11/21/16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Planner Anderson stated that the Comprehensive Plan update process has picked up and noted that the Steering Committee will discuss that topic further. Board Member Trossen asked the rate of demand that would justify a surface water treatment plant. City Engineer Westby stated that it would be much more than what is currently needed but did not have a one size fits all answer. He noted that a surface water treatment plant would have a cost of approximately $35,000,000 while the cost for a new well would be about $1,800,000. Councilmember LeTourneau asked the return on investment, specifically why a community would build a surface water treatment plant voluntarily. City Engineer Westby stated that it is all a matter of economics, noting that if the river water could be used rather than pulling from the aquifer that would probably be the "right" thing to do, but it is very costly. He stated that some cities are working cooperatively to partner together in that option but noted that the cities in this area are not interested in that option at this time. City Planner Anderson stated that Ramsey is positioned in a shelf of the aquifer and therefore is impacted by the water draw from other communities. Board Member Hiatt stated that may justify a regional solution in the future. City Planner Anderson commented that the City Council has stated that they would like to address that as a regional effort rather than a community specific effort if the topic comes into play. City Engineer Westby stated that currently the City treats the water at each of the well sites and does not remove the iron or soften the water, noting that at some point that may need to be done. He noted that the cost would be about $20,000,000 to build a ground water treatment facility. Board Member Hiatt asked if there are other communities along the river, outside of St. Paul and Minneapolis that have water treatment plants. City Engineer Westby replied that St. Cloud has a very nice water treatment plant. City Planner Anderson noted that some incentives could be developed to retrofit irrigation systems to use less water. He stated that in the future the Board can discuss whether incentive programs should be developed to incentivize on a smaller residential basis. Board Member Covart asked if the Board will see this again before it goes to the Council. City Engineer Westby stated that the timeline does not allow the Board to view the WSP again prior to the December 13th Council meeting. He noted that if the Board is not comfortable recommending approval, the Board could simply recommend that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Environmental Policy Board / November 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6