chad T. Katzenberger, PE DATE: November 29, 2018 RE: Water Treatment Plant No.5 – Dublin Location Analysis SEH No. EDINA 143535 14.00 This technical memo is in response to the correspondence with AE2S and the City of Edina requesting assistance with strategic water distribution system modeling related to the analysis of a proposed water treatment plant site, located at the existing Dublin Storage reservoir. In August 2017, extensive work was completed to analyze the merits of four potential water treatment plant sites. This memo will serve to summarize the hydraulic feasibility of a fifth water plant site option located at the Dublin Reservoir. The intent of this memo serves to summarize the assumptions and findings related to the water distribution system modeling analysis requested as well as analyze the impacts to the overall water system planning related to water system storage. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) is in the processing of preparing an amendment to the Water Treatment Plant No. 5 Preliminary Engineering Report for the City of Edina, which will consider a fifth potential water treatment plant site, located at the Dublin storage reservoir. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH®) currently maintains the City’s water distribution system model and recently completed a 2018 water supply plan. The City has requested that AE2S and SEH work together to evaluate the hydraulic implications of the proposed water treatment plant site located at the Dublin reservoir. The City previously considered four (4) sites for future WTP No.5. The potential locations included: Southdale, Median (near Southdale), Yorktown and Existing WTP No. 3 Site, which are examined in greater detail in the previous report. SEH has recently completed a new water system supply plan for the City of Edina, which included the update and calibration of the City’s water distribution system model and future water system facility recommendations. The updated model can now be used to analysis an additional water treatment plant site, which was identified as part of the 2018 water supply planning project. In addition to the system implications mentioned in the previous water plant site analysis work, special care should be given to analyze the impacts to the operation and function of the Dublin storage tank as it relates to the accommodation of a potential water treatment facility. Below is a summary of the requested Water Distribution Model Scenario Analysis outcomes per the previous site analysis: 1. Evaluate hydraulic capacity of the site using the latest water distribution system model. 2. Evaluate pressure increase surrounding the proposed treatment plant site during an average day demand condition. 3. Evaluate site function and operation during peak demands in relation to water tank operation and overall water distribution system function. Water Treatment Plant No.5 – Dublin Location Analysis Page 2 Requested Data (Results): 1. What impact does the proposed facility have during average day demands? 2. What impact does the proposed facility have during peak demands? 3. Identify concerns, if any, in existing pipe capacity and/or fluctuations in water storage levels. Does the water main need to be upsized to accommodate proposed WTP capacity? Are the velocities less than 5 feet per second? Is headloss (per 1000 ft) limited to less than 2-3 ft/1000 ft? Additional Results: 1. What overall system impacts would result with the reduction in storage volume at the Dublin site. 2. What are the hydraulic impacts if the WTP capacity were increased to 5,000 gpm. Water Model Scenario Summary Scenario Site Total Plant Capacity (gpm) General Description 5A Dublin 3,000 Utilize existing facility effluent piping 5B 5,000 Utilize 2040 assumed pipe improvements (pipe upgraded to 16-inch main from Dublin to Metro Blvd along 70th) DUBLIN RESEVOIR REVIEW The Dublin Reservoir is a 4.0 million gallon (mg) tank that serves the City with dump and re-pump capabilities. The facility includes a booster pumping station that serves the City with reserve storage, fire protection and system equalization. The Dublin reservoir is lower in elevation than the hydraulic grade line of the other four tanks. Water flows from the distribution system by gravity into the reservoir through a flow control valve in the pump station. The booster pumps are used to return the water to the distribution system. For the 2018 water supply plan, a particular goal for the City was to utilize the Dublin Street booster station and reservoir to behave as a peak water supply source by filling with treated water during off-peak periods and discharging during peak periods. This facility is located on a hilltop, surrounded by customers at approximately the same elevation as the base of the tank. Per city standards, normal working pressure should be at least 35 psi. Since pressure decreases with elevation, maintaining 35 psi in these service connections is challenging when headloss is required to flow water into the tank. As a result, use of the Dublin facility is limited due to re-fill restrictions. In summary, the water supply plan analysis identified the filling cycle (from the distribution system) of the Dublin storage as the limiting factor in utilization of the tank. In short, use of the tank is limited by the ability to re-fil the tank on a regular basis. When the tank is operated in a way that maximizes tank turnover (maximized emptying and filling cycles, limited by the re-fill rate), the effective daily volume available from the Dublin tank is 1.8 MG. For the purposes of overall water system storage volume needs analysis, the effective available volume of water available from the Dublin tank on a daily basis is 2.88 MG (Assuming constant pumping with no refill). The function of a water storage tank can be equated to reserve storage for emergencies, reserve storage for fire protection and storage for system equalization. As the use of the storage facility rates to equalization, peak hourly demands throughout the system are met from water supply sources (wells/treatment) and water drawn from storage facilities. Although the rate of consumption during peak hour is very high, the duration is short. A moderate amount of water supplied from strategically located storage facilities throughout the system provides satisfactory service (pressure and flow) to all users, while minimizing the total peak hour pumping required, minimizes distribution pipe sizing, and permits more uniform operation of supply facilities. System storage also increases the reliability of service by providing additional supply in the event of a mechanical breakdown, power outage, or fire. Storage facilities can be provided in one of two ways: a gravity feed (elevated tank) systems or pumped systems. Currently the Dublin tank operates during peak demand hours, expelling water to satisfy Peak demands. If the Dublin tank is to provide a similar function in the future, the high service pumping facilities located at the treatment facility should have the ability to pump a higher capacity than the supply wells to enable supply to the system beyond the normal well production rate during peak hour demands. Water Treatment Plant No.5 – Dublin Location Analysis Page 3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS The City’s most current water distribution system model was utilized to evaluate each of the water model scenarios identified above. Each of the scenarios described above was constructed into the model incorporating both a steady state and extended period simulation (EPS) for each scenario alternative. Steady State Analysis This model operation provides for a comprehensive assessment of overall system operating conditions at a given point in time. For this analysis, average day demands were assumed to be present in the system with WTP’s No.2, No.3 & No.6 in operation and elevated storage tank levels at 2-feet below overflow. The purpose of this analysis is to take a comparative look at system pressure and pipe headloss in relation to what is experienced in the current water system. For example, the proposed site may not have large enough distribution piping to transfer the WTP flow to other parts of the system, which in turn will result in elevated discharge pressures and excessive headloss. It should be noted that for purposes of site comparison, similar demand and water tower levels for each scenario were considered. Though the results may indicate a certain pressure increase, in practice, the proposed water plant could be designed and subsequently operated to modulate flow. This in turn would reduce dynamic system pressures and observed pressure increases. Extended Period Simulation (EPS) An EPS water model operation is utilized to evaluate the effect of the proposed water treatment plant locations in relation to water tank balance. Evaluation of the effect on hydraulic balance of the water towers on the distribution system can depend on many factors such as the geographic distribution of system demands and on the accuracy of pump controls. In most cases, it is during peak demand conditions that tower balance becomes a concern. This is because there is a greater amount of water being moved through the distribution system from supply sources and storage facilities to points of use. Under these conditions it becomes more difficult to push water long distances, and towers tend to drain quickly during periods of the day when demands are highest. As a result, it becomes difficult to keep some towers full without overflowing other towers when these conditions are present. For purposes of this analysis, a similar water tower balance exercise to what was done as part of the 2013 Water System Demand and Capacity Analysis was completed. The model was run for three consecutive days, with average July water demand, to evaluate tower levels over time. Controls for other water treatment plant sites were set to operate the various facilities on and off to maintain water tower levels. A control assumption was made for the WTP No.5 operation with the plant operating on a continuous basis since each location site location would have unique control implications. This allows for each scenario to be compared against one another while utilizing similar assumptions. For comparison purposes, a model operation utilizing the existing system facilities as completed so that proposed scenario results could be compared with current system hydraulics. Initial water tower levels for all simulations was set to 10-feet below overflow with average July summer demands in place. It should be noted that extensive analysis of system diurnal demands have not been completed, therefore model results for EPS simulations should be relied upon for hydraulic comparison between scenarios and should not be considered a replacement for actual field results. Maximum Day (MD) fixed Grade Flow Capacity – EPS simulation An additional site comparison metric was developed analyzing the amount of water that could be pushed into the distribution system at each site while maintaining a fixed hydraulic grade. In essence, signifies the quantity of water that the distribution piping move while maintaining system pressures that consistent with current system pressure and do not exceed the hydraulic grade established by the system water towers. An EPS model simulation for each scenario was conducted assuming maximum day diurnal system demands. In general, as more water is demanded by customers in the system, throughout the day, additional water will be able to be supplied by the WTP without exceeding pressure thresholds. The average 24-hour flow rate from each site is summarized in the model results table. In practice, this type of operation would be consistent with WTP high service pumps operated at variable flows while utilizing variable frequency drives (VFD’s) and reserve clearwell storage capacity at each treatment plant site. Water Treatment Plant No.5 – Dublin Location Analysis Page 4 Supply & Storage & High Service Pumping Impacts Currently two potential plant capacities have been discussed (3,000 gpm or 5,000 gpm). Presumably, the ability to pump at a higher rate than the plant production with the high service pumps would be preferred. With the Dublin tank satisfying water system storage needs, system equalization support (in addition to emergency reserve and fire protection) is an important function of a water storage facility. Currently, the primary function of the Dublin storage tank is that of emergency reserve storage, with the tank operated in fill and dump cycles to keep water circulating through the tank. The 2018 water supply plan (Table 3-5) made estimates for future water storage needs though year 2040 with 1.4 MG attributed to equalization storage, 0.63 MG to fire protection reserve and 4.0 MG for emergency reserve for a total recommended storage volume of 6.0 MG. The four existing elevated tanks in the system provide 3.0 MG of storage. These elevated tanks can be assumed to provide the equalization portion of the storage requirements with storage in the Dublin tank supporting emergency reserve storage and fire protection storage. However, it may be beneficial to have the ability to deliver equalization supply (flow rates beyond the well and water treatment plant capacity) to the distribution system. Using the assumption that the peak hour demand of the water system is 1.6 times greater than the daily demand, the ability to pump up to 4,800 gpm should be planned for I the WTP is rated for 3,000 gpm (Option 5A). Utilizing the same pump sizing estimation for the 5,000 gpm WTP option would require up to 8,000 gpm of firm high service pumping capacity (Option 5B). Rates of this magnitude may not be feasible, or necessary since the majority of water contained in the Dublin facility could be considered emergency reserve and fire storage, while the elevated tanks in the system support the majority of the equalization needs. In this case, viewing the 4.0 storage facility (largest storage option) at the site as entirely emergency reserve storage, the ability to pump the entirety of the tank to distribution over a period of 12 hours would be required. This would equate to a flow rate of 5,500 gpm, which would be achievable with existing piping that is in place, during an emergency. MODEL ANALYSIS RESULTS Steady State and EPS simulations were completed for each of the scenarios identified above. The results of these simulations are summarized below. In addition, figures presenting results from each scenario alternative are attached. Each figure shows the expected system pressure increase on the system with the proposed scenario facilities in place, during average day demand when compared to the existing system average day demand pressures. Additionally, each figure presents simulated tank levels over a 72-hour period during peak demands. The figures help to document the system wide effects of the proposed facilities defined in each scenario. Scenario 5A – Dublin Site – Existing System Piping – 3,000 gpm Supply This Scenario assumes additional supply capacity would be pushed into the water system at the existing Dublin storage reservoir. This scenario would function similar to what is currently done at the Dublin site by pushing water supply into the existing 16-inch nearby water main. Rather than pumping at 2,000 gpm like the current Dublin pump station, water would be produced and pumped at a rate of 3,000 gpm. Without any specific water main improvements, it appears as though model results are favorable. However, nearby water mains velocities would approach but not exceed 5 fps in some areas. The operation of the water system in this manor would not produce excessive pressures. The peak demand EPS simulation indicates that the Southdale storage tank level may lag during large system demands, as may currently be experienced. This phenomenon is primarily due to the proximity of system supply to areas of demand (The majority of the system demand is in the Southdale area). The MD fixed grade flow analysis indicates that if system pressures were to be limited to current levels, the maximum amount of flow that could be conducted from this site would be 2,800 gpm which is near what is needed for the proposed facility. A slight increase in head at the supply point would allow for full flow delivery. In short, increasing supply at this location appears to be a viable option, however, in the long run, increasing the East-West flow capacity would be recommended to deliver water to the Southdale area more efficiently. Water Treatment Plant No.5 – Dublin Location Analysis Page 5 Scenario 5B – Dublin Site – 2040 System Piping – 5,000 gpm Supply This Scenario is similar to Scenario 5A except it includes portions of trunk water main upgrades that match the water mains recommended in the 2018 water supply plan for long range planning. These pipes were included in the model operation runs in an effort to alleviate excessive pipe headloss and pressure increase at the anticipated 5,000 gpm design flow. The most substantial and necessary pipe for this alternative includes a 16-inch main from Dublin to Metro Blvd along 70th or equivalent. The steady state model operations of this site include an increase in system pressure, however, existing low pressures already exist in this area and the pressure increase could be considered a benefit. The proposed pipe upgrades help to keep system pipe velocity at a manageable level, however it would be recommended that a 24-inch water main be installed from the plant discharge to the intersection of Antrim/70th. Ultimately, the anticipated pipe upgrades would help to move water across the system from the point of supply to area of demand and aid in the operational balance of the elevated storage tanks. A summary table of each model scenario is provided below: Water Model Output Results Summary Site Scenario Existing Average Day Discharge Pressure at Main (psi) Anticipated Average Day Discharge Pressure at Main (psi) Nearby System Pressure Increase (psi) Maximum Nearby System Pipe Velocity (fps) Maximum Nearby pipe Headloss (per 1000 ft) *MD Fixed Grade Average Flow Capacity (gpm) Average Summer Day EPS Simulation - Tank Balance Dublin 5A 39 42 2 4.8 6 2,800 Southdale Tank Lags other tanks by 10’ 5B 45 4 8.0 17 3,600 All tanks trend together – Southdale lags *Indicates flow capacity of site assuming a fixed hydraulic grade operation during a maximum day demand, limiting system pressure to the Hydraulic grade of the existing water towers. KEY FINDINGS Water Storage Impacts Currently the Dublin water storage reservoir has a capacity of 4.0 MG, 2.88 MG of which is currently useable on a daily basis. Correspondence with AE2S indicated that if a new water treatment facility were to be located at the Dublin reservoir, the storage capacity may be reduced by 1.4 to 2.0 MG. Construction of a WTP at this site would change the ultimate water storage recommendations previously set forth in the 2018 water supply plan. The plan indicated a 2040 storage shortfall of 0.5 MG which could be satisfied by either adding additional elevated storage or optimization of the Dublin site (increasing the existing 2.8 MG Useable capacity). With the reduction in storage capacity, it would be recommended that an additional 1.0-1.5 MG of water storage be added to the system by the year 2040 (assuming projected system demand growth). Potential alternatives to accomplish this could include: Option 1: Reconstruction of the Community Center water tower: This is a legged style water tank with a capacity of 0.5 MG. Inevitably this tank will require complete reconditioning. An alternative to reconditioning would be to construct an entirely new elevated storage tank in its place with a larger capacity (1.5-2.0 MG). This would provide a positive benefit in that it would provide elevated storage in a closer proximity to the majority of water use. Option 2: Increase Storage at Dublin: An additional alternative to replacing lost storage at Dublin (displaced in the horizontal) would be to add additional storage vertically. While this would likely require complete reconstruction of the Dublin tank, it would allow storage to be added as needed. Presuming this alternative would provide 4.0 MG of effective storage at Dublin, it would be recommended that the high service pumps be sized to support flows of 4,800 gpm which would equate to the peak hour demand supported by the Dublin storage facility. (Scenario 5A) Water Treatment Plant No.5 – Dublin Location Analysis Page 6 Option 3: Add storage at Water Treatment Plant 3: A 1.0-1.5 MG ground storage tank with high service pumps could be constructed at existing water plant No.3 (near Fred Richards Golf course) to provide emergency reserve storage, which would replace what would be lost at the Dublin tank and support effective storage needs. Changes would need to be made at this plant site to support high service pumping since this facility currently utilizes pressure filtration (water is pumped directly from the wells, through the filters to the distribution system). If the new water treatment facility were to be constructed at a site other thanks Dublin, the recommended improvements for optimization set forth in the water supply plan would remain and include: The East/West trunk water main improvements, pump, control and metering upgrades as well general facility improvements to all for more controlled operation of the facility. Water Supply-Storage Impacts If water plant option 5A were to be constructed, it is recommended that higher service pumping system be designed to achieve a firm pumping capacity of 4,800 gpm. In the short term, the high service pumps could be operated at the 3,000 gpm rate and 4,800 gpm rate in an emergency. As the water system piping is upgraded in the future, regular operation of the higher service pumps at a rate of 4,800 gpm would be possible without elevated flow velocity in the distribution system. If water plant option 5B were to be constructed, future east/west water system pipe upgrades should be in place in order to operate at full capacity. For purposes of this review, it will be assumed that delivery of equalization storage from the Dublin tank under this option would not be prudent, in which case utilization wholly as an emergency reserve storage facility would be assumed. Sizing the high service pumps to a firm capacity of 5,500 gpm would be recommended. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were developed as part of the analysis of the Dublin site: 1. Supplying water from the Dublin site at a rate of 3,000 gpm (Scenario 5A) appears to be feasible with minor water distribution system upgrades. Additional water main upgrades would be recommended in the future. High service pumping should be sized to produce a firm capacity of 4,800 gpm from the Dublin storage tank/Clearwell to the distribution system. 2. Supplying water from the Dublin site at a rate of 5,000 gpm (Scenario 5B) would require portions of the 2040 recommended water main improvements to be in place to accommodate the higher flows on a regular basis. High service pumping should be sized to produce a firm capacity of 5,500 gpm from the Dublin storage tank/Clearwell to the distribution system. 3. The reduction of storage volume at the Dublin site would influence the additional long term storage needs for the City with an additional storage volume of 1.5 MG recommended. 4. Conversion of the Dublin site to a supply/treatment location would eliminate the current fill limitations of the Dublin tank facility operation and would ultimately benefit system wide water age reductions. 5. It is assumed that the proposed water treatment facility at the Dublin site would function by utilizing the Dublin tank as a combined clearwell and storage facility, which would cycle water through the tank, to achieve plug flow, and reduce water age. ck/mrb Attachments c: Ross Bintner, City of Edina Toby Muse, SEH s:\ae\e\edina\common\water\wtp no.5 model analysis\2018 dublin\2018.11.30 m city wtp at dublin analysis.docx !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(W 70th StGleason RdBrook Dr W 68th St Cahill RdTracy AveValley View Rd Antrim RdHill si de LnLanham LnLi meri ck L n Erin Ter McGuire RdGalway Dr Chapel Dr Tupa Dr Fleetwood DrShannon Dr Lois Ln Susan Ave Scotia D r Chapel LnVillage Dr Down Rd Oak GlenDubl i n RdTralee DrShane Dr Lewis Ridge Pkwy Lee Valley RdSaint Patricks LnAntrim Ct Braemar Blvd Loch Moor Dr Amundson AveKerry Rd Schey Dr W 69th St Gleason CirB r a eburn C ir Weston CirDublin Cir Wexford RdLee Vall ey Cir Cahill Rd73 33 2 1 22 22 21 1 0 1 1 111 2 1 11 1 11 1 2 00 0 0 1 21 1 2 11 2 21 1 2 11 2 2 11 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 111 1 11 11 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 00 10 1 0 1 1 1 00 10 0 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 1 1 0 1 01 1 0 11 1 000 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 0 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 111 Water Treatment Plant No.5 SCENARIO 5A O Map by: CTKProjection: CCSource: WaterCAD V8i Edina, Minnesota Average Day Pressure and Flow Results Dublin WTP. No.5 This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Project Number: EDINA 128385Path: C:\Users\ckatzenberger\Desktop\_ Project Links\_Water Model Initiative\Edina\old\WTP\gis\Figure 5A.mxdPrint Date: 11/12/2018 Proposed WTP No.5Flow = 3,000 gpm Water Tower Tank Balance (EPS Operation) Legend Pipe Velocity (fps) 0.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 7.0 7.0+XX Indicates pressure increase in psi. !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(W 70th StGleason RdBrook Dr W 68th St Tracy AveValley View Rd Hill si de LnAntrim RdCahill RdLi me ri c k L n Lanham LnGal way Dr Erin Ter McGuire Rd Chapel Dr Tupa Dr Lois Ln Susan Ave Fleetwood DrScotia D r Shannon DrChapel LnVillage Dr Down Rd Oak GlenDublin RdTralee DrShane Dr Lee Valley RdSaint Patricks LnAntrim Ct Loch Moor Dr Amundson AveCahill Ln Kerry Rd W 69th St Gleason CirB r a eburn C ir Weston CirDublin Cir Wexford RdLee Vall ey Cir Limerick DrG le ason Te r Saint Albans Cir Cahill Rd8 77 6 4 66 4 4 2 3 2 322 4 2 2 22 222 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 44 4 44 4 4 3 4 33 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 5 4 3 55 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 42 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 5 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 33 333 33 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 2 3 22 2 42 1 3 3 1 2 3 22 2 44 332 3 2 3333 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 33 3 222 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 33 3 3 22 3 3 2 333 3 3 3 1 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 33 Water Treatment Plant No.5 SCENARIO 5B O Map by: CTKProjection: CCSource: WaterCAD V8i Edina, Minnesota Average Day Pressure and Flow Results Dublin WTP. No.5 This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Project Number: EDINA 128385Path: C:\Users\ckatzenberger\Desktop\_ Project Links\_Water Model Initiative\Edina\old\WTP\gis\Figure 5B.mxdPrint Date: 11/12/2018 Proposed WTP No.5Flow = 5,000 gpm Water Tower Tank Balance (EPS Operation) Legend Pipe Upgrades Pipe Velocity (fps) 0.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 7.0 7.0+XX Indicates pressure increase in psi. Upgraded Trunk Main fromDublin to Metro Blvd. Water Treatment Plant No.5 SCENARIO EX-ON O Map by: CTKProjection: CCSource: WaterCAD V8i Edina, Minnesota Existing Estimated Avg. Winter DayWater Age - Dublin ON This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Project Number: EDINA 128385Path: C:\Projects\AE\E\Edina\143535\8-planning\Task 3\_WTP at Dublin Analysis\Figure EX -Dublin On.mxdPrint Date: 12/3/2018 LegendAverage Water AgeLess than 1 day1 to 2 days2 to 3 days3 to 4 days4 to 5 days5 to 6 days Greater than 6 daysSupplied By Others Water Treatment Plant No.5 SCENARIO EX-OFF O Map by: CTKProjection: CCSource: WaterCAD V8i Edina, Minnesota Existing Estimated Avg. Winter DayWater Age - Dublin OFF This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Project Number: EDINA 128385Path: C:\Projects\AE\E\Edina\143535\8-planning\Task 3\_WTP at Dublin Analysis\Figure EX -Dublin OFF.mxdPrint Date: 12/3/2018 LegendAverage Water AgeLess than 1 day1 to 2 days 2 to 3 days3 to 4 days4 to 5 days5 to 6 days Greater than 6 daysSupplied By Others Water Treatment Plant No.5 SCENARIO 5A O Map by: CTKProjection: CCSource: WaterCAD V8i Edina, Minnesota Existing Estimated Avg. Winter DayWater Age - WTP at Dublin This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Project Number: EDINA 128385Path: C:\Projects\AE\E\Edina\143535\8-planning\Task 3\_WTP at Dublin Analysis\Figure 5A - Age.mxdPrint Date: 11/21/2018 LegendAverage Water AgeLess than 1 day1 to 2 days2 to 3 days3 to 4 days4 to 5 days5 to 6 days Greater than 6 days Supplied By Others WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.H November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.H Dublin Site Preliminary Architectural Renderings WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.I November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.I Option 5A – Dublin Site with Gravity Filters Cost Estimate Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Gravity Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5A Subtotal 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements $745,817 Subtotal 02 0000 Existing Conditions $20,000 Subtotal 03 0000 Concrete $2,485,600 Subtotal 04 0000 Masonry $129,387 Subtotal 05 0000 Metals $238,000 Subtotal 06 0000 Woods,Plastics, and Composits $30,600 Subtotal 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection $213,000 Subtotal 08 0000 Doors and Windows $202,500 Subtotal 09 0000 Finishes $114,989 Subtotal 10 0000 Specialties $18,000 Subtotal 12 0000 Furnishings $10,000 Subtotal 21 0000 Fire Protection $40,000 Subtotal 22 0000 Plumbing $150,000 Subtotal 23 0000 Mechanical $300,000 Subtotal 26 0000 Electrical $1,525,040 Subtotal 31 0000 Earthwork $420,000 Subtotal 32 0000 Exterior Improvements $140,000 Subtotal 33 0000 Utilities $100,000 Subtotal 40 0000 Process Integration $733,700 Subtotal 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment $328,440 Subtotal 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment $461,534 Subtotal $8,406,606 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Legal/Administrative 0.75% $57,456 1.00 B. Mobilization 0.75% $57,456 1.00 C. Supervision 1.0% $76,608 1.00 D. Temporary Facilities 0.75% $57,456 1.00 E. Temporary Utilities 0.75% $57,456 1.00 F. Equipment Rental and Misc. Costs 0.75% $57,456 1.00 G. Bonding and Insurance 1.2% $91,929 1.00 H. Allowances: a. Security and Access Control Hardware $50,000 1.00 b. Computer Hardware, Software, and Equipment, SCADA Licensing $120,000 1.00 c. Instrumentation & Controls Programming $120,000 1.00 Subtotal Allowances $290,000 Subtotal 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements $745,817 02 0000 Existing Conditions Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. General Demolition 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000 1.00 B. Existing Reservoir and Pump Station Select Demolition (Concrete) 1. Concrete Removal 0 CY $80.00 $0.00 $0 1.20 C. Dewatering 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000 1.00 Subtotal 02 0000 Existing Conditions $20,000 03 0000 Concrete Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. General Cast in Place Concrete - Facility 2,220 CY $750.00 $1,665,000.00 $1,665,000 1.00 B. General Cast in Place Concrete - Reservoir 0 CY $750.00 $0.00 $0 1.00 C. Precast Walls 14,300 SF $38.00 $543,400.00 $543,400 1.00 D. 8-inch Precast Hollowcore Roof Plank 9,900 SF $28.00 $277,200.00 $277,200 1.00 Subtotal 03 0000 Concrete $2,485,600 04 0000 Masonry Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.3,130 EA $10.00 $31,300.00 $31,300 1.00 B.340 EA $15.55 $5,287.00 $5,287 1.00 C.5,800 SF $16.00 $92,800.00 $92,800 1.00 Subtotal 04 0000 Masonry $129,387 Modular Brick (North, East, and South Sides) Construction Cost Estimate - Summary 8" CMU 12" CMU Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Gravity Page 1 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Gravity Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5A 05 0000 Metals Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Misc. Metals & Structural Steel 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000 1.00 B.Metal Stairs 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 1.00 C.Metal Railings 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000 1.00 D. Floor Hatches 6 EA $3,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000 1.00 Subtotal 05 0000 Metals $238,000 06 0000 Woods,Plastics, and Composits Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Wood Cabinets 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000 1.00 B. Misc. Carpentry 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000 1.00 C. Fiberglass Grating 820 SF $30.00 $24,600.00 $24,600 1.00 D. FRP Baffling for Reservoir 0 SF $30.00 $0.00 $0 1.30 Subtotal 06 0000 Woods,Plastics, and Composits $30,600 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Nail Base Roof Insulation 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 1.00 B. Cavity Wall Vapor Barrier 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 1.00 C. Below Grade Waterproofing 1 LS $45,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000 1.00 D. Foundation Insulation 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000 1.00 E. Glue Lam Roof System 9000 SF $11.00 $99,000.00 $99,000 1.00 F. Caulking 1 LS $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000 1.00 Subtotal 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection $213,000 08 0000 Doors and Windows Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Doors, Frames & Hard.27 EA $2,500.00 $67,500.00 $67,500 1.00 B. Overhead door 2 EA $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000 1.00 C. Windows 1 LS $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000 1.00 Subtotal 08 0000 Doors and Windows $202,500 09 0000 Finishes Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Floor Tile & Base 100 SF $25.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 1.00 B. Vinyl Wall Base 75 LF $3.02 $226.50 $227 1.00 C. Acoustic @ Blower 200 SF $2.39 $478.00 $478 1.00 D. Paintings & Coatings 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000 1.00 E. Flooring Epoxy Coating 8800 SF $4.18 $36,784.00 $36,784 1.00 Subtotal 09 0000 Finishes $114,989 10 0000 Specialties Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Plaque & Signs 1 LS $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000 1.00 B. Toilet & Bath Accessories 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 1.00 C. Fire Exsting. & LK. Box 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000 1.00 D. Wall Guards and Corner Protection 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $500 1.00 Subtotal 10 0000 Specialties $18,000 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Gravity Page 2 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Gravity Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5A 12 0000 Furnishings Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Laboratory Countertops 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000 1.00 Subtotal 12 0000 Furnishings $10,000 21 0000 Fire Protection Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Fire Suppression 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000 1.00 Subtotal 21 0000 Fire Protection $40,000 22 0000 Plumbing Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Plumbing 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000 1.00 Subtotal 22 0000 Plumbing $150,000 23 0000 Mechanical Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Mechanical 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000 1.00 Subtotal 23 0000 Mechanical $300,000 26 0000 Electrical Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Site Work 1. Metering Cabinets 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 2. Equipment Concrete Pads/Basements 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 3. Grounding 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 4. 800A Feeder in Ductbank 120 LF $400.00 $48,000.00 $57,600 1.20 5. Generator 1 EA $420,000.00 $420,000.00 $504,000 1.20 B. Interior Work 1. Main Switchboard 1 EA $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000 1.20 2. Large Junction Boxes 6 EA $3,000.00 $18,000.00 $21,600 1.20 3. Small Junction Boxes 16 EA $2,000.00 $32,000.00 $38,400 1.20 4. LED lights 100 EA $500.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 5 Color Changing LEDs and Programming 0 EA $1,000.00 $0.00 $0 1.20 6 Receptacles/ Wall Jacks 30 EA $500.00 $15,000.00 $18,000 1.20 7 Process Terminations 60 EA $500.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 8 Fire alarm System 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 9 Access Control and Security 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $48,000 1.20 10 Motor Control Centers 8 EA $10,000.00 $80,000.00 $96,000 1.20 11 High Service VFDs 3 EA $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $90,000 1.20 12 BW VFD 1 EA $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 13 Feeders Less than 60A 800 LF $40.00 $32,000.00 $38,400 1.20 14 100A Feeder 200 LF $65.00 $13,000.00 $15,600 1.20 15 Analog I/O 2800 LF $4.25 $11,900.00 $14,280 1.20 16 Digital I/O 2800 LF $5.00 $14,000.00 $16,800 1.20 17 Cat 6 1500 LF $5.00 $7,500.00 $9,000 1.20 18 Distribution Panelboard 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000.00 $28,800 1.20 19 Step Down Dry Type Transformer 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 20 30A Disconnect Switches (NEMA 12)28 EA $320.27 $8,967.42 $10,760 1.20 21 HVAC Equipment 24 EA $500.00 $12,000.00 $14,400 1.20 22 Unit Heaters 5 EA $1,500.00 $7,500.00 $9,000 1.20 23 Lighting Panelboards 3 EA $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $18,000 1.20 24 Electrical Distribution Equipment 24 EA $750.00 $18,000.00 $21,600 1.20 25 Life Safety System 1 EA $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $45,600 1.20 26 Lightning Protection 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $19,200 1.20 Subtotal 26 0000 Electrical $1,525,040 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Gravity Page 3 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Gravity Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5A 31 0000 Earthwork Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Building Excavation 1.Common Excavation, (EV) 3,800 CY $20.00 $76,000.00 $76,000 1.00 2.Common Excavation, TOPSOIL STRIP (EV)240 CY $15.00 $3,600.00 $3,600 1.00 B.Building Backfill 1.Backfill, Placement of Excavated Material 3800 CY $20.00 $76,000.00 $76,000 1.00 2.Backfill, Imported Material 5100 CY $25.00 $127,500.00 $127,500 1.00 3.Aggregate Base Below Slab 9900 CF $12.00 $118,800.00 $118,800 1.00 4.Road Subgrade Prep 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000 1.00 5.Spread Topsoil 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000 1.00 Subtotal 31 0000 Earthwork $420,000 32 0000 Exterior Improvements Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Landscaping 1.Site Grading 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 1.00 2.Seeding 1,200 SY $5.00 $6,000.00 $6,000 1.00 3.Irrigation 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000 1.00 4.Plantings/Miscellaneous 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000 1.00 B.Site Work 1.Removals a.Pavement Removal 240 SY $12.00 $2,880.00 $3,460 1.20 b.Utility Relocations/Removals 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 c.SWPPP Items (silt fence, fiber rolls, etcC)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 2.Road and Parking Lot a.Site Paving 470 SY $100.00 $47,000.00 $47,000 1.00 b.Sidewalk and Building Entrance Stoops 70 SY $100.00 $7,000.00 $8,400 1.20 c.Road Restoration 120 SY $100.00 $12,000.00 $14,400 1.20 Subtotal 32 0000 Exterior Improvements $140,000 33 0000 Utilities Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Misc. Site Piping 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000 1.00 Subtotal 33 0000 Utilities $100,000 40 0000 Process Integration Item Description Size Length Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Process Piping, Valves, Appurtenances, Fittings 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 1. WTP Influent to Detention Basin 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 2. Detention Basin Bypass 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,400 1.20 3. Detention Basin Overflow 1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $21,600 1.20 4. Filter Influent Manifold 1 LS $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $38,400 1.20 5. Filter Bypass to Clearwell 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,400 1.20 6. Filter Overflow 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,400 1.20 7. Filter Effluent 1 LS $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $66,000 1.20 8. Backwash Supply 1 LS $74,000.00 $74,000.00 $88,800 1.20 9.Backwash Waste 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000 1.20 10.High Service Pump Piping 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,600 1.20 11.Finished Water Piping 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 12.Backwash Reclaim System (Recycle, Sludge)1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $72,000 1.20 13.Clearwell and Detention Basin Overflow and Vent 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000 1.20 14.Detention Basin Sludge Piping 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 15.Air Backwash Piping 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000 1.20 B.Instrumentation and Control System Devices (40 91 00) 1. Chemical Feed System Instrumentation a. Mono/Free Ammonia Analyzer 1 ea $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 2.Conventional Filter Instrumentation a. Ultrasonic Level Transmitters 8 ea $1,300.00 $10,400.00 $12,480 1.20 b.Level Float Switches 5 ea $100.00 $500.00 $600 1.20 3. Pressure Transmitters (w/ Gauge)3 ea $1,040.00 $3,120.00 $3,740 1.20 4.Pressure Gauge 6 ea $400.00 $2,400.00 $2,880 1.20 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Gravity Page 4 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Gravity Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5A C,Instrumentation and Control, Control Panels (40 91 10) 1. Control Panels - a.Master Control Panel 1 ea $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000 1.00 b.Network Panel 1 ea $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 Subtotal 40 0000 Process Integration $733,700 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Vertical Turbine Pump 1. High Service Pumps a.1500 GPM (125HP)3 ea $60,000.00 $180,000.00 $216,000 1.20 2. Backwash Supply Pump 1 ea $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $84,000 1.20 B. Sumbersible Liquid Pumps (43 21 39) 1. Backwash Reclaim Submersible Reclaim Pumps 2 ea $7,900.00 $15,800.00 $18,960 1.20 2. Backwash Reclaim Submersible Sludge Pumps 1 ea $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $9,480 1.20 Subtotal 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment $328,440 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Pre-Negotiated Chemical Feed System Components 1 ls $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 1. All Chemical Feed Pumps on Skids (4 total) 2. Valves, appurtenances, piping on feed skid 3. Chemical Diffusers B. Fluoride Chemical Feed System 1. 400-gallon Bulk Storage Tank 1 ea $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,440 1.20 2. Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 ls $800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 3. Break Tank 1 ea $300.00 $300.00 $360 1.20 4. Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 5. 1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 6.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ls $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 C.HMO Feed System 1. 960-gallon Bulk Storage Tank 1 ea $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,000 1.20 2.Tank Mixer (3/4 HP)1 ea $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $3,360 1.20 3.1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 4.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 5.Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 6.Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 ea $800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 D.Poly/Orthophosphate Feed System 1.800-gallon Storage Tank 1 e.a.$2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,520 1.20 2.Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 e.a.$800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 3.Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 4.1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 5.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 E.Ammonium Sulfate Feed System 1.540-gallon Bulk Tank 1 e.a.$1,320.00 $1,320.00 $1,584 1.20 2.Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 e.a.$800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 3.Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 6. 1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 7.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 F. Chlorine Chemical Feed System 1. Chlorine Feed System 1 e.a. $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 2. Extra Chlorine Piping for Solution and Diffusers 1 l.s. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 3. Chlorine Gas Emergency Shutoff System 1 e.a. $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 G. Filter Equipment 1. Sand Media 1,520 CF $10.00 $15,200.00 $18,240 1.20 2. Anthracite Media 1,012 CF $20.00 $20,240.00 $24,290 1.20 3. Filter Troughs 135 LF $350.00 $47,250.00 $56,700 1.20 4.Underdrain / In-Cell Airwash 1,012 SF $150.00 $151,800.00 $182,160 1.20 H. Filter Air Scour Equipment 1. PD Airwash Blower 1 ea $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $54,000 1.20 Subtotal 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment $461,534 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Gravity Page 5 of 5 WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report Appendix A.J November 2018 P05177-2018-003 Appendix A.J Option 5B – Dublin Site with Pressure Filters Cost Estimate Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Pressure Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5B Subtotal 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements $771,913 Subtotal 02 0000 Existing Conditions $20,000 Subtotal 03 0000 Concrete $1,909,580 Subtotal 04 0000 Masonry $82,987 Subtotal 05 0000 Metals $238,000 Subtotal 06 0000 Woods,Plastics, and Composits $18,000 Subtotal 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection $213,000 Subtotal 08 0000 Doors and Windows $202,500 Subtotal 09 0000 Finishes $114,989 Subtotal 10 0000 Specialties $18,000 Subtotal 12 0000 Furnishings $10,000 Subtotal 21 0000 Fire Protection $40,000 Subtotal 22 0000 Plumbing $150,000 Subtotal 23 0000 Mechanical $300,000 Subtotal 26 0000 Electrical $1,521,040 Subtotal 31 0000 Earthwork $420,000 Subtotal 32 0000 Exterior Improvements $140,000 Subtotal 33 0000 Utilities $100,000 Subtotal 40 0000 Process Integration $784,700 Subtotal 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment $328,440 Subtotal 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment $1,488,144 Subtotal $8,871,293 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Legal/Administrative 0.75% $60,745 1.00 B. Mobilization 0.75% $60,745 1.00 C. Supervision 1.0% $80,994 1.00 D. Temporary Facilities 0.75% $60,745 1.00 E. Temporary Utilities 0.75% $60,745 1.00 F. Equipment Rental and Misc. Costs 0.75% $60,745 1.00 G. Bonding and Insurance 1.2% $97,193 1.00 H. Allowances: a. Security and Access Control Hardware $50,000 1.00 b. Computer Hardware, Software, and Equipment, SCADA Licensing $120,000 1.00 c. Instrumentation & Controls Programming $120,000 1.00 Subtotal Allowances $290,000 Subtotal 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements $771,913 02 0000 Existing Conditions Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. General Demolition 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000 1.00 B. Existing Reservoir and Pump Station Select Demolition (Concrete) 1. Concrete Removal 0 CY $80.00 $0.00 $0 1.20 C. Dewatering 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000 1.00 Subtotal 02 0000 Existing Conditions $20,000 03 0000 Concrete Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. General Cast in Place Concrete - Facility 1,720 CY $750.00 $1,290,000.00 $1,290,000 1.00 B. General Cast in Place Concrete - Reservoir 0 CY $750.00 $0.00 $0 1.00 C. Precast Walls 9,010 SF $38.00 $342,380.00 $342,380 1.00 D. 8-inch Precast Hollowcore Roof Plank 9,900 SF $28.00 $277,200.00 $277,200 1.00 Subtotal 03 0000 Concrete $1,909,580 04 0000 Masonry Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.3,130 EA $10.00 $31,300.00 $31,300 1.00 B.340 EA $15.55 $5,287.00 $5,287 1.00 C.2,900 SF $16.00 $46,400.00 $46,400 1.00 Subtotal 04 0000 Masonry $82,987 Construction Cost Estimate - Summary 8" CMU 12" CMU Modular Brick (North, East, and South Sides) Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Pressure Page 1 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Pressure Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5B 05 0000 Metals Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Misc. Metals & Structural Steel 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000 1.00 B.Metal Stairs 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 1.00 C.Metal Railings 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000 1.00 D. Floor Hatches 6 EA $3,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000 1.00 Subtotal 05 0000 Metals $238,000 06 0000 Woods,Plastics, and Composits Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Wood Cabinets 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000 1.00 B. Misc. Carpentry 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000 1.00 C. Fiberglass Grating 400 SF $30.00 $12,000.00 $12,000 1.00 D. FRP Baffling for Reservoir 0 SF $30.00 $0.00 $0 1.30 Subtotal 06 0000 Woods,Plastics, and Composits $18,000 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Nail Base Roof Insulation 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 1.00 B. Cavity Wall Vapor Barrier 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 1.00 C. Below Grade Waterproofing 1 LS $45,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000 1.00 D. Foundation Insulation 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000 1.00 E. Glue Lam Roof System 9000 SF $11.00 $99,000.00 $99,000 1.00 F. Caulking 1 LS $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000 1.00 Subtotal 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection $213,000 08 0000 Doors and Windows Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Doors, Frames & Hard.27 EA $2,500.00 $67,500.00 $67,500 1.00 B. Overhead door 2 EA $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000 1.00 C. Windows 1 LS $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000 1.00 Subtotal 08 0000 Doors and Windows $202,500 09 0000 Finishes Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Floor Tile & Base 100 SF $25.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 1.00 B. Vinyl Wall Base 75 LF $3.02 $226.50 $227 1.00 C. Acoustic @ Blower 200 SF $2.39 $478.00 $478 1.00 D. Paintings & Coatings 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000 1.00 E. Flooring Epoxy Coating 8800 SF $4.18 $36,784.00 $36,784 1.00 Subtotal 09 0000 Finishes $114,989 10 0000 Specialties Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Plaque & Signs 1 LS $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000 1.00 B. Toilet & Bath Accessories 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 1.00 C. Fire Exsting. & LK. Box 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000 1.00 D. Wall Guards and Corner Protection 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $500 1.00 Subtotal 10 0000 Specialties $18,000 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Pressure Page 2 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Pressure Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5B 12 0000 Furnishings Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Laboratory Countertops 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000 1.00 Subtotal 12 0000 Furnishings $10,000 21 0000 Fire Protection Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Fire Suppression 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000 1.00 Subtotal 21 0000 Fire Protection $40,000 22 0000 Plumbing Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Plumbing 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000 1.00 Subtotal 22 0000 Plumbing $150,000 23 0000 Mechanical Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Mechanical 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000 1.00 Subtotal 23 0000 Mechanical $300,000 26 0000 Electrical Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Site Work 1. Metering Cabinets 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 2. Equipment Concrete Pads/Basements 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 3. Grounding 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 4. 800A Feeder in Ductbank 120 LF $400.00 $48,000.00 $57,600 1.20 5. Generator 1 EA $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000 1.00 B. Interior Work 1. Main Switchboard 1 EA $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000 1.20 2. Large Junction Boxes 6 EA $3,000.00 $18,000.00 $21,600 1.20 3. Small Junction Boxes 16 EA $2,000.00 $32,000.00 $38,400 1.20 4. LED lights 100 EA $500.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 5 Color Changing LEDs and Programming 0 EA $1,000.00 $0.00 $0 1.20 6 Receptacles/ Wall Jacks 30 EA $500.00 $15,000.00 $18,000 1.20 7 Process Terminations 60 EA $500.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 8 Fire alarm System 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 9 Access Control and Security 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $48,000 1.20 10 Motor Control Centers 8 EA $10,000.00 $80,000.00 $96,000 1.20 11 High Service VFDs 3 EA $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $90,000 1.20 12 BW VFD 1 EA $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 13 Feeders Less than 60A 800 LF $40.00 $32,000.00 $38,400 1.20 14 100A Feeder 200 LF $65.00 $13,000.00 $15,600 1.20 15 Analog I/O 2800 LF $4.25 $11,900.00 $14,280 1.20 16 Digital I/O 2800 LF $5.00 $14,000.00 $16,800 1.20 17 Cat 6 1500 LF $5.00 $7,500.00 $9,000 1.20 18 Distribution Panelboard 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000.00 $28,800 1.20 19 Step Down Dry Type Transformer 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 20 30A Disconnect Switches (NEMA 12)28 EA $320.27 $8,967.42 $10,760 1.20 21 HVAC Equipment 24 EA $500.00 $12,000.00 $14,400 1.20 22 Unit Heaters 5 EA $1,500.00 $7,500.00 $9,000 1.20 23 Lighting Panelboards 3 EA $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $18,000 1.20 24 Electrical Distribution Equipment 24 EA $750.00 $18,000.00 $21,600 1.20 25 Life Safety System 1 EA $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $45,600 1.20 26 Lightning Protection 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $19,200 1.20 Subtotal 26 0000 Electrical $1,521,040 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Pressure Page 3 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Pressure Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5B 31 0000 Earthwork Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Building Excavation 1.Common Excavation, (EV) 3,800 CY $20.00 $76,000.00 $76,000 1.00 2.Common Excavation, TOPSOIL STRIP (EV)240 CY $15.00 $3,600.00 $3,600 1.00 B.Building Backfill 1.Backfill, Placement of Excavated Material 3800 CY $20.00 $76,000.00 $76,000 1.00 2.Backfill, Imported Material 5100 CY $25.00 $127,500.00 $127,500 1.00 3.Aggregate Base Below Slab 9900 CF $12.00 $118,800.00 $118,800 1.00 4.Road Subgrade Prep 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000 1.00 5.Spread Topsoil 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000 1.00 Subtotal 31 0000 Earthwork $420,000 32 0000 Exterior Improvements Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Landscaping 1.Site Grading 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 1.00 2.Seeding 1,200 SY $5.00 $6,000.00 $6,000 1.00 3.Irrigation 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000 1.00 4.Plantings/Miscellaneous 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000 1.00 B.Site Work 1.Removals a.Pavement Removal 240 SY $12.00 $2,880.00 $3,460 1.20 b.Utility Relocations/Removals 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 c.SWPPP Items (silt fence, fiber rolls, etcC)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 2.Road and Parking Lot a.Site Paving 470 SY $100.00 $47,000.00 $47,000 1.00 b.Sidewalk and Building Entrance Stoops 70 SY $100.00 $7,000.00 $8,400 1.20 c.Road Restoration 120 SY $100.00 $12,000.00 $14,400 1.20 Subtotal 32 0000 Exterior Improvements $140,000 33 0000 Utilities Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Misc. Site Piping 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000 1.00 Subtotal 33 0000 Utilities $100,000 40 0000 Process Integration Item Description Size Length Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Process Piping, Valves, Appurtenances, Fittings 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 1. WTP Influent to Detention Basin 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000 1.20 2. Detention Basin Bypass 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,400 1.20 3. Detention Basin Overflow 1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $21,600 1.20 4. Filter Influent Piping 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $84,000 1.20 5. Filter Bypass to Clearwell 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 6. Filter Effluent 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $72,000 1.20 7. Backwash Supply 1 LS $74,000.00 $74,000.00 $88,800 1.20 8.Backwash Waste 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 9.High Service Pump Piping 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,600 1.20 10.Finished Water Piping 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 11.Backwash Reclaim System (Recycle, Sludge)1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $72,000 1.20 12.Clearwell Overflow and Vent 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000 1.20 13.Detention Basin Sludge Piping 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 14.Air Backwash Piping 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 B.Instrumentation and Control System Devices (40 91 00) 1. Chemical Feed System Instrumentation a. Mono/Free Ammonia Analyzer 1 ea $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 2.Conventional Filter Instrumentation a. Ultrasonic Level Transmitters 3 ea $1,300.00 $3,900.00 $4,680 1.20 b.Level Float Switches 5 ea $100.00 $500.00 $600 1.20 3. Pressure Transmitters (w/ Gauge)3 ea $1,040.00 $3,120.00 $3,740 1.20 4.Pressure Gauge 6 ea $400.00 $2,400.00 $2,880 1.20 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Pressure Page 4 of 5 Edina WTP Design Revision:12/2/2018 AE2S Project #P05177-2018-003 WTP Alternative - Dublin Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Dublin - Pressure Filtration With Traditional Backwash Reclaim - Option 5B C,Instrumentation and Control, Control Panels (40 91 10) 1. Control Panels - a.Master Control Panel 1 ea $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000 1.00 b.Network Panel 1 ea $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 Subtotal 40 0000 Process Integration $784,700 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A.Vertical Turbine Pump 1. High Service Pumps a.1500 GPM (125HP)3 ea $60,000.00 $180,000.00 $216,000 1.20 2. Backwash Supply Pump 1 ea $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $84,000 1.20 B. Sumbersible Liquid Pumps (43 21 39) 1. Backwash Reclaim Submersible Reclaim Pumps 2 ea $7,900.00 $15,800.00 $18,960 1.20 2. Backwash Reclaim Submersible Sludge Pumps 1 ea $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $9,480 1.20 Subtotal 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment $328,440 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Installed Cost Multiplier A. Pre-Negotiated Chemical Feed System Components 1 ls $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000 1.20 1. All Chemical Feed Pumps on Skids (4 total) 2. Valves, appurtenances, piping on feed skid 3. Chemical Diffusers B. Fluoride Chemical Feed System 1. 400-gallon Bulk Storage Tank 1 ea $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,440 1.20 2. Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 ls $800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 3. Break Tank 1 ea $300.00 $300.00 $360 1.20 4. Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 5. 1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 6.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ls $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 C.HMO Feed System 1. 960-gallon Bulk Storage Tank 1 ea $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,000 1.20 2.Tank Mixer (3/4 HP)1 ea $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $3,360 1.20 3.1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 4.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 5.Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 6.Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 ea $800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 D.Poly/Orthophosphate Feed System 1.800-gallon Storage Tank 1 e.a.$2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,520 1.20 2.Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 e.a.$800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 3.Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 4.1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 5.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 E.Ammonium Sulfate Feed System 1.540-gallon Bulk Tank 1 e.a.$1,320.00 $1,320.00 $1,584 1.20 2.Bulk Chemical Delivery Connection 1 e.a.$800.00 $800.00 $960 1.20 3.Radar Level Transmitter 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 6. 1/8" Polyethylene Tubing Installed in Carrier 50 lf $3.50 $175.00 $210 1.20 7.Carrier Piping, Appurtenances, and Valves 1 ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800 1.20 F. Chlorine Chemical Feed System 1. Chlorine Feed System 1 e.a. $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $42,000 1.20 2. Extra Chlorine Piping for Solution and Diffusers 1 l.s. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400 1.20 3. Chlorine Gas Emergency Shutoff System 1 e.a. $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000 1.20 G. Filter Equipment 1. Pressure Filters 3 EA $330,000.00 $990,000.00 $1,188,000 1.20 2. Detention Pressure Vessel 1 EA $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000 1.20 H. Filter Air Scour Equipment 1. PD Airwash Blower 1 ea $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $54,000 1.20 Subtotal 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment $1,488,144 Dublin Site - Edina WTP No. 5 - Estimate.xlsx/Dublin - Pressure Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of 11 Technical Memorandum To: Ross Bintner, PE Engineering Services Manager City of Edina Chad Milner, PE Director of Engineering City of Edina From: Aaron Vollmer, PE – AE2S Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost Date: November 30, 2018 Project Number: P05177-2018-002 I. Project Background and Scope of Memo Ensuring the responsible management of annual operation and maintenance budgets, optimizing short-term capital improvement expenditures, and maximizing the benefits of long-term capital improvements requires a comprehensive direction. To establish a vision for the addition of Water Treatment Plant (WTP) No. 5 to the Edina water treatment system, the City authorized preparation of the WTP Preliminary Design Report (PDR) in March 2017. The WTP No. 5 PDR (September 2017) was developed through a collaborative planning process with representatives of the City of Edina and the AE2S Project Team. This project initially evaluated four (4) primary alternative WTP locations, and potential alternates at the identified sites. At completion of the WTP Preliminary Design Report, the opinion of probable total project costs ranged from $10,560,000 to 16,209,000. Based on these cost estimates and the qualitative evaluations of the alternatives, Option 1C was identified as the best option for the future WTP. Based on recommendations of the PDR, the Project Team initiated the detailed Final Design Phase. Through the Final Design Phase, representatives from AE2S, Oertel Architects, and the City of Edina collaborated frequently to discuss design alternatives, discuss advantages and disadvantages, and align responsible design decisions with the City’s vision for the future WTP. Table 1 summarizes the costs for facility construction, integration, engineering, and construction phase services to complete Option 1C. Engineering and construction phase costs include the $1,043,300 of professional services expended to date, an anticipated engineering design cost to finish and bid Option 1C of $50,000, and a 5% construction phase costs of $505,684. Table 1 – Option 1C Opinion of Probable Total Project Cost Option Facility Construction (Including 2.5% Contingencies) Facility Integration Engineering & Construction Phases Total Project Cost Option 1C $9,714,000 $400,000 $1,599,300 $11,713,300 Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 11 Consistent with the 60% design direction, Figure 1 below is an illustration of the proposed WTP on the Southdale site at the 95% design milestone. Figure 1 – Option 1C 95% Rendering II. Development of Additional Architectural Features (Option 1D) Based on review of the 95% design documents and architectural rendering, the City Council expressed a desire to increase the architectural impact of the facility to better align with the goals of the Greater Southdale Plan. AE2S, Oertel Architects, and the City of Edina staff worked to prepare an alternate design concept that increased the architectural impact of the proposed WTP at the Southdale site. For the purposes of this Technical Memorandum (TM) this revision is considered Option 1D. The revised renderings were reviewed by the design team and construction estimates were updated to reflect the anticipated cost to construct the revised facility. The costs in Table 2 below also include engineering and construction phase services to revise the previous design to meet the new architectural modifications. The engineering and construction phase services total includes the $1,043,300 of professional services expended to date, a $170,000 design fee increase to upgrade the building and re-design portions of the building that are impacted by the design modifications, and a $587,000 budget for construction phase services. Table 2 – Option 1D Opinion of Probable Total Project Cost Option Facility Construction (Including 2.5% Contingencies) Facility Integration Engineering & Construction Phases Total Project Cost Option 1D $11,347,000 $400,000 $1,800,300 $13,547,300 Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Figure 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the facility with upgraded architectural as prepared by Oertel. Figure 2 – Option 1D Conceptual Rendering (NW View) Figure 3 – Option 1D Conceptual Rendering (NW View - Night Lighting) Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 4 of 11 Figure 4 – Option 1D (SW View) As previously noted, it was important to the City that the architectural aspects of this facility are impactful and establish the new WTP as an iconic piece of city infrastructure. The following upgrades were proposed to the original 95% design to accomplish the goal of creating a more impactful building. 1. Material finish changes = $50,000 2. Full glass curtain wall on the north side of the WTP = $176, 000 3. LED educational Wall = 100,000 4. Textured wall panel at north wall = $32,000 5. Glass railing at parapet = $50,000 6. Roof light stacks = $175,000 7. France Avenue fins = $392,000 8. Parklet site development = $36,000 (does not include cost for public art) 9. Southdale side green screen and plantings = $34,000 10. Sign Monument (30,000) 11. Green roof (complete upper green roof)= $70,000 12. Upgraded plate settler to stainless steel = $100,000 13. Increased quantity of cast in place concrete to accommodate potential staircase in NE corner of facility = 55,000 14. Increase quantity of structural steel to support modified roof framing = $60,000 15. Increase in rebar costs for cast in place concrete due to steel tariff = $87,000 16. Addition of precast beam to accommodate north face modification = $50,000 17. Additional LED lighting and color changing controls = $110,000 18. HVAC improvements to control the temperature on the north face = $25,000 Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 5 of 11 This revised opinion of cost presented includes the additional items listed above, which total approximately an additional $1,632,000. A total project cost of $13,547,300 is anticipated if all the above improvements are implemented. This is approximately $2,987,300 more than the Preliminary Design Report estimate for Option 1C. All of the presented costs are based on quotations from material/equipment suppliers, standard industry unit prices, recent bid prices from other projects throughout the region, and professional judgment of the Project Team. However, it is imperative to remember that the costs presented are only estimates, and many factors can impact the bid prices submitted by prospective Project Contractors. III. Snow Kreilich Architectural Concept Development (Option 1E) In March 2018, the City of Edina engaged the services of Snow Kreilich Architects to review the Option 1D 95% design documents and provide conceptual alternatives for consideration by the City of Edina and the design team. Snow Kreilich met with City Council members, AE2S, Oertel Architects, and City Staff to discuss potential alternatives for modifications. Through these discussions an alternative layout was proposed and is illustrated in Figure 5 below. For the purposes of this TM this revision is considered Option 1E. Figure 5 – Option 1E (NW View) The revised renderings were reviewed by the design team and opinions of total probable project cost were developed to reflect the anticipated cost to construct the conceptual facility. The costs in Table 3 include engineering and construction phase services to revise the previous design and accommodate the proposed structural and architectural modifications. The engineering and construction phase services total also includes the $1,043,300 of professional services expended to date. Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Table 3 – Option 1E Opinion of Probable Total Project Cost Option Facility Construction (Including 20% Contingencies) Facility Integration Engineering & Construction Phases Total Project Cost Option 1E $13,611,000 $400,000 $3,145,300 $17,156,300 In addition to the construction cost estimate that was completed for this alternative, an operational evaluation was also completed to review the proposed floorplans and operational considerations that may impact the WTP design and future operation and maintenance by City staff. In general, the review comments reflect the professional opinions of the AE2S Project Team based on the available information. Detailed design may present additional challenges not identified in the preliminary concepts. Separation distances (only estimated based on the conceptual floorplans provided), revised Code review, and future Owner driven modifications may all further impact design. Images from the Snow Kreilich concept alternative are shown below to summarize the proposed changes. The left layout is the original design and the right layout are the proposed modifications for the First and Second floors. A cursory review of Option 1E is outlined in the following sections. Figure 6 – Option 1E Snow Kreilich Concept Alternatives for 1st Floor Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Figure 7 – Option 1E Snow Kreilich Concept Alternatives for 2nd Floor MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND VENTING CONSIDERATIONS There are a significant number of exterior penetrations required to provide chemical venting, make-up air, HVAC features, etc. to the building to meet code requirements. The original design attempted to keep the equipment and vent penetrations off of the roof, by utilizing the vertical walls to accommodate the vent/louver systems. It appears that the lower level of the conceptual architectural rendering could still accommodate wall penetrations for chemical feed room venting, but the second level glass may necessitate that the other vents/louvers are directed through the roof. The appearance of the roof (especially from the adjacent Restoration Hardware and potential future high rise residences) has been a consistent topic of concern. Location of the visible mechanical appurtenances will need to be carefully managed. Previous discussions with City staff and Officials had directed the team to avoid roof mounted equipment and/or penetrations whenever possible. The original design could likely locate any required mechanical equipment either within the building or hidden on the roof of the Garage, but there would need to be some provision for the vents/louvers. GLASS MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICAL CHALLANGES Similar to the challenges noted with the mechanical equipment, the large amount of glass on the upper portion of the facility may create structural challenges for mounting and hanging piping and equipment inside of the building. A significant amount of mechanical piping, water piping, and electrical conduit will need to be installed within the facility to accommodate the needs of the required systems. Glass walls will not easily allow for equipment mounting and may increase construction costs. In addition to the construction issues, there are also ongoing maintenance concerns. This facility will likely be very humid in the summer months. The humidity, together with the temperature differential, may cause fogging Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 8 of 11 and condensation on the glass. Similarly, in the winter months the significant temperature differential and internal humidity may cause ice buildup around the glass that needs to be removed regularly. OVERFLOWS There are currently two (2) overflow pipes directed toward France Avenue. These overflow pipes are required by the Minnesota Department of Health and the elevation of the overflow pipes are critical, which was identified as a problematic design element. It should be considered how to best manage/hide the overflow pipes while still accommodating the architectural concepts. The discharge assemblies could likely be recessed into the structure, but we will still need to provide an outfall to the building exterior. BUILDING EXITS Building exits were a challenge for the team during meetings with the City Building Officials. The direction from the Building Officials to the design team was that the exits needed to lead directly to a “public way”, to provide the highest level of safety and security. During design meetings, the only area that was considered a “public way” was France Avenue. The future design will need to ensure that the exits lead directly to the “public way”, which may require additional doors on the west side of the building facing France Avenue. SIMON PROPERTY REVIEW The design/construction of a Water Treatment Plant on this property is subject to some level of review by representatives of Simon Properties. The primary item of concern indicated by Simon properties during design was the proximity of the northeast corner of the facility to the Southdale Ring Road. They have consistently reinforced the importance of maintaining the “maximum possible” separation distance to the Southdale Ring Road. The proposed revised concept encroaches on this corner and increases the depth of excavation near the road. OFFICE/LAB AND ELECTRICAL ROOM MOVE TO THE SECOND LEVEL In general, there are no technical restrictions with moving the office, lab, and electrical room to the Second Floor but it is important to consider the following items: 1. Electrical Room - Conduits would need to be cast in concrete to reach the second level. This would thicken one of the walls, but not otherwise impact design. 2. Electrical Room - Provisions should be considered for future access to install large, heavy electrical gear when removal/replacement is necessary. This may include wider walkways to move equipment to/from elevator, bridge crane access, or removal panels to the exterior. 3. Office/Laboratory - Most water samples will be collected on the main floor requiring operational staff to travel up and down the stairs frequently. ADD ELEVATOR The addition of an elevator would be necessary to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Code requirements, since the Office and Laboratory spaces would be located on the Second Floor. If an elevator is added to the building it would be prudent to consider a freight elevator with the size and capacity to accommodate movement Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 9 of 11 of electrical and process equipment. It would also be potentially beneficial to make the elevator a 3-stop elevator that could access 1) Ground Level, 2) Main Operating Floor, and 3) Upper Level. DETENTION TANK The Minnesota Department of Health will not allow the Detention Tank to be located above the Finished Water Clearwell (located on the below grade level). The conflict could likely be addressed by reconfiguring one or both basins, or potentially increasing the depth of excavation to maintain adequate Clearwell capacity. Another alternative may be to locate the Clearwell beneath the Filters, but this approach would significantly increase the depth of excavation immediately adjacent to the Southdale Ring Road potentially complicating construction and adding project cost. The capacity of the Detention Basin was increased slightly in the conceptual layout but that is not required. It is acceptable to increase the capacity to achieve architectural objectives, align walls, etc. But, increasing the capacity of the basin is not valuable to improving the treatment process. MAIN FLOOR AREA SLIGHTLY SMALLER AND OPEN TO FRANCE The High Service and Backwash Pumps (and related piping systems) are located (partially) in the space proposed for the relocated Detention Basin. AE2S would propose orienting the (relocated) Detention Basin from north to south, in the northwest corner of the facility. We acknowledge that this would eliminate the transparency/window facing France Avenue. But, we could relocate the transparency/window feature to the north face. The transparency/window could be wider and potentially taller and open up a viewing corridor that extended from north to south through much of the facility. The viewing location would also be located in an area of “slower” vehicle traffic. This adjustment, although a significant architectural change, would address much of our concern about the pumps/piping and the Clearwell item noted above. Normally, we would discourage use of “glass” on the ground level of a Water Treatment Facility. It can compromise security and result in potentially expensive vandalism. However, we also understand the direction of the project in trying to achieve a level of transparency, so we would request consideration of reasonable measures to address safety/security. MINIMIZED DRIVEWAY TO MAXIMIZE OPEN SITE Review of the proposed turning radius appears to be adequate, but consideration should be given for a City truck parking while a chemical delivery truck is using most of the drive space to turn and access the garage. RELOCATION OF THE GENERATOR AND TRANSFORMER Consider the location of the Electrical equipment (specifically the transformer), currently proposed to be located immediately south of the Garage. The generator should have a minimum of 10-feet of clearance on all sides for airflow, as well as access for refueling. Typically the fuel access is on the side of the generator, but it would likely work to access the end of the generator, if it remained oriented as shown. The transformer needs to be located such that is accessible by the electrical utility (Xcel) and has at least 10-feet of clear space in front of the double/doors. AE2S would recommend potentially locating the transformer to the south of the proposed generator and screening it with bushes. The transformer does not need to be located on a paved surface. Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 10 of 11 MAIN ENTRANCE The loading dock feature at the main entrance (when combined with the double doors) provided a valuable feature for future removal and replacement of equipment, for future maintenance. Losing the loading dock feature and transporting materials and equipment up/down stairs is less desirable. PERIMETER FENCE The perimeter fence around the building/property is not required, but typical for buildings of this nature. The decision for installation of any perimeter fence is at the discretion of the Owner depending on their concern for site safety/security. A fence may potentially reduce liability issues on City property. IV. Dublin Site The Water Supply Plan recently completed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan update identified a fifth site option for WTP No. 5 that provided the opportunity to improve overall water system performance and better utilize the existing Dublin Reservoir. An amendment to the original PDR was prepared by AE2S to evaluate this site for the same non-financial and financial considerations analyzed for the original four sites. This report is named the WTP No. 5 Feasibility Study for the Dublin Reservoir Site. The Dublin Site Feasibility Study identified two options; Option 5A and Option 5B. Each of these options would provide 3,000 gpm of treated capacity upon completion of the WTP construction, with Option 5A including gravity filtration and Option 5B including pressure filtration. Discussions with City staff around finalizing a recommendation for the continued design of WTP No. 5 initiated the development of a third option for the Dublin Site. This option, referred to as Option 5C, would be a WTP that provides 4,000 gpm of treated capacity by bringing a fourth well to the site. Based on current water use projections into 2040, this option would provide additional filtered water capacity to meet all typical summer demands and reduce the likelihood of needing another water treatment plant in the future. Technical Memorandum Re: WTP No. 5 Alternatives – Comparison of Opinions of Probable Cost November 20, 2018 Page 11 of 11 V. Conclusions The attached table summarizes the alternatives considered throughout the design of WTP No. 5. Ultimately, evaluation considered five (5) unique sites and various options for each site, including considerations for alternative treatment technology (gravity versus pressure filtration or traditional versus above grade plate settler backwash reclamation) and/or level of architectural investment. Each alternative assumes a facility with a 3,000 gallon per minute (gpm) treatment capacity, except for Option 5C, which would provide a 4,000 gpm capacity. The costs presented in the attached table represent the “all-in” costs for constructing WTP No. 5. This responsibly compares each alternative to help the City understand the full investment required to construct the facility. For the Southdale, Yorktown, Median, and Fred Richards sites, costs include the development and routing of the third 1,000 gpm well to the proposed facility. In general, each option is summarized by the following: 1. Southdale Site – Treatment of Wells No. 5, 18, and future Well No. 21 a. Option 1A – Gravity filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. b. Option 1B – Pressure filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. c. Option 1C – Gravity filtration with above grade plate settler backwash reclaim system. d. Option 1D – Option 1C with upgraded architectural as of the 95% final design milestone. e. Option 1E – Option 1C with enhanced architectural proposed by Snow Kreilich. 2. Yorktown Site – Treatment of Wells No. 5, 18, and future Well No. 21 a. Option 2A – Gravity filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. b. Option 2B – Pressure filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. 3. Median Site – Treatment of Wells No. 5, 18, and future Well No. 21 a. Option 3A – Pressure filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. 4. Fred Richards Site – Treatment of Wells No. 5, 18, and future Well No. 21 a. Option 4A – Gravity filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. b. Option 4B – Pressure filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. 5. Dublin Site – Treatment of Wells No. 16, 19, and 20 a. Option 5A – Gravity filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. b. Option 5B – Pressure filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system. c. Option 5C – Gravity filtration with below grade, traditional backwash reclaim system and a 4,000 gpm treated capacity. Based on the attached table total project costs, Option 1C maintains the lowest comprehensive cost, but does not address the architectural concerns of the City council. Option 5A is approximately $2.5M higher than Option 1C but provides the opportunity to better utilize the existing Dublin Reservoir and reduce water age within the City’s water distribution system. Additional cost savings may be realized with this option if portions of the project are timed with other infrastructure improvements such as roadway reconstruction or Citywide fiber installation. For an additional $2.1M, the facility capacity could be increased to 4,000 gpm (Option 5C) to reduce the need for another water treatment plant in the foreseeable future. Attachment: Edina WTP No. 5 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Site Median Site Option 1A - Gravity 1B - Pressure 1C - Gravity*1D - Upgrade 1E - Snow 2A - Gravity 2B - Pressure 3A - Pressure 4A - Gravity 4B - Pressure 5A - Gravity 5B - Pressure 5C - Gravity Estimate Source Original PDR Original PDR 95% Final Design Southdale TM Southdale TM Original PDR Original PDR Original PDR Original PDR Original PDR Dublin Study Dublin Study 4,000gpm Option Subtotal 00/01 0000 Contracting and General Requirements $757,105 $763,883 $805,377 $894,800 $906,960 $719,620 $726,398 $746,400 $726,165 $734,847 $745,817 $771,913 $768,191 Subtotal 02 0000 Existing Conditions $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal 03 0000 Concrete $1,680,000 $1,332,800 $2,234,656 $2,455,856 $1,891,000 $1,680,000 $1,332,800 $1,330,000 $1,680,000 $1,332,800 $2,485,600 $1,909,580 $2,592,800 Subtotal 04 0000 Masonry $262,250 $262,250 $103,001 $103,001 $127,221 $262,250 $262,250 $262,250 $262,250 $262,250 $129,387 $82,987 $129,387 Subtotal 05 0000 Metals $208,000 $41,000 $263,000 $373,000 $638,000 $208,000 $41,000 $41,000 $208,000 $41,000 $238,000 $238,000 $238,000 Subtotal 06 0000 Carpentry $44,000 $44,000 $48,810 $48,810 $48,810 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $30,600 $18,000 $30,600 Subtotal 07 0000 Thermal and Moisture Protection $218,800 $202,800 $299,650 $322,635 $126,840 $218,800 $202,800 $202,800 $218,800 $202,800 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 Subtotal 08 0000 Doors and Windows $187,000 $147,000 $248,405 $321,280 $1,152,420 $187,000 $147,000 $115,000 $187,000 $147,000 $202,500 $202,500 $202,500 Subtotal 09 0000 Finishes $135,500 $110,500 $121,455 $121,455 $121,455 $135,500 $110,500 $110,500 $135,500 $110,500 $114,989 $114,989 $114,989 Subtotal 10 0000 Specialties $20,000 $20,000 $199,345 $892,345 $302,000 $20,000 $20,000 $19,000 $20,000 $20,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Subtotal 12 0000 Furnishings $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Subtotal 21 0000 Fire Protection $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Subtotal 22 0000 Plumbing $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $250,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Subtotal 23 0000 Mechanical $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $325,000 $500,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Subtotal 26 0000 Electrical $1,256,710 $1,214,710 $1,366,990 $1,615,640 $1,615,640 $1,256,710 $1,214,710 $1,124,710 $1,256,710 $1,256,710 $1,525,040 $1,521,040 $1,525,040 Subtotal 31 0000 Earthwork $1,090,000 $1,090,000 $520,000 $520,000 $620,000 $460,000 $460,000 $1,500,000 $340,000 $330,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 Subtotal 32 0000 Exterior Improvements $200,000 $200,000 $290,000 $300,000 $360,000 $200,000 $200,000 $290,000 $410,000 $410,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 Subtotal 33 0000 Utilities $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Subtotal 40 0000 Process Integration $744,900 $799,880 $1,099,160 $1,067,690 $1,067,690 $744,900 $799,880 $559,440 $744,900 $799,880 $733,700 $784,700 $1,100,550 Subtotal 43 0000 Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification, and Storage Equipment $393,600 $260,760 $342,960 $318,960 $318,960 $393,600 $260,760 $45,120 $393,600 $260,760 $328,440 $328,440 $328,440 Subtotal 46 0000 Water and Wastewater Equipment $769,748 $1,598,728 $814,361 $969,038 $969,038 $769,748 $1,598,728 $1,366,768 $769,748 $1,598,728 $461,534 $1,488,144 $661,534 $8,608,000 $8,728,000 $9,467,000 $11,060,000 $11,276,000 $7,940,000 $8,061,000 $8,417,000 $8,057,000 $8,211,000 $8,407,000 $8,871,000 $9,103,000 Required Integration Costs Raw Water Pipeline $145,000 $145,000 $65,000 $65,000 $35,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,350,000 $2,350,000 $2,350,000 Raw Water Pipeline Premium Alignment on City ROW $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Finished Water Pipeline $55,000 $55,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $90,000 $90,000 $135,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Relocation $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,000,000 Distribution System improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Well 5 Rehab $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Well 5 Conversion to Submersible $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Well 18 Rehab $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Well 16 Rehab - CIP Allocated $120,000 for Rehab in 2019 Well 19 Rehab- CIP Allocated $120,000 for Rehab in 2020 Well 20 Rehab - Not Required to Meet Design Point Dublin Reservoir Reduction/Repurposing Concrete Removal $135,000 $135,000 $135,000 Void Wall Construction $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Required Integration Subtotal $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $3,605,000 $3,605,000 $1,370,000 $4,200,000 $4,200,000 $3,135,000 $3,135,000 $3,135,000 15.0%15.0%2.5%2.5%20.0%15.0%15.0%15.0%15.0%15.0%15%15%15% Contingencies $1,351,000 $1,369,000 $247,000 $287,000 $2,335,000 $1,732,000 $1,750,000 $1,468,000 $1,839,000 $1,862,000 $1,731,000 $1,801,000 $1,836,000 Estimated Total WTP Construction Costs $10,359,000 $10,497,000 $10,114,000 $11,747,000 $14,011,000 $13,277,000 $13,416,000 $11,255,000 $14,096,000 $14,273,000 $13,273,000 $13,807,000 $14,074,000 Professional Services To Date (includes study, report, and design phases)$1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 $1,043,300 10%10%**10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10% Remaining WTP Engineering Design Phase Services*10%$1,036,000 $1,050,000 $50,000 $170,000 $1,401,000 $1,328,000 $1,342,000 $1,126,000 $1,410,000 $1,427,000 $1,327,000 $1,381,000 $1,407,000 WTP Construction Phase Services 5%$518,000 $525,000 $506,000 $587,000 $701,000 $664,000 $671,000 $563,000 $705,000 $714,000 $664,000 $690,000 $704,000 Estimated Total Project Costs $12,956,300 $13,115,300 $11,713,300 $13,547,300 $17,156,300 $16,312,300 $16,472,300 $13,987,300 $17,254,300 $17,457,300 $16,307,300 $16,921,300 $17,228,300 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,200,000 Estimated "ALL IN" Infrastructure Investment $15,056,000 $15,215,000 $13,813,000 $15,647,000 $19,256,000 $18,412,000 $18,572,000 $16,087,000 $18,954,000 $19,157,000 $16,307,000 $16,921,000 $18,428,000 Optional Premium Costs Chlorine Scrubber $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 Dublin Reservoir Improvements FRP Baffling $410,000 $410,000 $410,000 * Remaining Engineering Design Phase Services for Option 1C and 1D based on amount to complete design of current progress to the option extent. Engineering Design Phase Services Remaining (% of Construction Total) Dublin Edina WTP No. 5 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Applied Contingency (%) Southdale York Town Fred Richards Previously Constructed Raw Watermain Piping to Southdale Site Future Additional 1,000 gpm Well to Reach 3,000 gpm Facility Fourth Well Connection Other Infrastructure Investments !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P!P !P!P !P !P !P !P !P !P IIIUT DDDD IIIUT DDDD IIIUT DDDD UT IIIUT DDDD 3Q 3Q 3Q 3Q Tank #3 -Comm Cntr Tank #2 -Gleason Rd. Tank #4 -SouthdaleTank #1 -Dublin Res. Tank #5- VanValkenburg Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10 Well 11 Well 12 Well 13 Well 15 Well 16 Well 17 Well 18 Well 19 Well 20HopkinsMinnetonka RichfieldSt.L o u i sPark Mi nneapolisBloomingtonEdenPrairie WTP 2 WTP 3 WTP 4 WTP 6 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors Water Supply Plan FIGURE 8-1 O Map by: Projection: Source: Map Document: (L:\Resources\Cartographic\Templates\EmptyLayouts\A_ANSI_8x11P\8x11P_Simple2Line_LegendBox.mxd)2/13/2009 -- 12:42:20 PM0 2,000 4,000Feet Edina, Minnesota Proposed Water System Improvements This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Project Number: EDINA 143535Print Date: 00/00/0000 LegendWater Main ImprovementsDiameter6-inch8-inch1012-inch16-inch Segment A Segment B Segment C Segment D Segment E Segment F Trunk A Trunk B Trunk C Trunk D Trunk E Trunk H Gateway/Pentagon Park RedevelopmentTransition to Edina Supply GrandviewRedevelopmentTrunk F Trunk G Segment G Segment H The CITY of EDINA Water Treatment Plant #5 Project Update December 10, 2018 The CITY of EDINAAgenda •Background •Water Supply Plan •Water Distribution Strategy •Process to Date •Options •Future Needs •Total Estimated Project Costs •Schedule •Recommendation www.EdinaMN.gov 2 The CITY of EDINABackground •Goal: Increase filtered water to ~99% of days (dependent on weather) •Benefits: •Operational Flexibility – maintenance of other plants •Increase resiliency of the filtered water supply •Reduction in water quality complaints •Equitable distribution – complaints from SE area • www.EdinaMN.gov 3 The CITY of EDINABackground •History: •2008 – Scoping •2010-2012 WTP 6 •2012 – Easement at Southdale •2014, 2016 Capital Improvement Planning • www.EdinaMN.gov 4 The CITY of EDINAWater Supply Plan •Tool – identify, plan for, and address utility trends Water supply, treatment, distribution and growth •Key findings System has capacity for growth Average water demand stable with counter conservation trends Indoor water demand shows a passive conservation trend Outdoor and peak day varies widely with climate www.EdinaMN.gov 5 The CITY of EDINAWater Supply Plan •System Needs Trunk capacity improvements – NE and Grandview E-W capacity flow Tapping available storage at Dublin Reservoir (2.88 of 4.0 MG (70%)) Water age concerns in western portions Additional storage www.EdinaMN.gov 6 The CITY of EDINAFuture Needs www.EdinaMN.gov 7 The CITY of EDINAWater Distribution Strategy www.EdinaMN.gov 8 The CITY of EDINAWater Distribution Strategy •Dublin Reservoir On www.EdinaMN.gov 9 The CITY of EDINAWater Distribution Strategy •Dublin Reservoir Off www.EdinaMN.gov 10 The CITY of EDINAWater Distribution Strategy •WTP at Dublin www.EdinaMN.gov 11 The CITY of EDINAWater Distribution Strategy •Strategy #1: Treatment at location of demand and complaints - SE •Strategy #2: Treatment at location of other overlapping infrastructure needs E-W Flow Capacity Water age in western portion Better utilization of Dublin Reservoir Site 3 wells immediately available www.EdinaMN.gov 12 The CITY of EDINAProcess to Date •March 2017: Detailed Study Began •October 2017: Preliminary Report – selected Southdale Site •February 2018: Planning Commission setback variance •February 2018: Council setback variance but architectural concerns •April 2018: Hired Snow Kreilich – enhanced architectural option at Southdale •October 2018: Council accepted the Water Supply Plan •October 2018: Hired AE2S to study Dublin Reservoir Site www.EdinaMN.gov 13 The CITY of EDINAOptions •Studied 13 options at 5 locations •4 options for discussion Option 1C: Southdale Site at 95% design Option 1E: Southdale Site with Snow Kreilich Concept Option 5A: Dublin Site at 3,000 gpm capacity Option 5C: Dublin Site at 4,000 gpm capacity www.EdinaMN.gov 14 The CITY of EDINAOptions •Option 1C: Southdale Site at 95% Design www.EdinaMN.gov 15 The CITY of EDINAOptions •Option 1E: Southdale Site – Snow Kreilich Concept •*Concerns – equipment, exterior doors, etc. www.EdinaMN.gov 16 The CITY of EDINAOptions •Option 5A: Dublin Site at 3,000 gpm •Option 5C: Dublin Site at 4,000 gpm www.EdinaMN.gov 17 The CITY of EDINAOptions www.EdinaMN.gov 18 The CITY of EDINAOptions •Option 5A: Dublin Site at 3,000 gpm •Option 5C: Dublin Site at 4,000 gpm www.EdinaMN.gov 19 The CITY of EDINAAdvantages / Disadvantages •Option 5A or 5C: Dublin Site at 3,000 gpm or 4,000 gpm www.EdinaMN.gov 20 1. Three wells immediately available 2. Distribution system available 3. Overlapping infrastructure needs a. Addresses water age issue b. Better utilization of storage volume c. Improves E-W distribution 4. Lesser architectural premium 5. Simpler chemical process 6. Coordinate piping needs with 2020 street reconstruction 1. Raw WM required 2. Located in residential area 3. Water storage need increases from 0.5 MG to 1.5 MG by 2040 The CITY of EDINAAdvantages / Disadvantages •3 wells immediately available •4,000 gpm Option for 4th well www.EdinaMN.gov 21 The CITY of EDINAFuture Needs •All options – future storage – size and location TBD Future water demands and conservation trends Potentially Community Center Tower Oldest Tower Centrally Located www.EdinaMN.gov 22 The CITY of EDINAFuture Needs •Southdale 3rd well Due to 3,000 gpm size – may need additional treatment facility •Dublin at 4,000 gpm 4th well May reduce need for additional treatment facility www.EdinaMN.gov 23 The CITY of EDINAFuture Needs •Dublin at 4,000 gpm 4th well –Well #8 www.EdinaMN.gov 24 The CITY of EDINAProfessional Services to Date www.EdinaMN.gov 25 Item Date Fees AE2S Preliminary Engineering Services March 7, 2017 $75,000 AE2S Change Order #1 –Additional Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Fred Richards Site September 6, 2017 $10,500 AE2S Design and Bidding Phase Services October 3, 2017 $911,000 Total AE2S Approved Services to Date $996,500 Snow Kreilich Approved Services to Date April 17, 2018 $19,600 AE2S Additional Professional Services October 16, 2018 $27,200 Total Professional Services to Date $1,043,300 The CITY of EDINATotal Estimated Project Costs www.EdinaMN.gov 26 Option 1C – Southdale Site - 95% Plan Option 1E - Southdale Site - Snow Kreilich Concept Option 5A – Dublin Site – 3,000 gpm Option 5C – Dublin Site – 4,000 gpm Estimate Total Project Cost $13.81 M $19.26 M $15.86 M To $16.31 M $16.78 M To $17.23 M The CITY of EDINAFunding Sources •2019-2024 CIP WTP #5 - $15 million Well #21 - $0.7 million •Shift other watermain projects •Contingency •Value Engineering www.EdinaMN.gov 27 The CITY of EDINASchedule •December 2018: Select Option •January 2019: Public Participation and Engineering Proposal •Summer / Fall 2019: Bid Opening / Award •Fall / Winter 2019/2020: Construction Start •Fall / Winter 2021/2022: Construction Complete www.EdinaMN.gov 28 The CITY of EDINARecommendation •Staff recommends Option 4 the Dublin Reservoir Site at a 4,000 gpm capacity •Staff would bring a public engagement proposal and request for purchase for professional services for council’s consideration. www.EdinaMN.gov 29 The CITY of EDINAPublic Participation - Questions •Siding Material Type / Texture •Siding Color •Window Style •Roof Style •Roofing Material •Landscaping www.EdinaMN.gov 30 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept •2008 Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 31 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept •October 2017 Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 32 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept •February 2018 Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 33 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept •March 2018 Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 34 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 35 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 36 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 37 The CITY of EDINANew Architectural Concept www.EdinaMN.gov 38