Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-06 Work Session Meeting Packet Meeting location: Edina City Hall Community Room 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN City Council Work Session Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 6, 2025 5:30 PM Accessibility Support: 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 amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Meeting Topics 3.1. 2026-27 Budget Discussion 3.2. Water Treatment Plant #5 at Yorktown Park 4. Adjournment Page 1 of 99 d ITEM REPORT Date: May 6, 2025 Item Activity: Discussion Meeting: City Council Agenda Number: 3.1 Prepared By: Ari Lenz, Assistant City Manager Item Type: Other Department: Administration Item Title: 2026-27 Budget Discussion Action Requested: Discussion. Information/Background: This meeting is a continuation of our 2026-27 budget discussions, previous conversations include our Feb. 4 and 6 Work Sessions and March 15 City Council retreat. Staff is still in the early stages of the budget development process, and the City Manager’s biennial budget proposal will be brought to the Council in August. Due to limited time, this Work Session will focus on a few of the items (each has an attached document(s) with details). We will also continue this conversation on May 20. • Council Budget Suggestions—At the retreat, Council requested an opportunity to review any suggestions they had that weren’t part of the City Manager’s initial recommendations. Council’s suggestions are attached along with some staff comments. • Capital Budget 2026 Discussion • City Manager initial budget recommendation update o Franchise Fee Adjustment (May 6 Discussion & Packet) o Credit Card Fee Adjustment (May 20 Discussion & Packet) o Human Service Taskforce - Recommendation to not convene the Human Services Taskforce for 2026 allocation, but instead to allow time for Council to consider funding level. If continuing funding contracts would be extended without taskforce. • TIF Follow-up Information about Centennial Lakes & Southdale 2 – Some additional information was requested by Council regarding Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 at retreat. Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 discussion will take place later this year as time allows. Changing course won’t impact the City Manager’s budget proposal for 2026, but may be a source for some one-time funding for a future budget. Supporting Documentation: 1. Council Suggestions 2. Capital Budget 2026 Discussion 3. Update on City Manager Initial Recommendations 4. Franchise Fee Staff Report - 2025 05 06 5. Staff Report - Centennial Lakes Southdale 2 TIF Accounts 5-6-2025 6. 20250506 Council WS Budget Update revised Page 2 of 99 Council Budget Suggestions 5/6/2025 At the retreat, Council requested an opportunity to review any suggestions they had that weren’t part of the City Manager’s initial recommendations. Council’s suggestions are provided below, along with comments from staff. From Council Member Risser: 1) Staffing: High-level staffing is our biggest expense. I understand service levels will be cut. Could some cost savings come from reducing some of the outreach messaging? We have a strong communications team. However, some of the negative comments I get from residents are about videos that don’t really deliver a message that people thing is needed or even accurate. One example is the video from November 2024 where Edina Cheerleaders were featured in front of several public buildings in Edina with the message that the City invests in its public buildings. Actually with all the deferred maintenance it was weird to see them in front of Edinborough. There are others that are feel good - but maybe not something that really need to be made. It is nice to have a fun video that features staff from different departments - but maybe cut down on the number of them? We need to analyze whether a position needs to be refilled after somebody has retired. For example, do we need a fulltime horticulturalist? Council does not have clarity on the rate of new hires by department. This could be helpful. Staff Comments: The City Manager is responsible for overseeing personnel in a City Manager form of government. The City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Human Resources team have already implemented a hiring review process for all vacancies. 2) Contractors: Could we cut back on contractor hours? If we are consistently hiring contractors for a particular task is this something that we could train existing staff to do? Example: We spent close to $7,000.00 bringing in an out-state consultant to moderate the retreat. At the same time staff who are skilled in moderating council events were present and likely could have run the event more efficiently as they are knowledgeable about city facilities and practices. Staff Comments: Page 3 of 99 Having a facilitator for the retreat ensures all Staff and Council are able to participate. The retreat is one of the most important strategic vision-related conversations we have all year. Investing to ensure we can get the most out of the time together is important. 3) Rethink approach to unspent TIF: It’s possible there would be much greater public benefit if unspent TIF was returned to the county and Edina’s general fund could recoup 33% of that money. We need to address deferred maintenance – it is only going to become more costly. 4) Address ongoing structural inefficiencies: Edina’s city code is extremely challenging to read, and this has led to wasted resources. We have approved code-violating development projects and then attempted to rewrite the code so that the project and code are in sync. The Row at Valley View project is a prime example of this. Time and money were spent with a proposed ordinance that ended up being rejected because it would have codified commercial zones going purely residential. Our poorly organized/written code is likely to continue to cause problems. We need to be working towards more clarity and consistency. Agreeing on basics such as using Minnesota legal definitions for terms could be a way to save money and avoid further muddying our code. Failure to register concerns of specific council members can also result wasted time, and misunderstandings. At the retreat more than one council member pushed back against the idea that addressing the budget was just about keeping the property tax in the single digits. Several council members also underscored the importance reviewing staffing levels. These concerns did not make it to the final idea board. Staff Comments: The zoning code is currently in the process of being updated;Council can consider this as part of the update. Liquor Stores: Our profit margins are falling and there are a lot of uncertainties including tariffs and growing awareness of health implications surrounding alcohol. It would be prudent to have a plan for exiting the liquor business. It would be helpful to know what kind of revenue could be generated from selling off these sites. Staff Comments: Page 4 of 99 The City continues to monitor liquor operations to ensure we are able to receive the best benefit. Eliminating the liquor stores would result in a $1 million deficit for parks (based on previous budgets). Any revenue would be one time from the sale of property. 5) General Concerns Follow-through on community engagement: We spend time and resources on surveys and community engagement. This is good – but then after the research is done and the analysis written up, it’s often totally abandoned when a private project comes forward. Follow-through on DEI: Similarly, we invest in DEI concept work but fail to invest in ways that build equity. Example: providing a park building for Lewis Park – the park that services an area where we have affordable housing. Similarly, we don’t build the sidewalk that would connect the Hennepin County Library to Adams Park – again this would benefit low-income apartments. We also do not require design work to be put out to bid which results in established firms being awarded contracts for work that may result in contracts for major projects – the France Avenue Underpass Ensuring Dollars are Well Spent on Affordable Housing We are investing millions of dollars in affordable housing projects that are part of new market-rate and luxury complexes. Yet, we don’t have much information about what we will actually get for this investment. We need to know square footage, number of bedrooms, and compliance with affordable rental requirements. According to the Affordable Housing Compliance report that was in the December 2024 HRA packet, only two multi-family buildings that are part of this program are compliant with our Affordable Housing standards. The majority of buildings that were not compliant in the 2024 report were also not compliant in the previous year’s report. This is a significant problem. To date, we have tried imposing a buy-out option and a required unit requirement. Neither of these has worked well. The buy-out resulted in meagre amounts of funding. The requirement proved exceptionally costly. And as noted, doesn’t necessarily produce the affordable units. I’m not sure how to make the program more efficient. However, we are not even halfway through February and we have already invested over $4.8 million in SPARC funds for affordable housing. That came at the expense of other very necessary municipal investments. Mitigating Future Costs: Stop investment in the France Avenue Underpass Page 5 of 99 It’s likely that proposed pedestrian/bike underpass under France will continue the tradition of pouring resources into questionable projects (Grandview Pedestrian Bridge – Chamber of Commerce renovation of space in 7201 Metro BLVD for the Innovation Lab) . Residents are concerned that unspent TIF funds from decertified districts will be used for this project. If returned to the county the city would receive a significant amount of revenue that could be used to address pressing deferred maintenance. -When first pitched, council learned the underpass could be a Dupont Circle situation -Then it was going to be like the York Avenue underpass. Neither of these scenarios is possible. Council has not been given an accurate presentation of the France avenue underpass reality. The feasibility study that promised to be a “back to the drawing board” study was not objective. It failed to provide the information and analysis that we needed to make an informed decision. This project also lacks community support. People are concerned about safety and the cost of upkeep including graffiti. Like the Grandview Pedestrian Bridge the narrative has shifted significantly. The Grandview Pedestrian Bridge started out as being a connection that would land on the ground, not the upper deck of the parking ramp. Then that changed and the utility of the bridge diminished significantly. From Mayor Hovland: Request to look at labor costs: staffing and operations. Staff Comment: This is consistent with the feedback we received from the Council retreat. The plan is to add this to the 2026-27 Budget Work Plan for Council consideration. Page 6 of 99 Capital Budget 2026 Discussion Staff reviewed the list of capital for both 2026 and 2027, and broke out the items that are a necessity from the items that are investments we would like to make and fund alternatively. Staff initially proposed a reduction equating to $805,000 from the previous projection. Council requested to receive more details related to the possible reductions. Those are provided in the comments. Council also indicated wanting to keep investment levels at $2 million to not defer capital. Staff has provided an update below with are recommendation of what we would recommend if Council wanted to keep the investment at roughly $2 million. Necessity (staying in CIP) Project CIP Project Cost City Hall HVAC Equipment Replacement FAC25125 $ 500,000 Asset Preservation Funding FAC25200 700,000 Increase Fiber Capacity to SLP ITS25101 60,000 Life Safety System (Fire Alarm)FAC25101 50,000 Annual Deferred Retaining Wall PW22002 100,000 $ 1,410,000 Future Investments (defer or don’t do)Comments Project CIP Project Cost Lewis Park Shelter Building Replacement*15-049 $ 900,000 Funding TBD - Not included in 2026 was deferred in 2025 budget adoption. Grandview Parking Ramp ADA Access Route ENG25021 200,000 This was a design cost only. There are significant challenges with how you would connect the ramp and the costs of construction would be significant. If needed earlier design could be paid for by reserves and reimbursed when the project is completed. Life Safety System (card readers)FAC25101 150,000 This was reduced because card readers had to be updated as part of the new fire station project and we were going to take $50,000 from Page 7 of 99 asset preservation for fire alarm systems. CLP Maintenance Fiber ITS25100 30,000 This is a nice-to-have project that would simplify the connection but not immediately critical to operations. Public Works Space Reconfiguration FAC25114 75,000 These were design funds, construction on the project was pushed to 2029. Council could use construction fund for reserves and reimburse when the project is completed. Normandale Park Playground Equipment P&R21046 200,000 Values choice regarding quality of service. Park Pathways and Parking Project Improvements P&R25106 100,000 Values choice not critical. Parks ADA Accessibility Improvements P&R25106 100,000 Values choice not critical. $ 855,000* OTHER Fund Alternatively Project CIP Project Cost Yorktown Park Master Plan (Use Construction Fund Reserves)P&R25103 40,000 *Lewis Park Shelter is shown as funding TBD in 2026 already. Total reductions with Lewis Park is $1,755,000 REVISED RECOMMENDATION: If Council wanted to maintain $2 million investment, staff would recommend the following for 2026. Page 8 of 99 Revised CIP Proposal Project CIP Project Cost City Hall HVAC Equipment Replacement FAC25125 $ 500,000 Asset Preservation Funding FAC25200 715,000 Increase Fiber Capacity to SLP ITS25101 60,000 Life Safety System (Fire Alarm)FAC25101 100,000 Increased back to $100,000 Annual Deferred Retaining Wall PW22002 100,000 Normandale Park Playground Equipment P&R21046 200,000 Values choice to include Park Pathways and Parking Project Improvements P&R25106 100,000 Values choice to include Parks ADA Accessibility Improvements P&R25106 100,000 Values choice to include Public Works BAS & Lighting Upgrades FAC25117 125,000 Moved up from 2027. This would be design only. Upgrades would occur after design – CIP shows design in 2027 and install in 2028. Controls vendors have notified maintenance staff that the system is obsolete and parts are no longer available. Eng. Dept. has committed in 2025 work plan to standardize BAS systems in all buildings. PW would then match FS#2 & City Hall and other city buildings. Design takes at least 1 year. $ 2,000,000 Future Investments (defer or don’t do) Project CIP Project Cost Lewis Park Shelter Building Replacement*15-049 $ 900,000* Funding TBD - Not included in 2026 was deferred in 2025 budget adoption. Grandview Parking Ramp ADA Access Route ENG25021 200,000 This was a design cost only. There are significant challenges with how you would connect the ramp and the costs of construction would be significant. If needed earlier design could be paid for by reserves and reimbursed when the project is completed. Page 9 of 99 Life Safety System (card readers)FAC25101 100,000 Card readers had to be updated as part of the new fire station project already CLP Maintenance Fiber ITS25100 30,000 This is a nice-to-have project that would simplify the connection but not immediately critical to operations. Public Works Space Reconfiguration FAC25114 75,000 These were design funds, construction on the project was pushed to 2029. Council use construction fund for reserves and reimburse when the project is completed. $ 405,000* OTHER *Lewis Park Shelter is shown as funding TBD in 2026 already. Total reductions with Lewis Park is $1,305,000. Fund Alternatively Project CIP Project Cost Yorktown Park Master Plan (Use Construction Fund Reserves)P&R25103 40,000 Discussion – recommendation to consider funding design fees that can be reimbursed when bonding from construction fund reserves (when available) and re-imbursing the fund when projects are completed. This could apply to the Grandview project, Public Works BAS & Lighting Upgrades and the PW Space Reconfiguration project above. Page 10 of 99 Update on City Manager Initial Recommendations: May 6, 2025 Staff is still in the early stages of the budget development process, and the City Manager’s biennial budget proposal will be brought to the Council in August. These are updates on initial recommendations presented at the March 15 retreat. Revenues: Credit Card Fees Council indicated they wanted to move forward with credit card fees at retreat. Staff are planning to bring an update on credit card fees to the May 20 Work Session for Council review. Staff will then begin the process of implementing credit card fees across the organization starting on July 1,2025, and ending by Dec. 31 2025. Expected additional revenue would be $300,000 to offset the current fees. Charges for Services Council stated they wanted to move forward with reviewing fees at the March retreat. Staff have begun the process of reviewing fees for services as part of the budgeting process. Further updates about fees will come to Council for review this fall as part of the annual fee approval process. Expected additional revenue would be $50,000 to offset the current fees. Franchise Fees Council agreed to look at increasing franchise fees by approximately $1 million at the March retreat. Council received an update on franchise fees at their April 16 Council Work Session. Staff will talk more in detail on the franchise fees at the May 6th Work Session. Expansion of Advertising Sales Council directed staff to review this as an option. Staff estimated $30,000 in additional revenue from ad sales. Possible Revenues for Future Consideration •Naming Rights for Facilities – Council directed staff to review possibilities as a long-term budget item, potentially a 2026-27 Budget Work Plan item. •Local Sales Tax – Council indicated initial support for exploring future sales taxes as a means of financing regionally significant projects. There is currently legislation being considered at the state that Council has indicated they would support. •Discussion about the remaining TIF balance from Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 - Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 discussion will take place as time allows. Changing course won’t impact the City Manager’s budget proposal for 2026, but may be an opportunity to fund some one-time revenue for capital projects, etc. Expenditures: Page 11 of 99 Capital Budget Staff reviewed the list of capital for both 2026 and 2027, and broke out the items that are a necessity from the items that are investments we would like to make and fund alternatively. Staff initially proposed a reduction equating to $805,000 from the previous projection. Council requested to receive more details related to the possible reductions and also indicated wanting to keep investment levels at $2 million. Staff has provided an update attached with the details and a recommendation of what we would recommend if Council wanted to keep the investment at $2 million. Equipment Levy Staff continues to actively review the equipment list for 2026 and 2027. Staff had an initial target of reducing by $500,000. Service Reductions: Assessing At the April 1 Work Session and April 16 Council meeting, Council reviewed the possibility of transitioning assessing services to the county. Council has directed staff to prepare an agreement with Hennepin County to potentially transition assessing services. The agreement will come back to Council for consideration in June. Estimated amount for 2026 would be $500,000 and $1 million in 2027. Mill & Overlay Council agreed to reduce mill and overlay by 1 mile (.5 mile of the reduction was made in 2025, this would make that permanent and decrease another .5 mile). Expected savings $85,000. Review State of the Community and Board & Commission Appreciation Event Council agreed to look for opportunities to redesign to be more cost effective but maintain core goals. Estimated savings $8,000. Publications Council agreed to review opportunities and evaluate mailed publications to determine need and frequency and if content could instead be presented in a digital format. Estimate $25,000. Other operational reductions to be determined Based on the feedback from retreat, department heads were given the target to produce a budget for their contracts and commodities at an increase level not to exceed 2.5% in 2026 and 2.75% in 2027. That will not be 100% possible in all areas, but they were asked to rebalance as best they could. The overall savings from these areas will be a key part of the City Manager’s proposed budget. Since inflation is likely to be greater than these amounts in some areas, there may be some service re-prioritization or reductions resulting from the budget constraints. UNDECIDED OPTIONS: Page 12 of 99 Council is considering but have not currently directed staff to make modifications based on these initial recommendations. Budget Stabilization Council asked to keep budget stabilization as an option for future consideration as we move forward with the budget process but has not decided to include or not include. Previous Councils created a budget stabilization reserve to use as the City transitioned with the debt service payments for the fire station. There is $589,000 of that transition budget remaining. Contracted/Human Services Funding Council was unsure about reducing or eliminating the Human Services Task Force (HSTF) budget and other non-profit funding. In order to allow more time, staff is recommending not having an HSTF this year and instead, if Council wishes to maintain the budget in 2026, they extend the contracts and maintain the same amounts and do a task force in a future year to review allocation. Currently the HSTF budget of $170,000 broken down below. •$50,000 Edina Resource Center •$19,000 Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People (VEAP) •$18,000 Cornerstone •$17,000 Senior Community Services •$20,000 Edina Historical Society (requesting a total of $100,000) •$12,000 Help at your Door •$12,000 Beacon Interfaith •$9,500 Edina Give and Go •$7,500 Normandale Center for Healing and Wholeness •$5,000 Oasis for Youth Page 13 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending switching to a percent-based fee at a 4% rate. If City Council agrees, an ordinance will be presented for consideration at a future council meeting in July or August of 2025. This approach is based on consumption so “large” energy users pay their “fair share” and more energy conscious users could see a decrease in their fee. Current Franchise Fee Model City Council approved a franchise fee increase in 2023, effective Jan. 1, 2024, for all customer classes for Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. These fees are collected by the utilities via customer billing and remitted back the City. Fee revenue is distributed to the Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund, Conservation & Sustainability (CAS) Fund, and street lighting conversion. The increased franchise fees were adopted to accelerate PACS and CAS project implementation and to create funding for streetlight maintenance. Date: Revised May 6, 2025 April 16, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Chad Millner, Engineering Director Scott Neal, City Manager Arti Lenz, Assistant City Manager Pa Thao, Finance Director Subject: Franchise Fee Increase Proposal Page 14 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Table 1. Current fees by customer class and utility Customer Class Monthly Fee Annual Fee Meter Counts1 Estimated 2025 Revenue CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential $3.55 $42.60 16,433 $700,046 Commercial A $6.00 $72.00 561 $40,392 Commercial/Industrial B $17.00 $204.00 503 $102,612 Commercial/Industrial C $71.00 $852.00 399 $339,948 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger $71.00 $852.00 34 $28,968 Xcel Energy, Electric Service Residential $3.55 $42.60 23,606 $1,005,616 Small C&I, Non-demand $6.00 $72.00 1,214 $87,408 Small C&I, Demand $17.00 $204.00 880 $179,520 Large C&I $71.00 $852.00 220 $189,144 Table 2. 2025 estimated revenue distribution by fund based on current fees Fund Estimated Distribution Share PACS $1,336,827 50% CAS $1,042,725 39% Street Lighting $294,102 11% Total $2,673,653 100% Peer City Comparisons The following table compares Edina’s current franchise fee rates against peer cities. Because there are several customer classes in the commercial & industrial sector, the table presents the low-end and high- end range of fees charged in each city. 1 2024 utility meter counts. Page 15 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Table 3. Selected city 2024 franchise fees by sector and fuel Residential Commercial/Industrial Community Electric Fee Natural Gas Fee Electric Fee - Low Electric Fee - High Natural Gas Fee - Low Natural Gas Fee - High Edina $3.55 $3.55 $6.00 $71.00 $6.00 $71.00 Bloomington $5.95 $5.95 $11.90 $182.00 $11.90 $182.00 Brooklyn Park $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $160.00 $6.50 $160.00 Burnsville $4.00 $4.00 $12.00 $180.00 $12.00 $180.00 Eden Prairie $6.50 $6.50 $8.50 $89.50 $8.50 $89.50 Minnetonka $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 $45.00 $4.50 $45.00 Plymouth $3.53 $3.53 $5.31 $70.85 $5.31 $70.85 St. Louis Park $6.75 $6.75 $12.00 $148.50 $6.75 $148.50 Each city varies in how they utilize their franchise fee, with Edina having the most diverse list of uses compared to the listed cities: • Edina: Sustainability, bike & pedestrian infrastructure, street lighting • Bloomington: Pavement management • Brooklyn Park: Pavement management and reconstruction • Burnsville: General purpose • Eden Prairie: Pavement management • Minnetonka: Undergrounding, streetlights, and trails • Plymouth: Streets projects • St. Louis Park: Pavement management and reconstruction In addition to looking at peer cities with flat fees, staff also compiled a list of metro-area cities who use a percent fee model. Table 4. Select cities with a 2024 percentage-based franchise fee by sector and fuel Residential Commercial/Industrial Community Electric Fee Natural Gas Fee Electric Fee Natural Gas Fee Coon Rapids 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Cottage Grove 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% Hopkins 5.0% 5.0% 4.25% 4.25% Minneapolis 5.25% 5.0% 6.75% 5.5% 3.5% for the largest customer class Mounds View 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Page 16 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Oakdale 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Robbinsdale 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Updated Franchise Fee Model Options During the 2025 City Council retreat, Council directed staff to evaluate an updated flat fee model and new percent fee model to generate an additional $1 million in revenue to contribute to street reconstruction projects. • Flat fee model: A flat fee is set for each utility-defined customer class and can differentiate between customer classes. Flat fees are charged regardless of the customer’s energy use, meaning “small” and “large” energy users pay the same fee. Flat fees allow for predictable revenue streams year over year and allow municipalities to easily target an annual revenue goal based on the total number of customers. o This is the current model Edina uses. • Percent fee model: A percent fee is calculated based on utility gross revenues and can differentiate between customer classes. A percent fee on gross revenue is tied to energy consumption, meaning “small” energy users pay a lower fee than “large” energy users. Percent fees are less predictable because they are dependent on consumption, which is impacted by economic and environmental factors, resulting in a variable revenue stream and difficulty in achieving annual revenue goals. In both cases, fees are charged to customers and collected via energy utility billing. Revenue is then distributed to the City of Edina. Future fee increases must be approved by ordinance, which is then reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Commission. Fee amounts are set but fund uses can be finalized or adjusted later by Council budget approval. The options presented below represent a flat fee model (Option 1) and a percent fee model (Option 2) with an annual revenue target of approximately $4 million. In each model, staff present a proposed fee breakdown with $1 million going toward street reconstruction projects and the remainder allocated between existing funding sources (i.e., PACS, CAS, and street lighting). Option 1: Adopt updated flat fee model effective Jan 2026 with larger increase for businesses Option 1 maintains Edina’s current flat fee model, increasing fees across all customer classes. Residential customer class fees are based on the 2025 values proposed during the 2023 discussions and the commercial/industrial customer class fees double the current fees. Option 1’s estimated revenue is $4.05 million, an incremental increase of $1.38 million from current revenue projections. Option 1 considerations: • Flat fee approach allows for a predictable revenue stream for City budget and planning. Page 17 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • Customers have a predictable monthly fee on their utility bills regardless of utility rate increases or energy consumption changes. • All energy users within a customer class pay the same fee regardless of usage (e.g., “large” energy user will pay the same fee as a “small” energy user). Table 5. Option 1proposed fees by customer class and utility Customer Class Monthly Fee Annual Fee Meter Counts2 Estimated Annual Revenue CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential $4.40 $52.80 16,433 $867,662 Commercial A $12.00 $144.00 561 $80,784 Commercial/Industrial B $34.00 $408.00 503 $205,224 Commercial/Industrial C $142.00 $1,704.00 399 $679,896 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger $142.00 $1,704.00 34 $57,936 Xcel Energy, Electric Service Residential $4.40 $52.80 23,606 $1,246,397 Small C&I, Non-demand $12.00 $144.00 1,214 $174,816 Small C&I, Demand $34.00 $408.00 880 $359,040 Large C&I $142.00 $1,704.00 222 $378,288 Table 6. Option 1 estimated revenue distribution by fund Fund Estimated Distribution Share PACS $1,525,022 38% CAS $1,189,517 29% Street Lighting $335,505 8% Street Reconstruction $1,000,000 25% Total $4,050,043 100% Option 2: Adopt a new percent fee model effective Jan 2026 establishing new 4% fee for all customers Option 2 creates a new percent fee model, charging 4% on each utility’s gross revenues. Individual customer fees would vary based on consumption, so the monthly and annual fees estimated below are averages based on each utility's 2024 gross revenues divided by customer class counts. Option 2’s estimated revenue is $3.96 million, an incremental increase of $1.28 million from current model revenue projections. Note that the estimated revenue projection is based on Xcel Energy’s and 2 2024 utility meter counts. Page 18 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 CenterPoint Energy’s 2024 gross operating revenues. Actual revenues will vary year by year for each utility. Option 2 considerations: • Variable fee revenue makes it difficult for City budget and planning if there are “low” revenue years and “high” revenue years. • Predictability of monthly fee for customers goes away with high use months or utility rate increases. • Creates approach based on consumption so “large” energy users pay their “fair share” and more energy conscious users could see a decrease in their fee. • Very large energy users will see a significant increase in their franchise fee. Table 7. Option 2 proposed fees by customer class and utility Customer Class Monthly Fee Average Estimated Monthly Fee Meter Counts3 Estimated Annual Revenue CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential 4% $3.39 16,433 $668,352 Commercial A 4% $2.86 561 $19,281 Commercial/Industrial B 4% $47.40 503 $286,101 Commercial/Industrial C 4% $7.57 399 $36,248 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger 4% $208.49 34 $85,064 Xcel Energy, Electric Service Residential 4% $4.61 23,606 $1,307,198 Small C&I, Non-demand 4% $4.83 1,214 $70,314 Small C&I, Demand 4% $33.73 880 $356,190 Large C&I 4% $422.77 222 $1,126,265 Table 8. Option 1 estimated revenue distribution by fund Fund Estimated Distribution Share PACS $1,477,507 38% CAS $1,152,455 29% Street Lighting $325,051 8% Street Reconstruction $1,000,000 25% Total $3,955,014 100% 3 2024 utility meter counts. Page 19 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 The table below was created based on comments at the April 16, 2025 City Council Work Session. Average fees were created for the percentage-based model for 4.00%, 4.25%, 4.50%, and 5.00%. Comparing Option 1 and Option 2 Fees and Revenue Both Option 1 and Option 2 will bring in additional revenue. In most cases, customers would see an increase in their monthly fee charge, however with Option 2, some customers will see their monthly charge decrease. Monthly Fee Current 4% Model 4.25% Model 4.5% Model 5% Model CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential $3.55 $3.39 $3.60 $3.81 $4.24 Commercial A $6.00 $2.86 $3.04 $3.22 $3.58 Commercial/Industrial B $17.00 $47.40 $50.36 $53.32 $59.25 Commercial/Industrial C $71.00 $7.57 $8.04 $8.52 $9.46 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & $71.00 $208.49 $221.52 $234.55 $260.61 Xcel Energy, Electric Service Residential $3.55 $4.61 $4.90 $5.19 $5.77 Small C&I, Non-demand $6.00 $4.83 $5.13 $5.43 $6.03 Small C&I, Demand $17.00 $33.73 $35.84 $37.95 $42.16 Large C&I $71.00 $422.77 $449.20 $475.62 $528.46 Average Fee Current 4% Model 4.25% Model 4.5% Model 5% Model Residential Class $7.10 $8.00 $8.50 $9.00 $10.01 Commercial Class - Low $12.00 $7.69 $8.17 $8.65 $9.61 Commercial Class - High $142.00 $631.26 $670.72 $710.17 $789.07 Total Fee Current 4% Model 4.25% Model 4.5% Model 5% Model CenterPoint Energy, Natura $1,211,966 $1,095,047 $1,163,488 $1,231,928 $1,368,809 Xcel Energy, Electric Service $1,461,688 $2,859,966 $3,038,714 $3,217,462 $3,574,958 Total $2,673,653 $3,955,014 $4,202,202 $4,449,390 $4,943,767 Incremental Change $1,281,360 $1,528,549 $1,775,737 $2,270,114 Page 20 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Table 9. Monthly Fee Comparison Customer Class Current Monthly Fee Option 1 Monthly Fee Option 2 Monthly 4% Fee Estimate Option 1 Percent Change Option 2 Percent Change CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential $3.55 $4.40 $3.39 24% -5% Commercial A $6.00 $12.00 $2.86 100% -52% Commercial/Industrial B $17.00 $34.00 $47.40 100% 179% Commercial/Industrial C $71.00 $142.00 $7.57 100% -89% Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger $71.00 $142.00 $208.49 100% 194% Xcel Energy, Electric Service Residential $3.55 $4.40 $4.61 24% 30% Small C&I, Non-demand $6.00 $12.00 $4.83 100% -20% Small C&I, Demand $17.00 $34.00 $33.73 100% 98% Large C&I $71.00 $142.00 $422.77 100% 495% Table 10. Annual Fee Revenue Comparison Fund Current Estimated Revenue Option 1 Estimated Revenue Option 2 Estimated Revenue PACS $1,336,827 $1,525,022 $1,477,507 CAS $1,042,725 $1,189,517 $1,152,455 Street Lighting $294,102 $335,505 $325,051 Street Reconstruction $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Total $2,673,653 $4,050,043 $3,955,014 Franchise Fee Fund Background Fee revenue is distributed to the Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund, Conservation & Sustainability (CAS) Fund, and street lighting conversion. Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Page 21 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • These franchise fees were approved by City Council in November 2012 and went into effect Q1 of 2013. • The purpose of the PACS Fund is to provide for the creation, maintenance and improvement of non-motorized transportation facilities for the primary benefit of pedestrians and cyclists in Edina. Non-motorized transportation facilities (NMTF) include sidewalks, bikeways, trails, crossing treatments, associated signage and pavement markings. • The addition of new customers (residential and commercial) within Edina results in an estimated 1% increase in PACS Fund revenue per year. • The PACS Fund has been primarily used to construct new infrastructure, including: o Over 15 miles of new sidewalks and shared-use paths. o Over three miles of bicycle facilities. o Seven pedestrian-activated flashers. o One traffic signal with accessible pedestrian signals (Wooddale Ave and Valley View Rd). o Crosswalk installation equipment and materials for Public Works. o Engineering services for various pedestrian and bicycle projects. • The PACS Fund has also been used to fund associated strategic initiatives, including: o The Living Streets Plan, which provides guidance for public realm and street design that is safe, sustainable and convenient for all modes of transportation. o The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, which guides the City’s continuing evolution toward becoming a more walkable, bikeable community. • The Drive 25 initiative, whereby local speed limits were reduced to 25 miles per hour in an effort to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists. Conversation and Sustainability Fund (CAS) • These franchise fees were approved by City Council in 2015 and went into effect Q1 of 2016. • The purpose of the CAS Fund is to provide a dedicated funding source for the City’s conservation and sustainability functionality and programs. • The addition of new customers (residential and commercial) within Edina results in an estimated 1% increase in CAS Fund revenue per year. • No less than 50% of annual CAS Fund revenue is dedicated to capital improvements for City property and equipment that further the City’s overall conservation and sustainability goals. o The Green Fleet Policy provides a process to support concerting City fleet to electric and highly efficient vehicles and equipment. o Completing energy management studies to identify facility energy efficiency and renewable upgrades. o Complete renewable energy investments. • The CAS Fund is also used to fund programs that accomplish goals in Edina’s Climate Action Plan, such as: Page 22 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 o The Climate Action Fund, cost share program where the City reimburses residents and businesses for some of the costs to complete high-impact energy-efficiency projects, install on-site solar, and purchase other electrification equipment. o Providing subsidized or free home and business energy audits to identify high-impact projects. o Implement community policies, like the Sustainable Buildings Policy, Efficient Buildings ordinance and Carryout Bag Fee ordinance. o Partnering with Minnesota GreenCorps to host a GreenCorps member annually for staff support and meeting goals related to air quality and community outreach. Street Lighting System In 2023, streetlight conversion was added to the allocation for franchise fee revenue to pay for the conversion of streetlights from city ownership to Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy requires a monthly fee per light to own and maintain lights. The City will continue to own the lights in high priority areas, such as 50th and France and Grandview. Page 23 of 99 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Information / Background: This staff report is a follow up to the discussion at the March 15, 2025 City Council retreat. This report summarizes allowable ways to use the remaining monies that were previously collected from the Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 TIF Districts. No action is needed at this time. 1)Centennial Lakes TIF Account a.TIF District established in 1988 and decertified in 2014. This District was created before 1990 and subject to less restrictive state regulations compared to new TIF Districts. b.No further increment is collected from this District. The full value of the improved properties is on the property tax rolls and available to the governing authorities including Richfield school district, City of Edina, Hennepin County and the State. c.When the District was de-certified, there was a multi-million cash balance available to the City for general redevelopment and infrastructure purposes. The monies available were used to advance goals of the City in lieu of increasing the property tax levy. d.Over the past 10 years, these monies have been used to conduct redevelopment-related professional studies, acquire property, and construct public improvements such as roads, trails, sidewalks, privacy screening, street lighting, utilities, related landscaping features and parking garages. Monies have also been loaned to other internal funds to construct public improvements without increasing the property tax levy. e.The remaining balance is approximately $2,021,235. This balance can be retained by the City for eligible expenditures, or it could be returned to Hennepin County. If returned, approximately 1/3 will eventually be re-distributed to the City for unrestricted use with the balance being redistributed to the County and State. Only a minor amount ($25k max.) can be redistributed to the schools. f.The City’s finance advisors at Ehlers Associates prepared a memo (see attached) to address how the remaining monies in the Centennial Lakes TIF account can be used. The allowed and unacceptable uses of these monies are summarized below: i.The Centennial Lakes monies can only be spent on projects located in the portion of Edina designated as the “Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area”. This area is shown in the attached map. The boundaries were originally created in 1988 and modified in 2012. Date: May 6, 2025 To: Ari Lenz, Assistant City Manager From: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Subject: Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing Accounts - Overview Page 24 of 99 StaƯ Report: Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 TIF Accounts May 6, 2025 Page 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 ii. Examples of allowable uses of Centennial Lakes TIF monies 1. Land acquisition for redevelopment purposes 2. Demolition, remodeling or relocation 3. Site preparation including environmental remediation 4. Public infrastructure including but not limited to: roads, curb & gutter, sidewalks, trails, public utilities and related items such as retaining walls, landscaping, streetscape, and street lights 5. Redevelopment related studies including urban design, redevelopment strategies, conceptual design, and preliminary engineering 6. Affordable housing 7. Administrative expenses, including related staff expenses and third party expenses 8. Costs that inhibit redevelopment of private properties including acquisition, site preparation and environmental remediation iii. Examples of unacceptable uses of Centennial Lakes TIF monies 1. General operations of City government 2. City equipment such as vehicles (like fire trucks or squad cars), maintenance equipment (like snow plows), or general equipment (like photocopiers) 3. City services such as public works crew, engineering services, parks and recreation and emergency responders 4. Construction of new City buildings for examples: park shelters, City Hall, and fire stations 5. Construction of new City park 2) Southdale 2 TIF Account a. TIF District was established in 2012 and decertified in 2021. b. No further tax increment is collected from this District. The full value of the improved properties is on the property tax rolls and available to the governing authorities including Richfield and Edina school districts, City of Edina, Hennepin County and the State. c. When the District was de-certified, there was a multi-million cash balance available to the City for specific purposes authorized in Minnesota statutes. Page 25 of 99 StaƯ Report: Centennial Lakes and Southdale 2 TIF Accounts May 6, 2025 Page 3 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 d. The remaining balance is approximately $6,186,518. This balance can be retained by the City for eligible expenditures, or it could be returned to Hennepin County. If returned to the County, approximately 1/3 will eventually be re-distributed to the City for unrestricted use with the balance being redistributed to the County and State. Only a minor amount ($25k max.) can be redistributed to the schools. e. The allowable uses of these monies are limited to one of the essential purposes of the HRA. i. Examples of allowable uses of Southdale 2 TIF monies 1. Affordable housing 2. Administrative expenses, including related staff expenses and third party expenses Attachments: - Project Area map - Ehlers memo dated April 21, 2025 Page 26 of 99 Boundary Map Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area The area bounded by green line is the Redevelopment Project Area. This area includes most of Edina’s commercial and industrial districts including: 44th & France, 50th & France, 54th & France, Greater Southdale, Centennial Lakes, Edinborough, Pentagon Park, Cahill, Hwy 100/494 business park, and Grandview. Page 27 of 99 Page 28 of 99 • • • • • • • • • • Page 29 of 99 TIF Plan Adopted:3/7/1988 Pooling Limit:N/A TIF District Certified:4/5/1988 Five-Year Rule:N/A Decertification:12/31/2014 2023 Est. 2024 2014 Tax Capacity:3,581,728 Interfund Loan Receivables:5,150,000 4,650,000 Original Tax Capacity:229,691 Cash/Interest:1,460,150 2,021,235 Added Tax Capacity:3,352,037 Total Fund Balance:6,610,150 6,671,235 Increase:14.6x Centennial Lakes TIF Fund Summary Tax Base ImpactsFund Balances Page 30 of 99 EdinaMN.gov 2026 – 2027 Budget May 6, 2025 Work Session Page 31 of 99 Tentative Timeline Date Event Action Dec 17th Council Approved 2025 Levy and Budget February 4th & 6th Council Work Session Council Work Session (Services Overview by Dept.) March 15th Discussion & Goal Setting Council Retreat May 6th Council Work Session Council Work Session May 20th Council Work Session Council Work Session August 19th 26/27 Budget Presented Council Work Session September 2nd 26/27 Budget Discussion Council Work Session September 16th Preliminary Levy Adoption Council Meeting Dec. 2nd Council Work session Council Meeting Public hearing and adopt final 2026/27 Levy Dec. 16th Council Meeting Adopt final 2026/27 Levy January 2025 Finance Deadline Publish detail budget book to website ADDED!ADDED! Page 32 of 99 Agenda •Council Budget Suggestions •Capital Budget 2026 Discussion •TIF Centennial Lakes Southdale 2 •City Manager initial budget recommendation update •Human Services Taskforce Recommendation •Franchise Fee Adjustment follow-up discussion •Credit Card Fees (May 20 Packet & Discussion) Page 33 of 99 Capital Budget Discussion •Does Council want to maintain $2M Levy contribution? •If yes, staff has recommended an adjusted list of 2026 CIP projects (included in the packet), we would include in City Manager’s Budget proposal to revise the CIP to reflect those changes. Page 34 of 99 TIF Follow-up Centennial Lakes & Southdale 2 •Some additional information was requested by Council at retreat. We have included that information in the packet. •There was also a request to consider allocating more of the Centennial Lakes TIF towards the Interchange project. Staff is recommending we wait to make any adjustments until we have a better understanding of if the State Legislature is going to allocate any funds. •We are recommending talking about this at a later date as time allows. Changing course won’t impact the City Manager’s proposed budget for 2026-27, but may be a source for some one-time funding in a future budget. Page 35 of 99 Human Service Task Force Recommendation •Typically there is a Human Service task force that reviews contract allocations starting around now. •Council is currently considering whether or not to modify the Human Service amount in the budget (currently $170,000). •In order to allow more time for Council to consider, Staff is recommending we not convene a human services taskforce this year. Instead if Council decides to continue the allocation, we would extend the current contracts. This would allow Council to be able to consider Human Services funding levels in the fall with the full context of the proposed budget. Page 36 of 99 EdinaMN.gov Utility Franchise Fee Discussion May 6, 2025 City Council Work Session Page 37 of 99 Franchise Fees •Statute 216B.36, Any public utility in public property within a municipality may be required to obtain a franchise agreement. Under this agreement, the city can impose a fee and the use of that fee use. Utility companies typically pass this fee on to their customers. It’s shown as a line item on their gas and electric bills. •Edina Franchise Fee History 2012 Established w/ Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund 2016 Added the Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) Fund 2023 Added Street Lights as eligible use Updated fees 2024 New fees effective for all Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy customers Page 38 of 99 2025 Decision Point •2023 fee updates included planned reviews in 2025 and 2027 for additional increases •Council Retreat directed staff to proceed with options to generate additional $1M for street reconstruction. Noted the importance of work related to PACS, CAS, and Street Lighting. •Option 1: Adopt updated flat fee model effective Jan 2026 with larger increase for commercial/industrial sector •Option 2: Staff Recommendation: Adopt a new percent fee model effective Jan 2026 establishing new 4% fee for all customers Staff estimate that both options will result in approximately $4 million annually in franchise revenue Page 39 of 99 Current Franchise Fee Uses •Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund: Maintaining and creating new pedestrian and bicycle facilities •Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) Fund: Implementing Climate Action Plan policies and programs •Street Light Conversion: Transition streetlights to Xcel Energy and replace  Estimated Revenue Estimated Distribution PACS CAS Street Lighting 2024 $2,673,653 $1,336,827 (50%) $1,042,725 (39%)$294,102 (11%) Page 40 of 99 Franchise Fees – Current Customer Class Monthly Fee Annual Fee Meter Counts Estimated Revenue CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential $3.55 $42.60 16,433 $700,046 Commercial A $6.00 $72.00 561 $40,392 Commercial/Industrial B $17.00 $204.00 503 $102,612 Commercial/Industrial C $71.00 $852.00 399 $339,948 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger $71.00 $852.00 34 $28,968 Xcel Energy, Electric Service Residential $3.55 $42.60 23,606 $1,005,616 Small C&I, Non-demand $6.00 $72.00 1,214 $87,408 Small C&I, Demand $17.00 $204.00 880 $179,520 Large C&I $71.00 $852.00 222 $189,144 Residential customers account for 67% of the revenue. Page 41 of 99 Peer City Comparisons, Residential Customer Class Plymouth Edina Burnsville Minnetonka Bloomington Eden Prairie St. Louis Park Brooklyn Park $3.53 $3.55 $4 $4.50 $5.95 $6.50 $6.75 $7 Electric and Natural Gas Fees (each)Uses Pavement management and reconstruction Pavement management and reconstruction Pavement management Pavement management Undergrounding, streetlights, trails General purpose Sustainability, multi-modal infrastructure, streetlights Pavement management Rates per utility shown. Page 42 of 99 Peer City Comparisons, Commercial Customer Class Minnetonka Plymouth Edina Eden Prairie St. Louis Park Brooklyn Park Burnsville Bloomington $4.50 $5.31 $6.00 $8.50 $12.00 $7 $12 $11.90 $45 $70.85 $71 $89.50 $148.50 $160 $180 $182 Electric and Natural Gas Fees High Low Page 43 of 99 Cities with Percentage-based Fees Oakdale Cottage Grove Coon Rapids Mounds View Hopkins Robbinsdale Minneapolis 3% 3.75% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5.25% 3% 3.75% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Residential Customer Classes Natural Gas Fee 3% 3.75% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6.75%* 3% 3.75% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% Commercial Customer Classes *3.5% for largest consumer class Page 44 of 99 Option 1: Adopt updated flat fee model effective Jan 2026 with larger increase for businesses •Option 1 maintains Edina’s current flat fee model, increasing fees across all customer classes. •Residential customer class fees are based on the 2025 values proposed during the 2023 discussions and the commercial/industrial customer class fees double the current fees. •Comments from residents and commissions about residential customer paying too great of a percentage of the fees (67%). •Option 1’s estimated revenue is $4.05 million, an incremental increase of $1.38 million from current revenue projections. Page 45 of 99 Franchise Fees – Option 1 Customer Class Monthly Fee Annual Fee Meter Counts Estimated Revenue CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential $4.40 $52.80 16,433 $867,662 Commercial A $12.00 $144.00 561 $80,784 Commercial/Industrial B $34.00 $408.00 503 $205,224 Commercial/Industrial C $142.00 $1,704.00 399 $679,896 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger $142.00 $1,704.00 34 $57,936 Xcel Energy, Electric Service      Residential $4.40 $52.80 23,606 $1,246,397 Small C&I, Non-demand $12.00 $144.00 1,214 $174,816 Small C&I, Demand $34.00 $408.00 880 $359,040 Large C&I $142.00 $1,704.00 222 $378,288 Page 46 of 99 Why would we (not) consider a flat fee model? •Why would we support this? •Creates approach based predictable revenue and same fee for all customers within the same class •Predictable fee for customers regardless of utility rate or consumption changes •Why wouldn’t we support this? •Flat fee is the same regardless of energy use, so higher energy users pay the same as a more energy conscious user Page 47 of 99 Option 2: Adopt a new percent fee model effective Jan 2026 establishing new 4% fee for all customers •Option 2 creates a new percent fee model, charging 4% on each utility’s gross revenues. •Individual customer fees would vary based on consumption, so the monthly and annual fees estimated are averages based on each utility's 2024 gross revenues and customer counts in each customer class. •Option 2’s estimated revenue is $3.96 million, an incremental increase of $1.28 million from current revenue projections. •Note that the estimated revenue projection is based on Xcel Energy’s and CenterPoint Energy’s 2024 gross operating revenues. Actual revenues will vary year by year for each utility. Average % rate converting our current flat rate is 2.7%. Page 48 of 99 Franchise Fees – Option 2 Customer Class Current Flat Fee Estimated % Fee Monthly % Fee Average Monthly Fee Meter Counts Estimated Revenue CenterPoint Energy, Natural Gas Service Residential 4.2% 4% $3.39 16,433 $668,352 Commercial A 8.4%4%$2.86 561 $19,281 Commercial/Industrial B 1.4%4%$47.40 503 $286,101 Commercial/Industrial C 37.5%4%$7.57 399 $36,248 Small Volume, Dual Fuel A & Larger 1.4%4%$208.49 34 $85,064 Xcel Energy, Electric Service       Residential 3.1%4%$4.61 23,606 $1,307,198 Small C&I, Non-demand 5.0%4%$4.83 1,214 $70,314 Small C&I, Demand 2.0%4%$33.73 880 $356,190 Large C&I 0.7%4%$422.77 222 $1,126,265 Average % rate converting our current flat rate is 2.7%.Page 49 of 99 Why would we (not) consider a percent model? •Why would we support this? •Creates approach based on consumption so higher energy users pay their “fair share” •Rewards efficiency and energy conservation •Why wouldn’t we support this? •Risk of not meeting revenue (flat fee guarantees same amount each year, whereas percent model is based on utility revenues) •Some predictability of energy bills goes away with high use months or rate increases •Certain customers will see a very large increase in their bills Page 50 of 99 Option Comparisons Page 51 of 99 EdinaMN.gov Direction needed by May to complete regulatory process. Official Ordinance approval July / August. Option 1: Adopt updated flat fee model effective Jan 2026 with larger increase for commercial/industrial sector Option 2: Staff Recommendation: Adopt a new percent fee model effective Jan 2026 establishing new 4% fee for all customers Questions Page 52 of 99 d ITEM REPORT Date: May 6, 2025 Item Activity: Discussion Meeting: City Council Agenda Number: 3.2 Prepared By: Chad Millner, Engineering Director Item Type: Report & Recommendation Department: Engineering Item Title: Water Treatment Plant #5 at Yorktown Park Action Requested: Discussion about Water Treatment Plant #5 at Yorktown Park. Information/Background: Staff will present information regarding locating Water Treatment Plant #5 at Yorktown Park. This is the current location of Fire Station #2. Staff feel this location is suitable for a water plant. Re-use of the existing FS#2 building is not recommended due to building code limitations, chemical storage safety requirements, underground water storage and efficiency of space. The report provided a 2025 project cost of $31.5M. This includes 25% to 35% construction contingency ($4.6M to $6.5M), $1.8M for water system and wells integrations ($1.8M) and engineering ($4.7M). These values will be provided for the utility rate study scheduled for 2025 to determine potential timing. Resources/Financial Impacts: Discussion Only Relationship to City Policies: Discussion Only Supporting Documentation: 1. Edina WTP No. 5 - York Station Technical Memorandum 2. WTP 5 Distribution System Analysis 2024 Update 3. Southdale Storage and Water Main Improvements Modeling Page 53 of 99 P05177-2024-004 Page 1 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Chad Millner Director of Engineering City of Edina From: Aaron Vollmer, PE Abby Bowman, EIT Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station Date: March 24, 2025 INTRODUCTION Background Edina, Minnesota (City), is a community with approximately 53,490 residents located in the southeast portion of Hennepin County. Currently, the City operates two separate drinking water systems: • The Morningside System: located in the northeast corner of the city, where potable water is provided by the City of Minneapolis; however, the City is responsible for maintaining the system piping and infrastructure. • Self-Operated Service Area: consists of eighteen (18) raw water supply wells, four (4) water treatment plants, four (4) water towers, one (1) ground storage reservoir, and over 200 miles of water main. The City provides an average of 6.9 million gallons per day (MGD) to its residents with a peak day demand exceeding 18.8 MGD. To meet this peak day demand, the City occasionally utilizes unfiltered wells, which often result in taste and odor complaints. The City is looking to add additional treatment capacity to its system to ensure consistent water quality to all customers and provide redundancy in water treatment operations. Purpose and Scope During peak summer days, the Southdale District of Edina is primarily served by two unfiltered wells, Well No. 5 and Well No. 18. The Southdale District accounts for almost 50% of the City’s overall water consumption. Both Well No. 5 and Well No. 18 have iron and manganese Page 54 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 2 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com concentrations that exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCL) for drinking water. The City aims to construct Water Treatment Plant (WTP) No. 5 to provide additional treatment capacity and provide consistent water quality to all customers. The planning and design process for WTP No. 5 initially began in 2017 by Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services (AE2S). The City chose to hold on construction of WTP No. 5 to investigate opportunities to partner with area developers on a project. Partnering may have reduced the architectural requirements by moving the facility from France Ave to within a development project and/or a parking structure. Now, with the decommissioning of existing Fire Station No. 2, the City intends to revisit the design of WTP No. 5 on the York Avenue site. EXISTING YORK FIRE STATION INTEGRATION The York Avenue site is currently occupied by Edina Fire Station 2. This fire station will be decommissioned as a new one is constructed in a separate location. Re-use of the existing structure was explored. On August 7th, 2024, AE2S and the City conducted a tour of the existing Edina Fire Station 2. The building footprint consists of roughly half living space and half garage space. Figure 1 below displays the fire station layout and the different space allocations. Due to structural and age-related issues, the current living spaces are not suitable for reuse and will require demolition. However, the feasibility of incorporating the remaining garage space into the WTP design was explored. Incorporating the existing garage space of Edina Fire Station 2 into the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) construction has been assessed and deemed unfeasible due to the following reasons: • The WTP design needs a basement level, which would make it difficult and expensive to support the existing structure during construction of this level. • The main components of the WTP, meant to handle large amounts of water and store hazardous chemicals, cannot be placed in the garage space of the existing Fire Station 2 because this space does not meet building code and fire safety standards, the structure is not built to meet the structural needs, and does not have enough electrical capacity for this type of facility. • The site has limited space due to nearby utilities, access to York Avenue and park features. The design of WTP No. 5 needs to efficiently use the site. Using any of the existing building spaces is an inefficient design option. Due to building and safety requirements, site design constraints and cost, it is recommended to demolish the existing structure for the construction of WTP No. 5. Page 55 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 3 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com Figure 1: Existing York Fire Station Plan Sheet FACILITY INTEGRATION Project Site Limitations A proposed location from the original WTP No. 5 study was Yorktown Park, just north of Edina Fire Station No. 2. However, due to significant utility infrastructure constraints, this option was not deemed the primary alternative. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines are routed directly through Yorktown Park and would have required rerouting to construct the facility in this location. Locating the WTP on the footprint of existing Edina Fire Station No. 2 mitigates the utility constraints. This site is bordered by a YMCA, Skatepark, Yorktown Park and York Avenue. These boundaries create defined limits for the construction of the WTP. The Skatepark located to the east of the site is owned by three entities. Although not currently in operation, the demolition of the skatepark is to be avoided. An updated site accommodation evaluation from the Edina WTP No. 5 Preliminary Design Report is presented below in Table 1. The table includes only the originally selected Southdale site and the newly proposed Yorktown site. Page 56 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 4 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com Table 1: Site Accommodation Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Southdale Yorktown Treatment Performance Performance Objectives XX XX Operational Complexity - - Operational Flexibility O XX Security and Safety Operator Security and Safety XX XX Public Security and Safety O X Site Architecture Architectural Value XX - Sustainability/Resiliency - X Shared-use Feasibility XX X Land Use X - Constructability Initial Construction X XX Staging/Sequencing X X Future Maintenance X X Additional Site Considerations Distribution System Operation XX X Raw Water Pipeline X X Finished Water Pipeline X X Evaluation Description Very Unfavorable Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Very Favorable Evaluation Symbol OO O - X XX Well Overview Well No. 5, Well No. 18 and future Well No. 21 will provide raw water to the proposed WTP No. 5. Specifics on Well No. 5 and Well No. 18 are shown below in Table 2. Table 3 below displays the well raw water quality for both Well No. 5 and Well No. 18 with tests conducted on August 9th of 2024 at the AE2S Maple Grove office. Page 57 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 5 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com Table 2: Existing Well Characteristics Well Characteristic Well No. 5 Well No. 18 Unique Well No. 206377 200918 Date Reconstructed 6/13/2002 10/16/1973 Formation Prairie du Chien – Jordan Jordan Pump Hp 100 125 Setting Depth (ft.) 153 120 Depth (ft.) 443 446 Diameter (in.) 16 16 Outer Casing (in.) 16/20/24 16/20/24 Open Hole Depth (ft.) 186 186 Pumping Rate (gpm) 1,000 1,000 Static Level (ft.) 78 61.3 Pumping Level (ft.) 90 103 Specific Capacity (gpm/ft.) 83.3 24.0 Table 3: Raw Water Quality by Well Water Quality Well No. 5 (mg/L) Well No. 18 (mg/L) Iron 0.54 0.40 Manganese 0.41 0.23 Ammonia 0 0 MonoChloramines 0.18 0.30 Well No. 18 is located at Yorktown Park and would be converted to a pitless unit. Well No. 5 is located in the 69th Street median just east of France Avenue. Architectural improvements were recently completed and the wellhouse no longer requires modifications. The well pump and motor will likely require adjustments to pump to the York Avenue site. Distribution System Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc (SEH) currently maintains the City’s water distribution system model, the City has employed SEH to evaluate the effect that WTP No. 5 would have on the distribution system. Existing system pressures in this part of the City exceed 90 psi, limiting the tolerance in this area for additional capacity. Water main upsizing would need to take place prior to WTP No. 5 becoming operational. SEH explored 10 different piping infrastructure improvements and Page 58 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 6 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com found that the addition of a 16-inch water main between York Ave and France Ave along the Edina Promenade provided a drop in velocity, pressure and head loss with the least amount of piping improvement required. Phasing of this watermain upgrade can be integrated with any sanitary or storm upgrades happening along this corridor. Onsite Storage The City has employed SEH to complete a systemwide storage analysis for assisting in sizing the clearwell storage tank at the WTP No. 5 site. The evaluation recommends the City add additional storage to the water system, an independent ground storage reservoir and larger clearwell storage onsite of the WTP No. 5 were both explored. Due to distribution system capacity and current water storage locations within the City, it is recommended to install elevated storage at the Southdale Tower site. The onsite clearwell at WTP No. 5 will be sized to meet backwashing and plant operation demands to avoid requiring water volume from the distribution system, but will not provide extra system storage. TREATMENT PROCESS Objectives Construction of WTP No. 5 will increase the City’s ability to provide consistent water quality to all customers and provide redundancy in water treatment operations. Primary treatment objectives include conformance with standard engineering design criteria, compliance with existing and anticipated drinking water regulation, and the ability to achieve the established target treatment goals. In addition to compliance with primary drinking water regulations, the City and AE2S established treatment target goals for the proposed WTP No. 5. These treatment goals and their measurement criteria are presented below in Table 4. Page 59 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 7 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com Table 4: Treatment Objectives for WTP No. 5 Water Parameter Measurement Criteria Iron and Manganese Concentrations to be at or below half of the respective SMCL. Iron ≤ 0.15 mg/L and Manganese ≤ 0.025 mg/L Radium Concentrations to be at or below half of the respective MCL. Combined Radium ≤ 2.5 pCi/L and Gross Alpha Emitters ≤ 7.5 pCi/L Disinfection Total Chlorine residual greater than 1.5 mg/L and less than 2.0 mg/L and meet the chlorine MRDL of 4.0 mg/L Radon Consistently monitor air quality of facility, alert City staff if radon levels are above 2.0 pCi/L *SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level *MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level *MRDL = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Technologies Pre-oxidation The pre-oxidation process utilizes chemicals, such as oxygen, chlorine, and permanganate to oxidize iron and manganese prior to filtration. Oxygen is introduced to the water through aeration, which is considered a physical oxidation process. The feasibility of physical oxidation is dependent on the contaminant concentrations to be removed from the water. The pilot study combined with the aeration life cycle cost comparison indicates an aeration system is unnecessary with the current source water. The chemical oxidants, chlorine and permanganate, are typically added to water by dosing with a chemical feed system. The final choice of which chemical oxidant to use will be determined closer to construction of the facility. Filtration To remove physical suspended solids and particles from water, WTP No. 5 will incorporate a filtration process. To determine the most appropriate design for this facility, the project team compared gravity filters and pressure filters, considering water industry trends, treatment facility footprint, and operator convenience. After careful evaluation, concrete gravity filters were selected as the preferred filtration technology. The design includes three filter cells, each with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm), resulting in a total maximum flow rate of 3,000 gpm. A dual sand/anthracite media is recommended for WTP No. 5 due to advantageous loading rates and filter run-times. This Page 60 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 8 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com combination of filter media also results in excellent turbidity removal and lower head loss accumulation. Disinfection Two common methods exist for disinfection of municipal water systems, chloramination and breakpoint chlorination. The difference between these techniques is based on the concentration ratio of chlorine to ammonia in the water. Chloramination will be most effective at a chlorine to ammonia ratio of 5:1, while breakpoint chlorination occurs after the ratio exceeds 7.6:1. The City prefers chloramination due to its lower chemical consumption. Due to the low ammonia concentrations in the raw water from Well No. 5 and Well No. 18, additional ammonia will need to be dosed at the WTP to achieve the desired chlorine to ammonia ratio for effective chloramination. Chlorine can be stored in three common ways: bulk liquid sodium hypochlorite, bulk gaseous chlorine, and on-site generation. The City currently uses gaseous chlorine in 150-lb cylinders. For the proposed facility, 1 ton gas cylinders have been designed including a chlorine scrubber and shut off system. The expansion of the gas chlorine cylinder and the incorporation of a scrubber and shut off system greatly improves the facility’s level of safety. Chemical Dosing Inhibiting equipment and pipe corrosion can assist with regulation issues, such as lead and copper standards. This can be accomplished by dosing the water with orthophosphate and polyphosphate blends. The City currently doses a 50/50 blend which has proven to be an effective method for this water system. Therefore, the project team recommends the continuation of this chemical dosage blend. To reduce high radium levels in drinking water, the City currently uses pre-formed hydrous manganese oxide (HMO). This safe and effective method involves radium adsorbing HMO particles that are removed from the water during filtration. The radium-laden particles are then removed from the process through the backwashing process. For the new WTP No. 5, AE2S recommends HMO equipment to cope with radium concentrations. In municipal water treatment, fluoride is utilized for public health and wellness as it serves to reduce tooth decay. Proper dosing is crucial as inadequate levels of fluoride can result in an increased number of cavities in the population served, whereas dosing excessive amounts of fluoride can stain the tooth enamel. Fluoride can be dosed in water treatment following filtration or at well sites for unfiltered wells. Currently at other WTP facilities, the City doses fluoride in the form of fluorosilicic acid, a highly corrosive compound. Due to the extreme corrosiveness of this Page 61 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 9 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com chemical, the design team has ensured that the containment area for the fluorosilicic acid is in accordance with the guidance provided in Ten State Standards. Backwashing Backwashing is employed regularly throughout the treatment process to remove particulate build up in the treatment filters. The water used to backwash the filters is considered unfinished and is sent to a reclaim tank. From there, particulates are filtered out and the liquid is recycled back to the start of the treatment facility. This process increases sustainability and efficiency of water usage. There are two main processes to separate the solids and liquids of backwash waste. One involves a plate settler, a mechanical piece of equipment. Incorporating a plate settler increases the speed and volume of sludge that is filtered out and allows for a smaller backwash tank. The other process requires no plate settler mechanism and backwash waste settles in the reclaim basin by gravity alone. This process requires ample settling time and a larger facility footprint. The city has decided to not proceed with a plate settler due to the additional maintenance the equipment would require. LAYOUTS An updated layout for WTP No. 5 was developed for Yorktown Site with the relocation of Fire Station No. 2. Drawings for this proposed layout are included in Attachment A. This new layout consists of two buried backwash tanks, each sized to hold a backwash from each of the three (3) gravity filters and a buried clearwell storage system. As previously mentioned, the City’s current storage capacity is adequate for finished drinking water. Therefore, the clearwell will primarily be utilized for storing finished water for the backwashing process. Access to both the buried backwash tanks and the clearwell are located outside the facility on the WTP grounds. To align with 10 State Standards guidelines for chemical storage, there are five (5) separate chemical rooms and an additional chlorine storage connected to a chlorine feed and scrubber room. A chemical delivery driveway is positioned on the south side of the facility, adjacent to the chemical storage rooms for ease of delivery access. The lower-level plan includes the pumping chamber for the high service and backwash pumps, the two backwash reclaim tanks, the lower-level pipe gallery, and the lower portions of the detention tank. The backwash reclaim tanks are positioned below the gravity filters and extend outside the facility, below grade. The main level of the facility includes a lab space and control room, a high service pump room, chemical feed and storage rooms, the gravity filters, and an electrical equipment room. A pipe gallery is centrally located in the facility and the design also consists of two restrooms on the Page 62 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 10 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com main level. Located on the upper level of the facility is a mechanical room, the gravity filter cell gallery, and access to the top of the detention tank. If additional treatment space is required with new regulations or the raw water chemistry changes substantially, additional space located just east of the planned facility, could be utilized. This would require decommissioning the existing skate park, which would allow ample space for WTP expansion. Additional Layout Considerations There have been requests for additional space within this facility. • A public restroom accessed outside of the facility for community garden and trail users • Storage space for parks and recreation equipment from the Fred Richards Park • An interpretive / learning space for the community These have not been considered as part of this study. If this location is deemed appropriate for WTP No. 5, staff will consider space and cost for these additional requests. COST ESTIMATE The Project Team adjusted the Opinion of Probable Cost from the 2017 design’s cost estimate to account for inflation. This cost estimate represents the 30% preliminary design. The cost of constructing the facility is estimated to be $25.03M which includes a 25% contingency. Accounting for indirect costs such as, engineering and construction services, construction testing services, integration to the distribution system and finance cost, the total estimated project cost is $31.5M. Distribution system integration cost estimate utilizes SEH’s recommendation for watermain installation along the Edina promenade, costs to acquire the required easements for this land are not included. The detailed cost estimate is included in Attachment B. Page 63 of 99 Technical Memorandum Re: Edina WTP No. 5 – York Fire Station March 24, 2025 P05177-2024-004 Page 11 of 10 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com CONCLUSION Constructing Water Treatment Plant (WTP) No. 5 at the York Avenue Site is feasible to provide consistent water quality to all customers and provide redundancy in water treatment operations. By selecting the York Avenue site, the City can mitigate many of the utility infrastructure challenges identified at other locations. The design integrates gravity filtration, disinfection, and chemical dosing systems to meet regulatory requirements and community goals for safe, reliable drinking water. With an estimated construction cost of $31.5M, including contingencies and infrastructure updates, WTP No. 5 is a feasible investment that will enhance the City's ability to manage peak demand, ensure long-term sustainability, and improve water quality for all Edina residents.Page 64 of 99 P05177-2024-004 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com Attachment A Page 65 of 99 PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R YEnvironmental Services, LLCNO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NNHROT1C1SITE PLANWATER TREATMENT PLANTFile: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Site Plan.dwgPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Site Plan.dwg PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R YEnvironmental Services, LLCNO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N EDINA WTP 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUTSPRELIMINARY SITE PLANCITY OF EDINAEDINA, MINNESOTAP05177-2024-004XXX-XXXXAUG 2024WTPC1RCLXXXXXXPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20'020'40'GENERATORBURIEDCLEARWELLBURIEDBACKWASHTANKFUTURETREATMENTAREACHEMICAL DELIVERY DRIVEWAYYORK AVENUE SOUTHBURIEDBACKWASHTANKWELLPITLESSUNITFROM FUTURE WELLFROM EXISTING WELLFROM EXISTING WELLTO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMPage 66 of 99 PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O NNHROT1P1LOWER LEVEL PLANLOWER PIPE GALLERYBACKWASHRECLAIM TANKNo. 1BACKWASHRECLAIM TANKNo. 2DETENTION TANK220,000 GALLONCLEARWELL80,000 GALLONPUMPINGCHAMBER29'-6"46'-6"File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwgPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwg PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N EDINA WTP 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUTSLOWER LEVEL PLANCITY OF EDINAEDINA, MINNESOTAP05177-2024-004XXX-XXXXAUG 2024WTPP1RCLXXXXXXPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04'8'12'20'16'RAW WATER LINE FROM WELLRAW WATER LINE FROM WELLRAW WATER LINE FROM FUTURE WELLFINISHED WATER TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMOVERLOW LINE1P52P51P4 2P4OVERLOW LINE UNEXCAVATED8'-0"8'-0"14'-0"14'-0"63'-6"57'-4"63'-0"4'-0"30'-4"5'-10"16'-10"42'-2"9'-6"OVERLOW LINE TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Page 67 of 99 PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O NNHROT1P2MAIN LEVEL PLANCHEMICAL DELIVERY CLOSETPIPE GALLERYDETENTION TANKLAB ANDCONTROLROOMCHLORINESTORAGECHLORINEFEED ANDSCRUBBERROOMELECTRICALROOMHIGH SERVICEPUMP ROOMGRAVITY FILTER CELLSCHEMCHEMCHEMCHEMCHEMVESTIBULE FUTURETREATMENTAREARESTROOM26'-0"44'-0"24'-0"94'-0"42'-0"90'-0"63'-0"52'-0"4'-0"8'-0"102'-0"12'-0"22'-4"13'-0"8'-0"12'-4"37'-0"26'-10"22'-6"15'-0"File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwgPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwg PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N EDINA WTP 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUTSMAIN LEVEL PLANCITY OF EDINAEDINA, MINNESOTAP05177-2024-004XXX-XXXXAUG 2024WTPP2RCLXXXXXXPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04'8'12'20'16'PARKRESTROOMSEWER AIR BREAK CLOSET20'-0"16'-4"12'-4"8'-0"20'-4"12'-4"8'-0"1P52P51P42P417'-8"GENERATOR31'-0"UTIL94'-0"Page 68 of 99 PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O NNHROT1P3UPPER LEVEL PLANPIPE GALLERYMECHANICALROOMGRAVITYFILTERCELLSFile: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwgPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwg PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N EDINA WTP 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUTSUPPER LEVEL PLANCITY OF EDINAEDINA, MINNESOTAP05177-2024-004XXX-XXXXAUG 2024WTPP3RCLXXXXXXPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04'8'12'20'16'DETENTION TANKCHLORINESTORAGECHLORINEFEED ANDSCRUBBERROOMHIGHSERVICEPUMPROOM1P52P51P42P413'-4"30'-0"Page 69 of 99 PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N1P4SECTIONPIPEGALLERYMECHROOMGRAVITYFILTERCELLSFile: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwgPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwg PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N EDINA WTP 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUTSNORTH-SOUTH SECTIONSCITY OF EDINAEDINA, MINNESOTAP05177-2024-004XXX-XXXXAUG 2024WTPP4RCLXXXXXXPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04'8'12'20'16'DETENTIONTANKCHLORINESTORAGEBACKWASHRECLAIM TANKPIPEGALLERYGRAVITYFILTERCELLSBACKWASHRECLAIM TANKCHEMICALROOMOFFICEAND LAB2P4SECTION04'8'12'20'16'15'-0" 13'-0" 15'-0" 13'-0" 16'-0"20'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"4'-0"Page 70 of 99 PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N1P5SECTIONPIPEGALLERYMECHANICALROOMFile: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwgPlotted: By: Randy Leppala Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 File: \\ae2s.com\nasuni\projects\E\Edina\05177-2024-004\CAD Dwgs\04-Process\Autocad\Plan Sheets\Edina WTP 5 Preliminary Layout.dwg PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT NO:DATE:ALT. PROJECT NO:SHEET DESIGNATOR:SHEET NO:CLIENT:SHEET TITLE:PREPARED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SYM DATE APPR STATUS:Certification of Individual Project Design Disciplines AreIncluded On Their Individual Drawings, RespectivelyAdvanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC www.ae2s.com A d v anced Engin e e r i ng and P R E L IM I N A R Y Environmental Services, LLCN O T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N EDINA WTP 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUTSEAST-WEST SECTIONSCITY OF EDINAEDINA, MINNESOTAP05177-2024-004XXX-XXXXAUG 2024WTPP5RCLXXXXXXPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04'8'12'20'16'DETENTIONTANKHIGHSERVICEPUMPROOMELECTRICALROOMPUMPINGCHAMBEROFFICEAND LAB2P5SECTION04'8'12'20'16'19'-0" 15'-0" 10'-0" 8'-8"8'-8" 10'-0" 10'-0" 30'-0" 20'-0"16'-0"CLEARWELL13'-0" 15'-0" 4'-0"Page 71 of 99 P05177-2024-004 Think Big. Go Beyond. www.ae2s.com Attachment B Page 72 of 99 Division No. Division Name Unit Installed Cost 02 00 00Existing ConditionsLS100,000$ 03 00 00ConcreteLS2,790,324$ 04 00 00MasonryLS1,062,600$ 05 00 00MetalsLS670,170$ 06 00 00Wood, Plastics, and CompositesLS98,684$ 07 00 00Thermal and Moisture ProtectionLS736,159$ 08 00 00OpeningsLS614,025$ 09 00 00FinishesLS232,680$ 10 00 00SpecialtiesLS1,369,848$ 11 00 00EquipmentLS-$ 12 00 00FurnishingsLS16,128$ 13 00 00Special Construction LS-$ 14 00 00Conveying Equipment LS-$ 21 00 00Fire Suppression LS67,452$ 22 00 00PlumbingLS252,912$ 23 00 00Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)LS547,800$ 25 00 00Integrated AutomationLS-$ 26 00 00ElectricalLS2,405,385$ 27 00 00Communications (Costs in Division 26)LS-$ 28 00 00Electronic Safety and Security (Costs in Division 26)LS-$ 31 00 00EarthworkLS164,274$ 32 00 00Exterior ImprovementsLS474,730$ 33 00 00UtilitiesLS337,128$ 34 00 00Transportation LS-$ 40 00 00Process Integration (I&C Costs in Division 26)LS2,454,383$ 41 00 00Material Processing and Handling EquipmentLS-$ 42 00 00Process Heating, Cooling, and Drying EquipmentLS-$ 43 00 00Process Handling and Storage EquipmentLS1,401,960$ 44 00 00Pollution and Waste Control EquipmentLS468,000$ 45 00 00Industry-Specific Manufacturing EquipmentLS-$ 46 00 00Water and Wastewater EquipmentLS2,276,640$ 48 00 00Electrical Power Generation (Costs in Division 26)LS-$ 18,540,000$ DIV 00 & 01Procurement & Contracting + General Conditions10.0%1,850,000$ N/AConstruction Estimate Contingency25.0%4,640,000$ 25,030,000$ Finished Water Pipeline (per SEH reccomendation)$1,569,720Sanitary and Storm Sewer RelocationDistribution System improvementsWell 5 Rehab (motor and pump replacement)$100,000Well 18 conversion to a submiersible$100,000$1,769,720LS3,750,000$ LS50,000$ Special Inspection Costs LA150,000$ LS750,000$ 31,499,720$ Edina WTP No. 5Engineer's Opinion of Probable Total Construction CostDate: March 24, 2025ConstructionOpinion of Probable Total Project CostEstimated Sub-total Construction CostSCADA Integration ProgrammingProfessional ServicesEngineering and Administrative Costs (15%)Design Phase Geotechnical EngineeringGeneral Conditions & ContingenciesRequired Integration CostsEstimated WTP Construction CostPage 73 of 99 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM TO:City of Edina FROM:Chad T. Katzenberger, PE (Lic. CO, MN, SD, WI) Heather Schumacher, EI DATE:November 25, 2024 RE:Water Treatment Plant No. 5 - York Ave. South Site Evaluation SEH No. EDINA 181067 14.00 This memorandum responds to the request to hydraulically model the distribution system surrounding the proposed Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 5 site which is proposed to be located at existing Edina Fire Station No. 2 along York Ave. South. The intent of this memorandum is to summarize the modeling effort and identify whether infrastructure improvements are required to increase the water transmission capacity from this site to the surrounding distribution system. In addition to the modeling, the systemwide storage capacity was evaluated to determine if additional storage is required at the WTP 5 site. PROJECT BACKGROUND Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) is currently working with the City of Edina to evaluate the feasibility of using the existing Edina Fire Station No. 2 site along York Ave. South for a proposed water treatment plant. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH®) currently maintains the City’s water distribution system model and the City has requested that SEH evaluate the impact WTP 5 would have on the surrounding area and if infrastructure improvements are required to accommodate the increased flows from WTP 5. In addition, the City and AE2S has also requested that SEH complete a systemwide storage evaluation to assist in sizing the Clearwell storage tank at WTP 5 and/or the impacts of water storage upgrades near Southdale. HYDRAULIC MODELING ANALYSIS The existing water distribution system model was used to simulate the impact proposed WTP 5 would have on the pressure and transmission capabilities of the surrounding area. Three different water system scenarios were evaluated using both steady state and extended period simulations. The goal of these simulations was to establish whether the existing infrastructure is suitable to maintain operation with the increased flow from WTP 5 or if additional infrastructure improvements are required. Scenarios The three scenarios modeled were: •Scenario 1 – Existing Water System •Scenario 2 – Water System with WTP 5 Operating at 2,000 gpm •Scenario 3 – Water System with WTP 5 Operating at 3,000 gpm Page 74 of 99 Memorandum November 25, 2024 Page 2 Simulations Steady State Analysis A steady state model operation provides an assessment of overall system operating conditions at a given point in time. The steady state scenario establishes typical pressures, velocities and head loss for water distribution systems. Generally, it is desired to have system pressure less than 80 psi, velocities less than 5 fps and head loss less than 7 ft per 1,000 ft. If the system is operating above these parameters, it is beneficial to add infrastructure improvements to bring the parameters within the desirable range. This analysis was completed for the WTP 5 modeling to take a comparative look at system pressure, velocities and pipe headloss in the existing and proposed water systems. For this analysis, the system was assumed to be experiencing an average day demand of 4,127 gpm (5.94 MGD) with WTP’s No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 6 in operation and elevated storage tank levels at 2 feet below overflow. Extended Period Simulation (EPS) An extended period simulation (EPS) provides a comprehensive assessment of water system operation over a period of multiple hours or days. Generally, it is desired to operate the water system so that tanks empty and fill and WTP operation is consistent. The purpose of this analysis was to establish how the water system will operate during different tank filling and emptying phases and over an extended period with WTP 5 in operation. For this analysis, the system was assumed to be experiencing a maximum day demand (18.1 MGD) with WTP’s No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 6 in operation and all elevated storage tanks online. Modeling Results Steady State Existing System The existing system steady state scenario established typical pressures, velocities and head loss for the existing water distribution system. The scenario results indicated existing system average pressure is 94 psi, velocity is 0.38 fps and there is minimal head loss. The pressure in the surrounding area is higher than generally desired, however, the City is comfortable operating the system at this higher pressure. The velocity and head loss parameters are within the desired operating range. Results from this evaluation were compared with the results from the proposed water system with WTP 5 online to establish the impact WTP 5 will have on the surrounding area and identify if any infrastructure improvements are required. WTP 5 Operating at 2,000 gpm WTP 5 is planned to be operated at 2,000 gpm when it is brought online. The increase in flow into this part of the distribution system would increase the system pressure, velocity and head loss in the surrounding area. With WTP 5 operating at 2,000 gpm the average pressure in the nearby area would increase to approximately 99 psi, maximum velocity would be 4.25 fps, and maximum head loss would be 8 ft per 1,000 ft. With WTP 5 operating the surrounding area velocity and head loss is at the upper end of the acceptable range. While not ideal, the existing system infrastructure would be capable of operating at this higher flow rate. WTP 5 Operating at 3,000 gpm It is anticipated that WTP 5 will be operated at 3,000 gpm to meet future water system demands. With WTP 5 operating at 3,000 gpm the average pressure in the nearby area would increase to approximately 103 psi, maximum velocity would be 6.22 fps, and maximum head loss would be 15 ft per 1,000 ft. The Page 75 of 99 Memorandum November 25, 2024 Page 3 modeling indicates the system would benefit from infrastructure improvements to reduce the maximum velocity and head loss in the surrounding area to within the acceptable range. Improvement Scenarios Ten different piping infrastructure improvements were modeled to determine which improvements would lower the velocity and head loss in the surrounding area distribution system. Modeling results from each improvement scenario are shown in Table 1. The results indicate that replacing the existing 10-inch that runs along York Ave from W 76th St to the existing 12-inch near Edinborough Condominiums with a larger diameter pipe would lower the pressure, velocity and head loss. However, running a pipe between York Ave and France Ave along Edina Promenade would achieve a similar impact with less length of piping installed. Improvement 4, running a 16-inch pipe between York Ave and France Ave along Edina Promenade, provided a drop in pressure, velocity and head loss with the least amount of piping improvement required. This option also provides a more direct connection to Southdale Tank by connecting to the 12-inch pipe running north-south on France Ave. Table 1 - Infrastructure Improvements Velocity (fps)Headloss (ft)Pressure (psi) Length of Pipe Added/Replace d (ft) ID Scenario Description Max Av e Median Max Ave Median Max Ave Median 12"16" -Existing System 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.2 95.6 95.3 -- -Existing System + 2000 GPM 4.3 1.3 1.0 8.0 1.5 1.0 103.6 98.8 99.1 -- -Existing System + 3000 GPM 6.2 2.0 1.6 15.0 3.5 2.0 108.4 102.5 102.9 -- 1 Improved System + 3000 GPM 12" EW to Existing 10"4.8 1.3 0.8 10.0 1.6 1.0 105.9 101.9 101.9 932 - 2 Improved System + 3000 GPM 12" EW to France Ave 4.5 1.2 0.7 8.0 1.3 1.0 105.6 101.4 101.5 2,032 - 3 Improved System + 3000 GPM 16" EW to Existing 10"4.7 1.3 1.1 9.0 1.6 1.0 106.0 101.8 101.8 -932 4 Improved System + 3000 GPM 16" EW to France Ave 3.9 0.9 0.5 7.0 0.9 0.0 105.3 100.8 100.5 -2,032 5 Improved System + 3000 GPM 12" NS 4.5 1.6 1.2 6.0 1.8 1.0 107.3 101.9 102.4 2,493 - 6 Improved System + 3000 GPM 16" NS 3.8 1.2 1.2 3.0 0.9 1.0 106.5 101.6 101.5 -2,493 7 Improved System + 3000 GPM 12" NS + 12" EW to Existing 10"3.8 1.1 0.6 4.0 1.0 1.0 105.9 101.6 101.6 3,425 - 8 Improved System + 3000 GPM 12" NS + 12" EW to France 3.8 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.8 0.0 105.5 101.2 101.2 4,525 - 9 Improved System + 3000 GPM 16" NS + 16" EW to Existing 10"3.8 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.5 0.0 105.8 101.4 101.3 -3,425 10 Improved System + 3000 GPM 16" NS + 16" EW to France 3.8 0.7 0.4 3.0 0.3 0.0 105.2 100.6 100.6 -4,525 Notes:EW – East to West –York Ave to westNS –North-South – W 76th St to Existing 12” (Edinborough Condominiums) Page 76 of 99 Memorandum November 25, 2024 Page 4 Extended Period Simulation Existing System The existing system extended period simulation established typical tank filling and WTP operation trends. The simulation indicated that the Southdale Tank empties faster and takes longer to fill compared to the other tanks in the system. This is due to the proximity of the tank to the larger water users in the water system. Results from this evaluation were compared with the results from the proposed water system with WTP 5 online to establish the impact WTP 5 will have on the tank filling and emptying and WTP operation. WTP 5 Operating at 2,000 gpm With WTP 5 online and operating at 2,000 gpm the tanks fill faster than compared to the existing system. The additional supply in the area from WTP 5 prevents the water level in the Southdale tank from dropping to a low level and replenishes the tank at a much quicker rate. WTP 5 Operating at 3,000 gpm With WTP 5 operating at 3,000 gpm the tanks fill faster than compared to the existing system and when WTP 5 is operating at 2,000 gpm. The additional supply in the area from WTP 5 prevents the water level in the Southdale tank from dropping to a low level and replenishes the tank at a much quicker rate. STORAGE ANALYSIS Having sufficient water storage in the distribution system is essential to meet instantaneous system demands and maintain efficient water treatment facility operation. There are multiple ways to evaluate water system storage needs. SEH completed an in-depth evaluation for the 2018 Water Utility Supply & Distribution Plan. The evaluation had two storage need criteria, storage equivalent to or greater than the average day demand (Criteria 1), and the summation of equalization storage, fire storage and emergency storage (Criteria 2). The evaluation established that the water system, as a whole, has adequate storage. However, the usable storage at the Dublin Reservoir is limited due to pumping restrictions. Taking the usable storage into consideration the water system has a storage deficit and could use some additional storage. The storage could be added as elevated storage in the form of a water tower, or ground storage in the form of a ground level storage tank or clearwell. Considering the City’s distribution system and location of proposed WTP 5, it is recommended that the storage be added as elevated storage at the Southdale Tower site. Adding the storage in the form of the clearwell at WTP 5 would have less benefit to the system because the availability of the water would be dependent on the high service pumps pumping capacity. The pumps would need to be sized to operate at a higher flow rate than the WTP treatment flow rate to make sure the clearwell tank would turn over. The modeling already suggests the surrounding distribution system would need infrastructure improvements to operate at the desired future flow rate of 3,000 gpm. To operate the system at a flow greater than 3,000 gpm would likely require more significant infrastructure improvements than already identified. It is recommended that the clearwell be sized to meet backwashing and plant operation requirements to avoid putting additional demand on the distribution system. Page 77 of 99 Memorandum November 25, 2024 Page 5 Table 2 – 2018 Water Utility Supply & Distribution Plan Storage Evaluation Available Storage Storage Facilities Nominal Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Available Storage1 7.00 5.88 5.88 Dublin Street #12 4.00 2.88 2.88 Gleason Road #2 1.00 1.00 1.00 High School #3 0.50 0.50 0.50 Southdale #4 0.50 0.50 0.50 Van Valkenburg #5 1.00 1.00 1.00 Design Year Storage Criteria 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Criteria 1 - Equal to the Average Day Demand (MG)8.09 8.27 8.49 8.53 8.58 Criteria 2 - the sum of the following:6.06 6.18 6.33 6.36 6.39 Maximum Day Equalization Volume (MG)3 1.38 1.41 1.45 1.46 1.47 Fire Protection Volume (MG)4 0.63 12-Hour Average Day Demand (MG)4.04 4.13 4.24 4.27 4.29 Criteria 1 Storage Mass Balance (MG)-2.21 -2.39 -2.61 -2.65 -2.70 Criteria 2 Storage Mass Balance (MG)-0.18 -0.30 -0.45 -0.48 -0.51 1 Non-gravity storage facilities must have pumping stations with reliable power supply. 2 The Dublin St. Reservoir is limited to 2,000 gpm output by pumps over 24 hours. 3 Equalization storage based on diurnal curve of system, equating to 76,000 gallons per MGD. 4 Fire protection of 3,500 gpm for 3 hours. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations from this memorandum include the following: •Install 16-inch pipe between York Ave and France Ave along Edina Promenade prior to the operation of proposed WTP 5 at 3,000 gpm. •If and when additional storage is added to the water system, a size upgrade of the Southdale water tower is recommended. (Upgrade to minimum 1.0 MG facility) •Size Clearwell to meet backwashing and operation requirements to avoid additional demand on the distribution system. Attachment c:Aaron Vollmer, AE2S x:\ae\e\edina\common\water\memos\_m wtp 5 distribution system analysis 2024 update.docx Page 78 of 99 Map Document: (L:\Resources\Cartographic\Templates\EmptyLayouts\B_ANSI_11x17L\11x17L_Simple2Line_LegendBox.mxd)2/13/2009 -- 1:04:24 PMWTP 5 Modeling Edina, Minnesota FIGURE 1 Alternative 1-4 WTP 5 Modeling Project Number: EDINA COMMON Print Date: 00/00/0000 G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. 3QLynmarLnW72ndStGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrlGallagherDr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St LakeEdina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveSDakota County, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St Lake Edina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Dakota County, Maxar G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St LakeEdina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St Lake Edina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used asone. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sourceslisted on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that theGeographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEHdoes not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any otherpurpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction ofgeographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for anydamages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Improvement 1 - 12" EW to Existing 10"Improvement 2 - 12" EW to France Ave Improvement 3 - 16" EW to Existing 10"Improvement 4 - 16" EW to France Ave Legend 3Q WTP 5 G!.Hydrants Ex Pipe Dia. (Inch) 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20 24 24+ parcels 12-inch Pipe Improvement 12-inch Pipe Improvement 16-inch Pipe Improvement 16-inch Pipe Improvement ± 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07 Miles Page 79 of 99 Map Document: (L:\Resources\Cartographic\Templates\EmptyLayouts\B_ANSI_11x17L\11x17L_Simple2Line_LegendBox.mxd)2/13/2009 -- 1:04:24 PMWTP 5 Modeling Edina, Minnesota FIGURE 2 Alternative 5-8 WTP 5 Modeling Project Number: EDINA COMMON Print Date: 00/00/0000 G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St LakeEdina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St Lake Edina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St LakeEdina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Dakota County, Maxar G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St Lake Edina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used asone. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sourceslisted on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that theGeographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEHdoes not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any otherpurpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction ofgeographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for anydamages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Improvement 5 - 12" NS Improvement 6 - 16" NS Improvement 7 - 12" NS + 12" EW to Existing 10"Improvement 8 - 12" NS + 12" EW to France Ave Legend 3Q WTP5 G!.Hydrants Ex Pipe Dia. (Inch) 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20 24 24+ 12-inch Pipe Improvement 16-inch Pipe Improvement 12-inch Pipe Improvement 12-inch Pipe Improvement ± 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07 Miles 12-inch Pipe Improvement 12-inch Pipe Improvement Page 80 of 99 Map Document: (L:\Resources\Cartographic\Templates\EmptyLayouts\B_ANSI_11x17L\11x17L_Simple2Line_LegendBox.mxd)2/13/2009 -- 1:04:24 PMWTP 5 Modeling Edina, Minnesota FIGURE 3 Alternative 9-10 WTP 5 Modeling Project Number: EDINA COMMON Print Date: 00/00/0000 G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St LakeEdina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Dakota County, Maxar G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!. G.G G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!. G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.Lyn marLnW 72nd StGlouchesterAveBristolBlvdHeathertonTrl Gallagher Dr South Cornelia OaklawnAveFranceAveSW 76th St Lake Edina Park 7300 France Parklawn Manor Edina Villa Apartments Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Parklawn The Durham Yorktown Continental Apartments Lunds & Byerlys Macy's Furniture Gallery Promenade XerxesAveSYorkTerYorkAveSAdams Hill Park Fire Station #2 Southdale YMCA York Business Center Whole Foods Market Maetzold Amphitheater York Gardens South Haven Centennial Lakes Medical Center Centennial Shops Edinborough Centennial Lakes Adams Hill Park Adams Hill Park Pond WashburnAveS3Q Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Dakota County, Maxar This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used asone. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sourceslisted on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that theGeographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEHdoes not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any otherpurpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction ofgeographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for anydamages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Improvement 9 - NS 16" NS + 16" EW to Existing 10"Improvement 10 - 16" NS + 16" EW to France Ave Legend 3Q WTP5 G!.Hydrants Ex Pipe Dia. (Inch) 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20 24 24+ 16-inch Pipe Improvement 16-inch Pipe Improvement ± 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07 Miles 16-inch Pipe Improvement 16-inch Pipe Improvement Page 81 of 99 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM TO: Chad Millner Director of Engineering – City of Edina FROM: Chad T. Katzenberger, PE (Lic. MN,CO,SD,WI) Heather Schumacher, EI DATE: March 12, 2025 RE: Edina Water System Hydraulic Model Analysis Related to Water Storage at Southdale and Water Treatment Plant No.5 SEH No. EDINA 181067 14.00 This memorandum provides a summary of the hydraulic modeling analysis conducted to evaluate the impacts of additional storage at Southdale Tower and the upsizing of water mains between Southdale Tower and Dublin Reservoir on water system operations in the southeastern portion of the City. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether these infrastructure improvements—particularly increased water storage—could defer the immediate need for the construction of the proposed Water Treatment Plant 5 (WTP 5). BACKGROUND The City of Edina is currently evaluating the feasibility of locating a new Water Treatment Plant (WTP 5) at a new site location. Through the feasibility analysis of the site, the potential to increase available storage in this area was examined in order lessen the near-term need for WTP 5. WTP 5 is planned to be located at the existing Edina Fire Station No. 2 site along York Ave South. This area of the City includes a higher concentration of commercial development, as well as multifamily housing. A high percentage of system demand comes from this quadrant of the City. The City of Edina requested SEH use the hydraulic model of the Edina water system to evaluate how additional storage at the Southdale Tower and water main upsizing improvements between Southdale Tower and Dublin Reservoir would impact the operation of the water system and determine if WTP 5 is needed in the near-term future. Treated Water Supply Goals: The City of Edina's primary goal is to provide high-quality treated water to customers as consistently as possible, minimizing reliance on untreated sources (peaking wells) while maintaining system reliability. Previous planning efforts indicated that under ideal conditions the existing treatment infrastructure (without WTP 5) should be capable of meeting the City's treated water goals 88% of the time during a drought year and 85% of the time by 2040. With the addition of WTP 5, this reliability is projected to improve to 99% and 96%, respectively, significantly reducing the need for untreated peaking wells However, achieving these targets depends on the actual operational efficiency of the treatment plants. While in theory treatment facilities have the capacity to meet demand, real-world operations introduce challenges that can limit the availability of treated water. Page 82 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 2 Consistent with the City’s water supply plan, the City aims to ensure that customers receive a consistent and high-quality supply of treated water. Specifically, the City's treatment goals include:  Providing treated/filtered water for 95% of the days annually to meet customer demand.  Minimizing reliance on untreated peaking wells, ensuring that most of the City's water supply undergoes treatment before distribution.  Expanding treatment capacity to address future growth and increasing demand, with the construction of Water Treatment Plant 5 (WTP 5) identified as a key infrastructure project.  Ensuring water quality, particularly related to iron and manganese removal. Previous water system planning indicated that the existing treatment infrastructure without WTP 5 can meet the City’s treated water goals 88% of the time during a drought year and 85% of the time by 2040. With WTP 5 online, these numbers improve to 99% and 96%, respectively, significantly reducing the need for untreated water sources. However, this assumes that treatment facilities can operate on a continuous basis. Modeling completed as part of the analysis considered maximized system operation to prevent short cycling of the treatment operations. Southdale Water Tower The Southdale Tower is a 500,000-gallon elevated storage facility that plays a crucial role in Edina’s water distribution system by providing operational storage, emergency supply, and fire protection capacity. It is a key component in maintaining system pressures, particularly in the Southdale commercial district, where demand is among the highest in the City. However, its current storage capacity is limited relative to system needs, leading to challenges in maintaining adequate volume during peak demand periods. Key issues identified with Southdale Tower include:  Limited Storage Capacity: At 500,000 gallons, the tower is undersized for the demand it serves. During high-demand periods, particularly in the southeastern portion of the system, the tank drains quickly and struggles to maintain volume.  Supply Limitations: The tower’s proximity to existing water treatment plant supply restricts its ability to recover quickly, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in system demand. To address these challenges, increasing Southdale Tower’s storage capacity to 1.5 million gallons has been considered as a potential solution. This expansion could enhance system redundancy, improve pressure stabilization, and reduce the strain on other storage and treatment infrastructure, helping to better meet the growing water demands in the region. Dublin Reservoir The Dublin Reservoir is a 4.0 MG ground storage facility, but it is underutilized relative to its capacity due to its remote location and limited hydraulic connectivity to high-demand areas. The reservoir's long distance from the southeastern portion of the water system, where most of the City's water demand is concentrated, reduces its effectiveness in providing rapid turnover, leading to concerns about water age and quality. Previous modeling analysis suggests that addressing pipe size limitations and improving transmission capacity from Dublin Reservoir to the broader system could enhance its utility and potentially defer the immediate need for WTP 5. Page 83 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 3 Key issues identified with the Dublin Reservoir include:  Limited Turnover Rate: The tank cannot be filled or drawn from at an optimal rate due to system constraints. At full capacity, achieving a reasonable turnover would require a pumping and filling rate of at least 6,000 gpm for 12 hours each day, which is currently not feasible without significant upgrades.  Hydraulic Grade Line Challenges: The reservoir’s elevation and distance from the core distribution network result in pressure fluctuations, making it difficult to maintain consistent service pressures across all regions.  Water Age and Quality Concerns: Stagnant water in the tank contributes to increased water age, negatively impacting water quality, particularly in areas south and southwest of the system. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this hydraulic modeling evaluation was to assess the performance and operational impacts of various infrastructure improvements within the Edina water system. The study focused on evaluating how these modifications influence pumping efficiency, storage utilization, and system-wide hydraulic performance. Specific Goals of the Evaluation Included:  Understanding existing system operation, including trends in pumping, tank filling, and emptying cycles, to identify current limitations in storage utilization.  Assessing the impact of proposed infrastructure upgrades on overall system efficiency, particularly:  Expanding Southdale Tower storage capacity from 500,000 gallons to either 1.0 MG or 1.5 MG, to determine its effect on demand balancing and peak period resiliency.  Upsizing a 10-inch water main to a 16-inch between Southdale Tower and Dublin Reservoir to improve transmission capacity and reduce hydraulic restrictions.  Evaluating the combined effect of both improvements—increasing Southdale Tower’s storage and upsizing the transmission main—to determine if these upgrades collectively optimize system operation.  Determining whether infrastructure improvements could reduce or eliminate the need for untreated peaking wells during periods of high-water demand, improving system reliability while minimizing reliance on non-treated sources.  Determine if infrastructure improvements would eliminate the need for untreated peaking wells during higher periods of demand METHODOLOGY Hydraulic modeling is a critical analytical tool for evaluating water distribution system performance under different operational scenarios. For this study, the existing calibrated Edina Water System hydraulic model was used to simulate both current conditions and proposed infrastructure modifications. The Modeling Approach Involved: Baseline System Analysis: Simulating current system operations to establish trends in pumping cycles, tank filling/emptying, and pressure variations under existing system constraints. Identifying areas of limited storage utilization, excessive pressure fluctuations, or high hydraulic losses that impact system performance. Page 84 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 4 Storage Expansion: Simulating the effect of Southdale Tower storage increases (1.0 MG and 1.5 MG) on pressure stabilization, peak demand coverage, and operational flexibility. Water Main Upsizing: Evaluating how increasing the 10-inch pipeline to 16-inch between Southdale Tower and Dublin Reservoir influences system pressure, storage turnover, and flow distribution efficiency. Combined Improvements: Running a scenario with both Southdale Tower expansion and water main upsizing to assess cumulative benefits in system resiliency and overall hydraulic performance. Performance Evaluation: Analyzing overall system operations, storage tank levels, turnover, and water supply sustainability. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess whether the proposed improvements could delay the need for additional treatment capacity or reduce reliance on peaking wells. By leveraging hydraulic modeling, this evaluation provided a quantifiable assessment of how infrastructure modifications could enhance Edina’s water distribution efficiency, optimize storage utilization, and reduce system vulnerabilities during high-demand periods. WATER MODEL ANALYSIS To assess the performance of Edina’s water system under different operational conditions, a hydraulic model analysis was conducted. The model was designed to simulate real-world system behavior, incorporating demand patterns, infrastructure controls, and treatment plant cycling, to evaluate how the system functions under various scenarios. The key objective was to understand how tank levels, well operations, and water main upgrades impact the ability to provide consistent, treated water to customers while minimizing reliance on peaking wells. The hydraulic model was set up using a Maximum 10-Day Demand Period from June 2023, representing a high-demand operational scenario to test system capacity under peak conditions. Various boundary condition assumptions, infrastructure controls, and operational constraints were implemented to reflect real-world system behavior accurately. Boundary Condition Assumptions Demand Conditions: The model was set to simulate a historical maximum 10-day demand period from June 2023, ensuring that it captures peak water use trends and reflects seasonal high-demand operations. This approach allows for a stress test of the system, identifying potential pressure issues, storage turnover challenges, and treatment plant cycling inefficiencies. System Controls: The model incorporated existing well and treatment plant (WTP) operations, including their respective control towers that regulate water distribution and storage levels. Control logic for each well was assigned based on its relationship to either a water treatment plant and corresponding water tower, or direct distribution/water tower. This ensures that each well’s operation in a similar fashion to the real system, matching system historical SCADA. Page 85 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 5 Controls for each well are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Water Supply Control Assumptions Well WTP or Distribution Control Tower 2 WTP 6 Southdale 3 Distribution Southdale 4 WTP 2 Southdale 5 Distribution Southdale 6 WTP 2 Southdale 7 WTP 6 Southdale 8 Distribution Southdale 9 WTP 6 Southdale 10 WTP 3 Southdale 11 WTP 3 Southdale 12 WTP 4 Van Valkenburg 13 WTP 4 Van Valkenburg 15 WTP 6 Southdale 16 Distribution Gleason 17 WTP 2 Southdale 18 Distribution Southdale 19 Distribution Gleason 20 Distribution Gleason Simulations Extended Period Simulation (EPS) An extended period simulation (EPS) provides a comprehensive assessment of water system operation over a period of multiple hours or days. Generally, it is desired to operate the water system so that tanks empty and fill and WTP operation is consistent. The purpose of this analysis was to establish how the water system will operate during different tank filling and emptying phases and over an extended period with the different infrastructure improvements. Scenarios To evaluate the impact of storage expansion and water main upsizing on Edina’s water system, eight operational scenarios were modeled, simulating different infrastructure configurations and operational conditions. These scenarios were divided into two categories: (1) full system operation with both wells and WTPs online, and (2) treatment plant-only operation, which tested the system’s ability to function without well support. By analyzing these scenarios, the study aimed to determine how increasing storage at Southdale Tower and upsizing a key transmission main would influence system performance, pressure stability, storage turnover, and reliance on peaking wells. The results provided insights into how infrastructure improvements could optimize water distribution, reduce short-cycling of treatment plants, and enhance the City’s ability to provide treated water consistently Page 86 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 6 The eight (8) scenarios modeled are detailed below:  All Wells and WTPs Online:  Scenario 1 – Existing System  Scenario 2 – Southdale as 1.0 MG Tank  Scenario 3 – Southdale as 1.5 MG Tank  Scenario 4 – 16-inch Watermain Upsizing  Only WTPs Online  Scenario 5 – Existing System  Scenario 6 – Southdale as 1.0 MG Tank  Scenario 7 – Southdale as 1.5 MG Tank  Scenario 8 – 16-inch Watermain Upsizing RESULTS & ANALYSIS Results from the water model analysis are outlined below, the associated modeling figures are attached to this memo. Scenario 1 – Existing System The existing system operates with regular tank filling and emptying cycles; however, Southdale Tower experiences significantly greater fluctuations in water level than the other storage facilities. During peak demand periods, the tank drops to approximately 20% full, indicating that demand in this part of the system is outpacing its ability to refill efficiently. While other tanks maintain more stable levels, Southdale’s rapid depletion suggests transmission constraints are limiting its ability to recover.  Key Issue: Southdale Tower drains quickly and refills slowly, leading to more aggressive cycling of water treatment plants (WTPs) and increased reliance on peaking wells.  Implication: Without infrastructure improvements, Southdale remains a weak point in system operations, making it harder to maintain storage reserves and stabilize pressures across the network. Scenario 2 – Southdale as 1.0 MG Tank The water modeling results for Scenario 2, with the Southdale Tower upgraded to a 1.0 million-gallon (MG) tank, showed that the water towers continued to fill and empty throughout the day, maintaining a regular cycle. However, the Southdale Tower still experienced a more significant drop in water levels compared to the other tanks. Despite the upgrade, the lowest water level in the Southdale Tower reached approximately 40% full, indicating a higher rate of water usage and less efficient refilling in that area. Increasing Southdale Tower’s storage to 1.0 MG provided some relief in terms of storage depletion, but the system still experienced rapid fluctuations. The tank’s lowest level improved to around 40% full, which helped mitigate extreme drawdowns. However, the ability to refill remained limited due to existing transmission constraints.  Key Improvement: Larger storage capacity helped slow depletion and provided a better buffer during peak demand periods.  Ongoing Issue: Refilling rates were not significantly improved, meaning Southdale continued to cycle more aggressively than other tanks. Page 87 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 7 Scenario 3 – Southdale as 1.5 MG Tank With Southdale expanded to 1.5 MG, system performance improved further, particularly in maintaining higher minimum storage levels. The lowest level reached was approximately 45% full, which greatly reduced the risk of storage depletion. This expansion provided longer drawdown periods, helping stabilize pressures and reduce reliance on WTP operations.  Key Benefit: Increased storage helped balance demand and allowed for greater operational flexibility during peak periods.  Limitation: While storage was improved, it still did not operate as efficiently as other tanks, with a lagging fill time. Scenario 4 – 16-inch Watermain Upsizing Replacing the existing 10-inch water main between Southdale Tower and Dublin Reservoir with a 16-inch main resulted in notable improvements in system performance. With greater transmission capacity, Southdale Tower refilled more efficiently, allowing for higher minimum storage levels and reduced strain on WTP cycling.  Key Benefit: Transmission improvements helped Southdale recover more quickly, balancing flows across the system.  Implication: Addressing transmission limitations is critical to ensuring that storage capacity increases are fully utilized. Scenario 5 – Existing System with Only WTPs Online When peaking wells were removed from operation, the water treatment plants struggled to maintain adequate storage levels, especially at Southdale. The tower frequently dropped to be nearly empty, demonstrating that without supplemental well supply, the system is highly dependent on continuous WTP operation to meet peak demands.  Key Concern: The existing system cannot maintain adequate storage without peaking wells, highlighting the need for additional treatment capacity and/or system modifications.  Implication: Storage and transmission improvements will be necessary to improve WTP-only operation. Scenario 6 – Southdale as 1.0 MG Tank with Only WTPs Online Increasing Southdale Tower to 1.0 MG provided some improvement in storage retention, but refilling limitations remained a major factor. Even with the increased capacity, the tank still dropped to be empty by the end of the simulation, meaning the system still lacked supply  Key Benefit: The additional storage helped stabilize pressures somewhat but was not enough to compensate for the lack of well supply.  Limitation: Refilling remained slow, meaning the system was still strained under peak conditions. Scenario 7 – Southdale as 1.5 MG Tank with Only WTPs Online With Southdale expanded to 1.5 MG, storage retention improved further, helping sustain higher minimum levels during peak periods. The tank maintained positive levels. However, without well support, refilling rates remained a concern.  Key Benefit: The larger storage volume provided a more reliable buffer for peak demands.  Ongoing Issue: Without transmission improvements, refilling limitations still prevented full utilization of added storage. Page 88 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 8 Scenario 8 – 16-inch Watermain Upsizing with Only WTPs Online When the 16-inch water main improvement was implemented without well support, system performance improved notably. Southdale Tower refilled more efficiently, allowing for higher minimum storage levels and reduced strain on WTPs.  Key Benefit: Transmission improvements helped balance flow distribution, making storage more effective even without wells.  Implication: Infrastructure upgrades can improve system reliability, but storage expansion alone does not eliminate the need for supplemental peaking well supply and associated treatment capacity. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The hydraulic modeling results indicate that while storage expansion and transmission improvements both enhance system performance, neither alone is sufficient to eliminate reliance on peaking wells, particularly those associated with WTP 5. Expanding Southdale Tower to 1.5 MG storage facility helps stabilize pressure fluctuations and improves storage reserves; but without adequate refilling capacity, the system remains dependent on supplemental well supply. The 16-inch water main upgrade significantly improves water movement between Dublin Reservoir and Southdale Tower, helping to balance storage levels and reduce strain on treatment operations. Given these findings, a phased approach is recommended, prioritizing transmission improvements first, followed by storage expansion and WTP optimization to ensure long-term system reliability. PRIORITIZATION OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The results of the hydraulic modeling analysis and review of existing system constraints indicate that a phased approach to system upgrades could be considered. The improvements can be sequenced to ensure reliable treated water supply, effective water delivery, and optimized storage utilization while reducing system reliance on peaking wells. The following prioritization is recommended based on operational impact, feasibility, and overall benefit to system performance. Priority 1: Water Treatment Plant No. 5 (WTP 5) – Increasing Treated Water Supply  WTP 5 is a critical supply improvement necessary to meet long-term system demands and reduce reliance on untreated peaking wells.  The existing system is limited by treatment capacity and must cycle to meet peak demands, causing operational inefficiencies and increased peaking well dependence.  Without WTP 5, other system improvements, such as storage and transmission upgrades, will have limited benefit since there is insufficient treated water to distribute. WTP 5 should be developed with sufficient redundancy and expansion capabilities to support future growth and reduce reliance on peaking wells. The hydraulic impacts of bringing WTP 5 online must be evaluated to ensure that increased supply is effectively distributed through the transmission network. Priority 2: Transmission Main from Dublin Reservoir  The current water distribution network limits the effective use of Dublin Reservoir, reducing its ability to support system demands.  The 12-inch main between Dublin and Southdale restricts refilling capacity, leading to slow turnover and underutilization of storage. Page 89 of 99 Memorandum March 12, 2025 Page 9  Upsizing this main to 16 inches would significantly improve water movement, allowing the system to more efficiently transfer supply from Dublin to the Southdale area, which has the highest demand. This improvement will help to make better use of underutilized water available from the Dublin reservoir. Transmission upgrades should be completed before additional storage is added, ensuring that water can be efficiently moved between facilities. Priority 3: Dublin Reservoir Optimization – Pump Upgrades and VFD Installation  Dublin Reservoir is currently underutilized due to slow turnover and limited pump control.  Upgrading booster pumps and adding VFDs would allow for more precise flow control in and out of the storage tank, to operate in concert with the elevated storage tank.  This improvement, in conjunction with the transmission main improvements would optimize the use of existing water storage available. This installation would aim to provide a way for the Dublin reservoir to function more like an elevated storage tank, taking in larger volumes during low demand periods and push out high flow rates during periods of high demand. Priority 4: Capacity Upgrade of Southdale Water Tower.  Upgrade of the Southdale Tower to 1.5 MG or 2.0 MG facility would provide greater storage reserves, helping to stabilize storage tank level fluctuations and reduce WTP cycling frequency.  However, storage expansion alone does not eliminate the need for peaking wells unless there is sufficient transmission capacity to refill the tank efficiently.  This upgrade should be the final step in the improvement sequence, ensuring that supply and transmission constraints have been resolved first – unless the City were to choose to eventually decommission the Dublin Storage tank, then this improvement should be expedited. CLOSURE The hydraulic modeling analysis provides a better understanding of how storage expansion, transmission upgrades, and pump optimizations impact Edina’s water system performance. While expanding Southdale Tower’s storage capacity improves storage volume stability, it does not eliminate reliance on peaking wells to support refilling. Similarly, Dublin Reservoir remains underutilized due to pumping and transmission constraints, limiting its ability to provide meaningful system support. To ensure a reliable, long-term treated water supply implementation of a new water treatment facility is recommended to maintain adequate treated water supply. dmk Attachments c: x:\ae\e\edina\181067\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\m - southdale storage and water main improvements modeling.docx Page 90 of 99     Attachment EPS Modeling Scenarios Page 91 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ(ƄĖŜťĖIJČώ‹ƅŜťôıώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 1Page 92 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ͐ϟ͏ώa@ώ‹ĺŪťēîÍīôώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 2Page 93 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ͐ϟ͔ώa@ώ‹ĺŪťēîÍīôώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 3Page 94 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ͐ϟ͏ώa@ώ‹ĺŪťēîÍīôώЭώ͕͐ϱĖIJèēώIıŕŘĺŽôıôIJťώϱ a"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 4Page 95 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ(ƄĖŜťĖIJČώ‹ƅŜťôıώώϱ iIJīƅώ®“„ŜώiIJīĖIJôώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 5Page 96 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ͐ϟ͏ώa@ώϱiIJīƅώ®“„ŜώiIJīĖIJôώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 6Page 97 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ͐ϟ͔ώa@ώϱiIJīƅώ®“„ŜώiIJīĖIJôώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 7Page 98 of 99 ͏͐͏͑͏͒͏͓͏͔͏͕͏͖͏͗͏͘͏͐͏͏͏ ͓͑ ͓͗ ͖͑ ͕͘ ͐͑͏ ͓͓͐ ͕͐͗ ͐͑͘ ͕͑͐ ͓͑͏҇ώ>Ūīī“ĖıôώϼēŘŜϽ“ĺſôŘώ[ôŽôīŜ͐ϟ͔ώa@ώ‹ĺŪťēîÍīôώЭώ͕͐ϱĖIJèēώϱiIJīƅώ®“„ŜώiIJīĖIJôώϱa"ώ‹ŪııôŘĺııŪIJĖťƅώôIJťôŘ«ÍIJώ«ÍīħôIJæŪŘČ"ŪæīĖIJώ‡ôŜôŘŽĺĖ؋ĺŪťēîÍīô@īôÍŜĺIJώ‡ĺÍîScenario 8Page 99 of 99