Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017 <br />DRAFT <br /> 3 <br />3. Water Tower No. 3 Siting Report – Community Development Director 86 <br />Grochala recalled that the city has a model predicting future public improvement needs. 87 <br />The last plan identified the need for a third water tower in the city. The City’s 88 <br />consultant, WSB & Associates, has been working on the plan and will present the study 89 <br />results. 90 <br /> 91 <br />Greg Johnson, WSB & Associates, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, outlining: 92 <br />- Projections and growth for the city; additional water storage is recommended now; 93 <br />- Existing and future storage needs – basis for evaluation was reviewed and also a chart 94 <br />indicating demand and required storage; 95 <br />- Current storage and recommendation to add more; 96 <br /> 97 <br />Council Member Kusterman noted that it appears that the usage has been decreasing. 98 <br />Mr. Johnson suggested that less use is the new normal based on more efficiency and 99 <br />conservation efforts; it will probably get to a point where those efforts bottom out 100 <br />however. Mr. Grochala explained that there has been some new development that has 101 <br />increased capacity. 102 <br /> 103 <br />Mayor Reinert noted that the recommendation pretty much doubles capacity and he 104 <br />received confirmation that it would bring capacity to 35,000. 105 <br /> 106 <br />- Storage Types (about 75% of new towers being built are composite most likely because 107 <br />of lower long term maintenance needs); 108 <br />- Benefits of added storage (fire protection, water pressure, emergency storage); 109 <br />- Storage Type Cost Comparison; 110 <br /> 111 <br />When the mayor asked how a project like this would be funded, Mr. Grochala said it 112 <br />would be paid from through the Trunk Water Fund and the city would probably use 113 <br />bonds. Mayor Reinert said that it could be a good situation to utilize the self-bonding that 114 <br />has been discussed. He asked staff to bring that idea to the Finance Director. 115 <br /> 116 <br />- Site Evaluation – a map was shown with four possible sites. The city would be looking 117 <br />at purchasing the necessary property so should think about ideal site characteristics. Staff 118 <br />will seek more geotechnical information if the council directs moving forward. That will 119 <br />include shadow studying to understand impact on residents; 120 <br /> 121 <br />Community Development Director Grochala explained that the cost of borings would be 122 <br />in the range of $20,000 and he would bring that forward for council consideration later in 123 <br />August. 124 <br /> 125 <br />Council Member Manthey remarked that the treatment of the city’s water needs to be 126 <br />geared toward the best result for this community. Community Development Director 127 <br />Grochala said the city’s water quality is very good. 128